it says appointed AND serve during the continuance of office... both conditions have to be true.

it would be a constitutional violation if she didn't resign from the senate the moment she took the appointed office.

haha, don't mind me playing advocate ;)

Why would someone who works in porn be against a RINO?

In any event, it's called the Saxbe Fix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

I have read that it is technically a violation of the Constitution but one which has occurred a number of times and has never been seriously questioned. I believe it is much ado over nothing.

First one to come up with the answer :thumbsup


So it took people calling me a racist, saying it did not apply to Clinton because she is a SHE to come to the right answer. :1orglaugh

And RINOs have not been good for free speech. McCain is another perfect example of a RINO that has attacked free speech.

Depends on what they are a RINO about. Fiscal or social issues. Bush is a RINO on fiscal issues but not on social ones (for the most part). It's the social conservatives who believe that porn is not protected under the 1st amendment.

Even if you are right, what's the significance of it? besides some pointless drama...

Does repeating this lie over and over somehow make it more true? Tell it to Hilliary who voted to give him authorization for war (along with the majority of the House and Senate). Idiot. :error

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_R...s_Against_Iraq

Another idiot... They authorized the use of force to protect the US national security (i.e. because of the WMDs that didn't exist) from an Iraqi threat... they did not DECLARE WAR!! The Bush side says that the authorization basically abdicated the right of declaring war to Bush.

A true Freudian Slip!

I bet NOW is the diabolical overlord body to which the NWO are actually puppets of themselves!! How far up does the evil go?

I'm scurred. :winkwink:

If others "broke this law" then obviously it's not unconstitutional. Simple. As others here have arready said, you are misinterpreting it.

Think this out logically: if you are correct then how could have others "broken this law"? The courts would have found it unconstitutional. The fact the courts did not do so points to the fact that it is you just don't understand what it means.

Discussion ended. :)

:thumbsup god damn republicans

Oh puhleez this is so stupid.

I misread it the first time. Now, I think this may be a problem.

CNN has a new article about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/...ble/index.html

Great piece of propaganda there

Continuing the myth that the US is a democracy and that democracy is good.

Bush - 1,649
Obama - 1

:pimp

See you went wrong.. You need to read the ammendment that they will make to allow this...

Man thank GOD the founding fathers have the foresight to write that in pencil...

Amen Brutha. People don't seem to have common sense it seems lol

What does this have to do with bush? bush was a fuck up. Do you want Obama to be a fuck up too?

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigs

What people dont understand is...

SAME BULLSHIT, DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR. :winkwink: