Posted on 10/05/2008 11:10:13 AM PDT by mojito
Talk about lipstick on a pig: the bailout measure, which began as a modest, $700-billion, three-page oink, reached the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday wearing about 450 pages of lipstick. Its maximum final cost was no longer calculable -- after bipartisan negotiations to add "sweeteners" to the thing, to buy it support from various congressional factions.
Americans, and anyone else who happened to be watching (most of the world), got a good taste of what "Congressional oversight" means; to say nothing of the explanation of why, in opinion polls, the U.S. Congress enjoys even less popular esteem than President Bush.
It is not for a Canadian to lecture Americans on U.S. constitutional niceties, but I'm going to do it anyway. Money bills in that country are supposed to originate in the Lower House, as they do in all civilized national jurisdictions. This one effectively originated in the Upper House. In order to disguise this irregularity, the senators had to dress the thing up as a non-money bill. That is how the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" became the more aptly-named "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act" -- by taking a bill already on the floor of the Senate, stripping out its text, and substituting the text of the bailout bill.
"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." This decadent habit of cautiously observing the letter of the law, while purposely ignoring the spirit, is at the root of so many enormities in contemporary politics and society. There are times when, given the complexity of the world, one must honestly bend (never break) a law, interpret it drolly, even turn a blind eye. But one should do such things in the cause of honouring the spirit of the laws, for the sake of justice; not in the cause of subverting them.
This is a problem not only in the U.S. but everywhere. We speak fondly of old-fashioned constitutional democracy, while in fact acknowledging it is a thing of the past. Everything from bloated omnibus bills, to "emergency" executive orders, to court reviews of legislation, is used to subvert a constitutional order, and thereby suppress political formulation of the popular will. The process has advanced to such a degree in Europe, thanks to the extraordinary power of the E.U. legal and political bureaucracies, that national assemblies are rendered powerless to oppose them.
The U.S. House of Representatives had defeated the bailout plan when it was already carrying many times its weight in lipstick. It was defeated because the thing itself was genuinely unpopular. Members of both parties had their switchboards jammed by constituents expressing outrage at the thing. They voted it down, even under the extraordinary pressure brought upon them by the White House and the congressional leadership of both parties. If I may be so old-fashioned, that is what democracy is for: to stop things the people just won't have.
Now, curiously, in the week since that happened, a number of prominent economists have weighed in on the bailout measure, including supporters of both U.S. presidential candidates. It appears that all are appalled by the measure itself, and most consider it to be counter-productive. Some 230 of them signed an open letter to Congress, telling them not to be in a hurry.
Here is how John Cochrane, Myron S. Scholes Professor of Finance in the University of Chicago, characterized the bailout, in an interview with Fox News: "The legislation is like this: some boats are sinking, so rather than bailing those boats out, you blow up the dam and drain the whole lake."
That comment, and many like it, was offered even before "sweeteners" were added, that would in themselves roll any economist's eyeballs.
It is worth adding that not one of the politicians voting on the 450-odd-page bill can possibly have read the whole thing, let alone deeply considered the implications of its parts. Few of them have an understanding of the crisis they are legislating for. The blind are leading the blind.
Call me a populist (few do), but my "two cheers" support for democracy is predicated on the belief that usually, given enough information, and sometimes even when not given enough, the people know in their gut the difference between right and wrong, up and down, fresh meat and gangrene. And when they don't, we're all doomed anyway. I am seldom surprised when, after much research and deliberation, the "experts" finally embrace a carefully qualified equivalent to the knee-jerk view originally expressed on "Main Street."
This bailout began in the Senate, after the House rejected the first bailout bill.
This bill should be challenged on Constitutional grounds.
Article I Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Are they arguing that since they took the shell of the house bill that it’s somehow Constitutional? Or do they just not care because they can do whatever they want?
As we await the final death throes of our charter document, here is a gift suggestion for your favorite government traitor.
They got around that by taking a bill that originated in the house, taking all the language out of it, and putting in the text of this bill.
Heads up - this could turn the tide.
FOX is rerunning “Saving the Economy...” at 2 EST this afternoon and again at 10:00pm and again at 1:00 in the morning.
They ran it 3 times yesterday.
If you haven’t seen it, you MUST. It is a TOTAL take-down on the demRats regarding the Fannie/Freddie economic debacle.
It names names, shows clips, shows how Bush sounded the alarm and tried to get it reigned it, how the republicans tried to and had hearings - to be shouted down by the demRats and defeated with all demRats voting against, all pubs voting for reigning it in - led by barney and Dodd and Shuckster, how the 2 biggest recipients of the Fannie/Freddie were Dodd and Obama - how a ‘young community organizer, years ago, in Chicago, worked with ACORN to push through these loans for even NO income people - a young community organizer named BO -
This whole program is a total and stark expose laying out who - the demRats - brought this all about and how they blocked every effort by the Republicans to reign it in.
If you have not seen this program - you must. I pray they keep airing this until Nov. It may just wake some people up.
It’s an issue that all America is paying attention to, finally. This program shows them who orchestrated the whole fiasco.
I could hardly believe my ears when I heard it last night. Incredible. So far, I haven’t heard a peep of ‘outrage’ from the left. I think this scares them to death and they hope it will just go away.
I think there’s going to be some major investigations although, if we don’t give mcC/Sarah a majority in the Senate and House to work with, it won’t matter if barney et al are found absolutely guilty - they will NOT be forced to step down. Take the case of william “cold cash” jefferson, for ex.
email everyone you know to watch this and email FOX with KUDOS - the more response, the more they’ll air it.
It is not for a Canadian to lecture Americans on U.S. constitutional niceties, but I'm going to do it anyway.OK, take your best shot!
Money bills in that country are supposed to originate in the Lower House, as they do in all civilized national jurisdictions. This one effectively originated in the Upper House.Nope. It was passed in a very different form by the House and amended and debated and passed by the Senate.
In order to disguise this irregularity, the senators had to dress the thing up as a non-money bill. That is how the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" became the more aptly-named "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act" -- by taking a bill already on the floor of the Senate, stripping out its text, and substituting the text of the bailout bill.See -- her knew that. Must be a Canadian lawyer. Dufus. The House passed it, the Senate amended and passed it. The House accepted those amendments and passed it to the President who signed it. Constitutional and as legal as, well Church on a Sunday.
Nope. They kept the language in. Sadly.
Constitution, what constitution, are you talking about that piece of paper the republican party and their brothers, the demorats, just wiped their collective rears on?
The sad, no make that the sick thing about this moronic bill is that NOW that it has passed you are starting to see and hear people on Tv and in the news saying that oh well nothing is going to change until the housing market stabalises but at least this might help a little...
A little? Did not our Government Representatives tell us this was absolutely needed to save the Nation?
Why do we allow them to do this to us?
The first House bill was defeated.
Any subsequent bill, under our old Constitution, would have to originate in the House and then proceed to the Senate for amendment or approval.
The bill that was passed originated in the Senate, and then was voted on in the House.
That’s a blatant reversal of the legislative process outlined in Article I, Section 7.
I thought the House voted down a bill before the Jewish holidays and then went on recess. The Senate voted on an amendment to a bill, but it wasn't the bill that the House just voted down, because that bill was voted down.
So, the Senate amended a different bill. What bill was that?
The House then voted on yet a different (third?) bill when they returned from the Jewish holiday.
So I'm still not clear on which bill, exactly, did the Senate amend.
-PJ
What was originally passed as HR 1424 by the House was gutted by the Senate. Into that shell was put House-originated bailout language, with amendments, and House-originated pork language (HR 6049) passed by the House, amended and passed by the Senate, and sitting the House waiting for its approval.
The language of HR 1424 as passed by the House was not passed in any form.
One can discern the true condition by review of the Congressional Record online - it's all laid out there, albeit tough slogging.
I believe this is the bill that the House passed:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3912897.shtml
Taking a non-revenue bill passed by the House, stripping out the language, and converting it into a revenue bill is clearly a violation of Article I, Section 7.
Especially after the original bill was defeated in the House.
So sue them. BTW, it was a revenue bill. But sue away.
Swearing an oath ceases to mean anything to these cocky clowns. What they did with the bailout is illegal!!!!! Or is this no longer America?
Not what my congresscritter said, but then they all lie, right?
Is there a lawyer in the house? Is there some way we can rebut the Senate on the bailout?
Heh. Well, I'd chalk that sort of error up to ignorance before calling it malice. And a few of them (maybe 20 out of 535) are consistently straight and honest with the public.
I don't think it makes any difference in the context of "is it constitutional or not," I just thought you might benefit from having more detail than is needed. The part that I think alters the sense of the argument "they added sweeteners so the Senate would pass it" is baloney. The Senate passed the pork, given the chance, 93-2. They did that on Sept 23, so it should have been fresh in their minds.
Unfortunately, it appears that the process by which this rotting, bloated carcass was passed into law was, in fact, legal...completely immoral and highly unethical...but, legal.
This should be the final straw for freedom loving Americans, IMO. All of these arrogant gasbags should be put out to pasture come November. Sadly, that will not likely happen, either.
Got to go. Time to clean the rest of the guns and count the ammo; got to stock up the emergency water supply, and verify the dates on the MRE’s, check the backup fuel stocks, test run the generator, fuel up the quad runners, check the perimeter alarms, and make sure the dogs haven’t eaten for a day or two (they get mean when they get hungry).
This one could get real ugly...
I watched the show the first night, it is great. It’s impact has been and will be huge
Today Balwin the leftist nut job said that thw democrats are at fault and even named all of the perps. Talk about Bizorro world.
If the Senate may take any bill passed by the House and insert any language it likes then Article I Section 7 has no meaning.
The Founders put it there for a reason.
I guess you think that the gutting of the Constitution and the subsequent destruction of our liberties is just fine.
“Why do we allow them to do this to us?”
Voices will be heard more clearly as the unemployment rate rises.
Vote the bums out.
True.
This bailout began in the Senate, after the House rejected the first bailout bill.
The bill began in the House.
Considering who the RINO's are pushing for the Top Exec slot, I'd say even the GOP is in the DNC camp in regards to the Constitution...
It's been that way for decades.
The big question is, what are YOU going to do about it? Join the Two Party deck-chair shuffle on the USA-Titanic? Vote 3rd Party moonbat? Sit it out?
None of the above will fix a damn thing.
Anything else that might be effective is either not allowed to be spoken out loud (the 1776 option/CW2), considered futile, or any number of namby-pamby reasons to not do what we KNOW we should do.
Pitchforks and torches. Throw the bumbs out physically.
I just went to the House site and looked up the bill for House Resolution HR1424. I see the Senate Amendment SA5686 that changes the title and section headings, relegating the Wellstone Mental Health contents to a section of the bill.
So I guess the Senate pass a House spending bill, it just wasn't the one the House first sent up to them. They stripped out all the content and replaced it with something entirely different from what the House sent them.
I'd think that, normally, the House would instantly reject what the Senate did, but in this case both chambers are controlled by the same party, and they are complicit in this together. I don't think it's unconstitutional because the letter of the law was followe. Usually, disputes over rules are treated as political, and are resolved politically.
I don't like this, but I don't think it's unconstitutional. I could be wrong, but I don't know one would resolve this by other than political means. Go to the Supreme Court? With what charge?
-PJ
It was a bill that required insurance companies to cover mental illness.
Indirectly, it is a tax on health insurance, so in the hair-splitting, parsing, weasel-word world, I suppose it is a “revenue bill.”
But to take that legislation, which only passed the House because it was an entirely different bill, then rewrite it so that it comprised something that had just gone down in flames, is a direct violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
“... is a direct violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”
Not in my view, but go ahead, sue. Both Houses of Congress and the President disagree with you. Maybe the SCOTUS will concur. It can happen. Remember the line-item veto? Sue away FRiend. I hope you have deep pockets.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. It also provides a civil cause of action for those injured by violations of the act. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted 1970-10-15). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. It was intended to make it easier to prosecute organized crime figures, but has been applied in several other cases as well.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.
There is good news for “We the People”. We do not have to depend on a corrupt federal government for action. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.
Now with the foundations of our economic system under attack we are entrusting those responsible to address the symptoms. The Democrats cry that this is not a time to point fingers all the while they, and their media accomplices place the entire blame on the Bush Administration and the GOP.
I am demanding that the Justice Department begin a full RICO investigation that will not exempt anyone inside or outside of government. I am encouraging those whose businesses were harmed by these culprits file numerous suits against the offending parties. If Raines, Schumer, Dodd, Frank, and the like do not end up penniless and in orange jump suits then we need to seriously reread the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”
You’re franly lying here: The House defeats their version (Constitution), then they Senate votes on this bill by merely taking the language out of an un-realted bill, and substitutes it for this revenue bill..Sorry this is UNCONSTITIONAL as well the worst legislation ever passed!
It doesn’t take a genius or a Canadian to know when a “cat-is-a-cat”
Oh. Sorry. You are the Authority. So sue. Go ahead.
Oh and “narses” is a Supreme Court Justice/sarc
Nope, but the plain english of the Constitution was satisfied as far as I can see. If you disagree, take it up with the SCOTUS.
As far as I can see it HAS NOT!
I hope someone sues, even if it thrown out, the Constituional objection will at least be in public record.
So sue. Pick up your checkbook and sue.
Idiot, I don’t have the money to sue (however that doens’t mean their actions AREN’T UnConstitutional)!
LOL, me the idiot. I think they did OK, you do not. You have no money. Then write a letter to the editor, the AP will really care.
Ok, I don’t really care, but I DO NOT, as a citizen with at least an equal opinion as yours, I believe they did Violate both the Spirit and Letter of the Constitution prohibiting spending bills from originating in the Senate. So what that I HAVE NO MONEY (the gov steals most of it) to sue them. If I wrote “a letter to the editor, the AP..” I would venture to say most Americans would agree with me. Why even bring up the AP? Do I care what the MSM thinks..?
OK, do nothing then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.