From Tapped:
They came to honor the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank…
But the remarks of White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, who keynoted the reception, centered on what many in attendance plainly regarded as Card’s boss’ most unthinkable, or at least unthinking, act: the nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court…
At which point Card himself turned constitutional scholar. As White House chief-of-staff, he found the most intriguing article, he said, to be Article II, which established the presidency and the executive branch. Miers, he continued, understood Article II as well, and would defend it “when challenged by those given the power to challenge it by Article I [i.e., the Congress] and Article III [i.e., the courts].”
Article I
Section 1. All Most legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, but they shall serve at the pleasure of the President, especially if he’s just completely and totally AWESOME!
[Note - Antonin, is this a little over the top? Would you clean it up a little - it needs to sound more legal and stuff. Love ya!]
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years as long as he continues to be the coolest President EVER.
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, and of my heart (lol! No, seriously, this probably shouldn’t stay in!), when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except even in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments..
[Note - this is the President’s section! Can we just get everyone else out of here? Clarence? It’s messy and confusing!]
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be largely vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress President may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office know their place, and shall not legislate from the bench, which is totally NOT their place, etc. and amen.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all most cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. that seem to be okay for them.
[Note: Better, yes? It’s a lot simpler, right, Mr. President? BFF!]
Fanny Roborat
17 comments
mastmaker
October 12, 2005 at 3:42 pm
1Where is the part where it says: ‘Democrats will genuflect daily in front of republican (leadership)’?
dee
October 12, 2005 at 3:54 pm
2Scotty: See, Mr. President? It’s like these Weebles over here are you — that’s Article 2. And those bad Weebles over there are Articles 1 and 3 and they are bad bad articles. So Miss Harriet is going to get some super powers from this place called The Supreme Court…yes it’s just like The Fortress of Power, only she doesn’t have to fly to it…and she’s going to make all those bad bad Articles go away and your Weebles can do whatever they want!!!!!
not that Pete
October 12, 2005 at 4:00 pm
3Q: As SC nominee, are you familiar with the concept of “checks and balances”?
Miers: Hmmm… little funny shaped cereal… and those scale thingies all those naughty blindfolded woman statues are holding? What are you getting at? I thought these were supposed to be law questions.
Murray
October 12, 2005 at 4:10 pm
4Let’s see, the constitution is our supreme law, given to George Washington directly from God on golden tablets, and is therefore sacred.
God speaks directly to W. so he’s just cutting out the middle men and saving us time.
If God wishes to change his constitution and use his favorite tool (W) to do so, who are we to question God?
(God smites those who question him, down in Gitmo).
not that Pete
October 12, 2005 at 5:43 pm
5Q: As SC nominator, are you familiar with the concept of “checks and balances”?
Bush: Is that like Chutes and Ladders? ’cause that’s my favorite game… besides Candyland of course… that’s an excellent game… did someone mention candy? I like candy…
*for those outside the US, substitute ‘Snakes’ for ‘Chutes’
Doug
October 12, 2005 at 6:35 pm
6Adam, you left off her typesetting edits — I understand that she has suggested dotting each “i” in the Constitution with a heart.
madbard
October 12, 2005 at 6:46 pm
7actually i’m quite touched with those “i ♥ georgie” harriet put in the margins of the new version. and by ‘touched’ i mean insanely livid and nauseous.
but that’s okay because dick and rummy already shreaded the original constitution.
Ann
October 12, 2005 at 6:47 pm
8So are we tarring Miers with Andy Card’s brush? After all, he’s the one who uttered this enormous gaffe. Or was he just accidentally being candid?
tess
October 13, 2005 at 3:01 pm
9Well, I’d guess that if Bush hasn’t already went in during one of his drunken bouts and whited out all the portions he didn’t agree with, he will soon with all the flak he’s been catching for this nomination.
Holy-f***ing-shit, 2 nominations under this besotted twit. 2, count ‘em, 2!
Will
October 13, 2005 at 4:19 pm
10Q. Ms. Miers, what do you believe the role of the Supreme Court is?
A. It’s to do whatever President Bush wants, right? Not to legislate from the bench, except when Congress won’t legislate, like in abortion and flag burning. It’s also not to question President Bush, who, not making mistakes, should be trusted. That trust is known as “executive privelige”.
Bob
October 13, 2005 at 5:55 pm
11Maybe Card is on to something. Instead of appointing a bunch of know-it-all brainiacs to the Court, we could assign responsibility for specific sections of the Constitution to each justice. This will lower the bar, you should forgive the expression, to the point where ordinary Joes like you and me could aspire to the Court. I mean, I’m an engineer, but even I could memorize one Article, and maybe even read up on it a bit.
Personally, I’d like responsibility for one of the sections that has fallen into disuse. What could be easier than handling habeas corpus during the Bush Administration?
Hot Tub Tommy
October 13, 2005 at 7:29 pm
12You want to know why the Republicans clean the Liberal clocks, one election after another? Well, let me tell you - you have no killer instinct. The Republicans are wounded, one scandal after another, head down and butt up and you twinkies wouldn’t even think of kicking them while they’re down. Some sort of misplaced code of ethics - wouldn’t be fair.
Fair? HA!!! Losers.
Think about it, morons. In that position the balls are dangling and begging to be crushed. Do it and you’ll have the power. Here’s the difference between us. You run get a blanket to cover his nakedness and preserve his dignity. Me? I sharpen my cowboy boots and have shishkabob. Piss off, wimps and faggots. I’ll be “Tommy on Top” again, before you know it.
Rep. Tom Delay (R,TX)
Pete IVDL
October 14, 2005 at 10:27 am
13Much as I loathe “Mr” Delay’s comments, he’s right. Politics (in the US and in Oz) is getting more and more like one of those bloody awful “Nerds” movies… while the Republican (Liberal in Oz) “Jocks” are bending over to pick up their football, all the Democrat (Labour in Oz) dweebs are spending so much time elbowing one another, chortling at their luck, and coming up with complicated plans on how to kick the musclebound moron up the clacker, the jock has moved on. In fact, he’s behind ‘em, with a high pressure waterspray… I wish this analogy had a happy ending (or any ending, for Lobster’s sake!), but I don’t hold much hope.
Harold
October 14, 2005 at 12:42 pm
14So…the Liberals are the BAD GUYS in Australia? It really is a crazy upside-down world there!
Pete IVDL
October 14, 2005 at 4:41 pm
15Harold - yes, but Good™ and Evil™ are absolutes. Just the names change.
JWT
October 16, 2005 at 5:32 pm
16Much as I loathe “Mr” Delay’s comments, he’s right. Politics (in the US and in Oz) is getting more and more like one of those bloody awful “Nerds” movies…
——————————
Say it ain’t so - I mean I have heard rumblings, and rumors. But I always held out hope that I could return to the land where I spent my formative years where they would forever keep that ’screw the system ‘ larrakin spirit.
And if its slipping in OZ too then I’ma gonna learn me some French.
Murray
October 19, 2005 at 11:12 am
17When ever we get stuck with a lousey president, we liberals always say “I’m moving to Canada/Australia/England/Netherlands/Denmark/etc.” But the right never says that they are moving out.
I thought about that for a bit and concluded that there is no country to the right of us. (Except of course dictatorships that no sane American would want to live in, like Nigeria, or Burma). All of the other civilized countries are more liberal than we are. They have socialized medicine, protect the poor, educate their people, etc. We have let the Right pull this country to a place that no other decent country would want to be.