Sorry I’ve been MIA from here lately.  It’s a combination of things– my real life has been full these past few weeks and I’ve become sick of watching the news… which means there’s little rattling about in my head for which to vent.  I find it easier to write when I’m venting… which is why the “politics” tag bubble is as large as my helpings of pumpkin pie this past week.  (Even though I forgot the sugar when I made the pie… but that’s another story.)

There are a few things in the hopper… I am still writing and editing a discourse on my Facebook generation and why I’ve chosen to remain a FaceBook virgin– but that’s been in the hopper for some time.  I’m also still toying around with a post-election reflection on the post-Vatican II American Church.  My first priority right now is a meditation entitled “And the Word Became Flesh: Scripture in the Life of a Christian” for my mom’s bulletin insert at our parish (if you all are very good, maybe you’ll get a preview before it hits the shelves, er, bulletin rack).

And then there’s other things I need to do, like go grocery shopping.

I’ll leave you all with this, though…  Why isn’t anyone talking about the unconstitutionality of Hilary as Secretary of State?  I guess because we’ve chucked the Constitution out the window on major issues, so who’s going to even read Article 1, Section 6 anyway?  I wanted to write about it last week, but alas, time got away from me.  I hope it’ll get more press in the next few days.

Article I, Section 6

“No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”

In layman’s terms, it means that because Hilary was in the Senate at the time the emoluments, or pay, of the Secretary of State (a civil office under the authority of the US) was increased, she cannot be appointed to that said office.  It doesn’t matter that the Senate didn’t increase the pay.  The clause doesn’t say that the senator or rep has to be responsible for the increase, does it?  Nor should it matter if the pay is decreased back to its pre-increase level before she takes the office (a remedy that Nixon sought after this same problem came up when he appointed a senator for Attorney General)… even if the pay is decreased, it was still increased “during such time,” namely, during Hilary’s time on the Senate.

Not only should she not be confirmed, she shouldn’t even have been nominated.  Come on, President-elect.  Don’t you read the constitution as a Harvard law student?