![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amulhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304684.stm
That's right, he's picked another aid for a high-level position they're totally unqualified for. She's never been a judge, fer crying out loud.
My personal favorite line from the article: "But some of Mr Bush's supporters have expressed concern at her lack of conservative credentials....[much further down]...'The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters,' said the conservative advocacy group Public Advocate." That's right, folks. They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?
Oh, I'm sorry. She's a middle-ground choice because she's a woman, so hopefully Democrats will overlook her complete lack of experience as a Constitutional scholar. Because we'd much rather see an incompetent female lawyer than an actual MODERATE WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS AGENDA, which is what we were asking for in the first place.
Hell in a hand basket, I say!
Exactly how many crap choices is he going to offer before we all just throw up our hands and say, "Next!"
That's right, he's picked another aid for a high-level position they're totally unqualified for. She's never been a judge, fer crying out loud.
My personal favorite line from the article: "But some of Mr Bush's supporters have expressed concern at her lack of conservative credentials....[much further down]...'The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters,' said the conservative advocacy group Public Advocate." That's right, folks. They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?
Oh, I'm sorry. She's a middle-ground choice because she's a woman, so hopefully Democrats will overlook her complete lack of experience as a Constitutional scholar. Because we'd much rather see an incompetent female lawyer than an actual MODERATE WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS AGENDA, which is what we were asking for in the first place.
Hell in a hand basket, I say!
Exactly how many crap choices is he going to offer before we all just throw up our hands and say, "Next!"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 4 Oct 2005 17:36 (UTC)Jared
no subject
Date: 4 Oct 2005 17:48 (UTC)Jab away! ;)
I believe that those powers not reserved for the Federal government in the Constitution are assumed to be held then by the citizens.
You are partially correct. I was lax in my terminology, for which I appologize.
"Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The primary point still stands, that being that power does not rest with the Feds unless specifically given to it by the Constitution. Aside from that, determining whether it's a State Right or a Citizen Right, if not already spelled out in the Constitution, one must look to the individual State Constitutions.
no subject
Date: 5 Oct 2005 14:22 (UTC)Jared
no subject
Date: 5 Oct 2005 14:31 (UTC)Really? You sure? I know that a lot of the heavier military pieces have been outlawed for private ownership. My BroLaw has a 50 Cal rifel, which he has to keep all sorts of paperwork with at all times proving that he owned it prior to the ban.
no subject
Date: 5 Oct 2005 14:47 (UTC)Jared