Challenge: Clinton can't serve as secretary of state

. "There's not much question they have accurately stated the language of the Constitution, but the question is what do you do about it," .... Ignore it, of course. The language of the Constitution, that is.... Like the natural born citizenship requirement for President is ignored. Slowly, it becomes more of a habit, until why bother with it at all? Soon enough, if this continues onward, it will be simply "whatever". .

It's called social relativism. As long as you have social consensus, the Constitution doesn't really matter. Let them eat cake.

The Democrats have two answers for any constitutional problems: Ignore the constitution; Pretend it says what it obviously does not.

Obscure? What? Is something in the Constitution obscure? It isn't that long. If the Constitution says she isn't eligible, then shouldn't she be ineligible?

And that is why the Republicans are out of office, you see things through narrow-minded conservative eyes only...and anything else is dispicable, like the fact that a Republican (Nixon) unleashed this beast first. Republicans had the reins for quite a while and all we got was 2 wars, a super-Vllian for a president(Bush) and the Largest government ever. Be quiet and let someone else drive.

Of,sure, cite people like Nixon and Clinton as presidents setting example! When libs want what they want, they just break or change the laws----the people's laws! Unbelievable! Reid is ,unfortunately, a weasel.

What is the purpose of this ineligibility clause? Is the fear that a legislator could vote for a salary raise and subsequently be the beneficiary of that salary raise if they are appointed to that post?

God forbid that a Clinton be denied a government position by some well known document such as the Constitution. Reid,Pelosi,Frank, and the Clintons are above the Constitution. Better check the book they swear in on--it is not a Bible.

Unfortunately the demo-rats believe that our constitution is a living document. And too hell with the law of the land.

My, my, how soon we forget the past eight years! Not that the constitution protects your freedom from goverment intervention in regards to privacy, at least not anymore, does it George? And torture? nah, the USA would never torture anyone, that would stoke anti-American sentiment around the world. But we did, and it has. What does the constitution say about the appointees Bush put in folks? A majority vote you say?? No Freakin way Jose, George the W simply appoints them when congress is not in session! No vote... no prob! And I'm sure there's some 'obscure' language in the constitution that says the president is not above the law. Except when interpreted by Alberto Gonzalas, it says the president, at least any republican one, can sign a law and then sign another script that says the law doesn't pertain to the president. I guess t also says the vice-president isn't part of the legislative branch, it's the executive branch, unless the results might be better if he were part of the legislative branch. It's called "Pick your hideout, Dick". Alas, Obama can do anything he wants. It's called EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, remember? George and Uncle Dick said so, so there.

So Mag and ptown, let me get this straight. Now you are saying that the precedent set by Bush, that you seem to think is evil when he was doing it, is OK when Obama does it? So what really upsets you is not some holy indignation that the constitution was putatively violated by Bush, but that the violation was done by someone you don't support. What hypocrisy you both exhibit.

Very nicely said ozarkprof! Let's not lose sight of the fact that the liberals have controlled Congress for some time now, and that they bear much responsibilty for this recession. Let's brace ourselves for four years of non-growth, tax and spend policies. Why not bring back midnight basketball?

We all know that the fix is unconstitutional, and we all know that it will be accepted so Hillary can be Sec of State, the Democrats especially the liberal ones think they are above the law and given the predicdent of no punishment of Clinton they are rapidly becoming that in fact.

WheatfieldSoul wrote: Very nicely said ozarkprof! Let's not lose sight of the fact that the liberals have controlled Congress for some time now, and that they bear much responsibilty for this recession. **************************************** WheatfieldSoul has completely forgotten the 6 years previously when the republicans controlled all the levers of government. You wingnuts are a hoot!

Mag7 - you're a moron; we'll see how Obama handles those nice people sitting in Guantanamo right now. He was all for setting them free during the election, but now when it comes down to actually releasing these terrorist animals back into the world even he and his uber liberal henchmen are talking a different story. You and Ptown need to pull your heads out of your (you know what) and get a dose of real world versus apparently living on some secluded beach. How quickly you all forget how even by conservative polls apprxomately 85% of Americans wanted to invade the middle east immediately after 911. How quickly you libnuts conveniently forget things when you want to. Bet if it was your family in harms way (we know it wouldn't likely be you serving your country putting yourselves in harms way) you'd want to use that famous liberal double standard - what they want is okay but not for anyone else so water board away if it helps the liberal Dems agenda...