Welcome to Martial Law: House Dems Will Rule They Voted on Health Care Without Actually Voting On It

Hot Air ^ | March 13, 2010

[montanajoe]

What the hell am I talking about?

Hmmmmm apparently you like many in this country are unaware that there is a war going on..civil unrest is not an apt description...losing the war on terror is what is going on pal.

[ctdonath2]

Two tidbits you might want to know:

1. Claire Wolfe is a real, living, person. She still writes (backwoodshome.com), and still comments on current events.

2. A few months ago, Claire wrote that it is, indeed, well past time. (She then dissuaded anyone from acting on that.)

[chilltherats]

This really has nothing to do with the WOT, which zero isn’t fighting anyway.

[ctdonath2]

Read this thread, re: Claire addressing “is it time?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2412352/posts?page=57

[Canedawg]

I don’t understand what is happening to the ideals that our country once stood for.

Erosion due to secular progressivism.

[Jay Redhawk]

You are right in the sense that most Americans will not volunteer to involve themselves in such a conflict. Hell, most Americans would not do anything that might risk even their credit rating. War, however, takes a course of its own and drags people into it. Look at the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the outbreak of WWI. Also, no more than 1 or 2 percent of the Russian population supported the Bolshevik Revolution, but look what the that led to. At the beginning of the American Revolution perhaps only 25-30 percent of the Americans actively supported the idea of rebellion. So it really does not matter how many American couch potatoes and armchair warriors there are out here, once a few individuals light the right spark, things can spin out of control and everyone will be dragged into the fight like it or not. Sooner or later it becomes a matter of choosing sides.

[PeterPrinciple]

Well, it was nice living in a democratic country for a while.

---

We were suppose to be a REPUBLIC

[AmericanInTokyo]

I KNEW one of these days, the spelling hall monitors would only get me, but correct me in front of thousands of people.

[Biggirl]

BUT PUSHBACK HAS STARTED!!!!

[chilltherats]

I guess I should have sent you a PM, but it didn’t seem like a big deal. Most people are unaware of the word in the first place.

No intent to embarrass.

[SZonian]

"The Supreme Court has the power to overturn any such false result of legislation being passed."

I understand what you're saying, but will the Supremes do this? Will they uphold the Constitition? /rhetorical

[freekitty]

We need a President like Eisenhower. He understood the enemy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[RipSawyer]

“Citizens of a state ought to be able to say “We’re not slaves to the federal union”.”

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

That’s what my great grandfather thought, at least he survived the war that followed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here.
If you really believe that then you should learn the following song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kh6GqEXPvU

Or you could write your own up to date song.

[Jukeman]

There is that aspect of his personality. It is not likely he will be out of office before his term is up unless we get a republican majority in 2010. I am certain that he has broken laws but he did have the help of congress. But this healthcare thing may be his downfall - even if it passes.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The Court does strike down laws that are clearly unconstitutional. And Especially when it was easy for Congress to rectify the situation.

I’m beginning to think this would be a slam dunk. The court would note that the Senate Bill exists, and was passed by the Senate, and that all the House has to do to pass it is hold a simple vote.

Therefore, there would be no reason NOT to overturn them trying to enact it without a vote. This isn’t procedures.

BTW, self-executing rules have NEVER been used to say that a bill has passed. They are used to say that AMENDMENTS to a bill have “passed” and are incorporated into the bill. THe final bills have always been voted on. No language has ever gone to the President simply by a rule vote, without a vote on the final measure.

If they were attaching the Senate bill to the reconciliation, they could do so with a rule. In fact, that’s probably how they would have done it, in order to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill on the floor. But that reconciliation bill would have had to go back to the senate with the Senate language stuck to it, and been voted on by the Senate again.