Posted on 01/14/2016 1:01:35 PM PST by justlittleoleme
Donald Trump may not have to win the White House for the Senate to start voting on his agenda. Senate Democrats plan to force their Republican colleagues to take sides on the GOP presidential frontrunner's most controversial proposals by offering them as amendments to other bills this year.
"Since Republican leaders in the House and Senate have pledged loyalty to Trump, the obvious next step is to vote on his policies, including his unconstitutional plan to bar people from entering the United States based on their religion," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a Thursday statement, referencing Trump's call for a ban on Muslim entry to the U.S. following the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. "These votes will give all Senators a chance to take a stand on the policy issues dominating the public debate--and Republicans a chance to stand with the frontrunner for their nomination."
The not-so-subtle intent is to embarrass Republican Senators facing tough reelection fights in the fall by making them reckon with Trump's most polarizing pronouncements. Vulnerable GOP incumbents in swing-states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin could find the proposition especially uncomfortable. Reid didn't indicate when Democrats would try to push the votes--though the annual process of assembling government-funding measures could provide an opportunity.
Reid's gambit--call it legislative trolling--is nothing new. In even-numbered years, lawmakers set aside most serious policymaking work to focus on positioning themselves for the election. President Obama acknowledged as much in the opening lines of his State of the Union address on Tuesday, saying he understands "that because it's an election season, expectations for what we'll achieve this year are low."
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
Back atcha!
Funny just fill the tree like slimy harry did
Dems ain’t stupid. They know what’s coming. Could backfire if a bunch of senators up for election are put on the spot (McCain) and they get tossed.
I agree with Sen. Reid, but probably not for the reasons that he might think.
More specifically, since the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, Trumps plan to bar people from entering the US is unconstitutional imo. Trumps supporters need to get him up to speed on this.
On the other hand, based on the following excerpts, I think post-17th Amendment ratification, low-information Sen. Reid is wrong to think that non-citizen immigrants are protected by constitutionally enumerated rights, religious protections in this example.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added], as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
” 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphases added].” - Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Just shut the damn doors for 5 years. Period!!
No. It's NOT unconstitutional!
Harry Reid is still in charge of the Senate. Turtleman just keeps the seat warm.
“More specifically, since the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, Trumps plan to bar people from entering the US is unconstitutional imo. Trumps supporters need to get him up to speed on this. “
Seriously? The entire country ‘needs to get up to speed on this”......The feds have the authority, right or wrong, the states gave it up. How ‘bout you take up this lost cause. Trump has better things to do.
“Just shut the damn doors for 5 years. Period!! “
That’s what it’s come to, for 30 years of both side refusing to fix this mess!
Remember when ole Mitch said we have to marginalize those TEA party members before they get here.
The enemy is overconfident, and they believe their own lies.
This will be their downfall.
And, I must say that, though I didn’t expect much from “Nikki Haley”, I was still shocked, almost stunned, that the GOP sent her out to attack Trump instead of Obama.
You know those polls of high school students where they are asked to estimate the % of the population that’s gay, and they always answer “40%”?
That’s what the GOPe is like with their precious “minorities”. The fact that if they raised their share of the white vote by 7% they would never lose another election and could deport every illegal in six weeks seems to escape them.
Or, perhaps, they have such contempt for the white working class that they would RATHER continue losing than adopt policies to help their brothers and sisters who are suffering horribly from Uniparty economic policies.
“Funny how the Dems are so darned concerned about the non-existent Constitutional Rights of non-citizens but can’t wait to actively assault the very real, Constitutionally protected Rights of American citizens.”
Dude - I hate to break it to you, but the Republicans are worse.
Politically correct interpretations of the Constitutions ”Uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4) aside, interpretations wrongly used to justify federal immigration laws imo, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had indicated that immigration is uniquely a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue, no business of the feds. Here are the excerpts from their writings.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writings.
” 4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ”the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the - day of July, 1798, intituled ”An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” - Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
”That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the ”Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, . . .. . .
. . . the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphases added]. ”- James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
Cleaver use of words "from entering". Does that mean visitor visa? Does that mean asylum? Does that mean H-1B visa or other work visa? SO the "threat" is meaningless.
What you said!
I should have said "Left" instead of dems...
Trump is not even President yet and he is already getting the legislation we want talked about in Congress!
I hope this makes McTurtle and that bearded lesbian named Ryan have the fits.
Wow, if the Dems want to make it EASIER for us to identify who to Primary-out, I couldn’t think of a better plan.
The thing is, the GOP by focusing on “minorities” is making themselves obsolete.
Voters don’t want politicians to appeal to their race, or their agenda.
Television does. Politicians do. But people want politicians to DEAL WITH THEIR ISSUES.
Trump is the only one, doing so.
The only one. In either party.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
We've been conditioned to accept the importance of "appealing to minorities", BECAUSE we've been conditioned to accept racial bloc voting by blacks, browns, and yellows AND also to accept the permanence of a 53-47 split of the white vote.
If this white split is permanent and unchangeable, THEN these minority blocs can deliver power and money to one side or the other.
But the permanence of the white split is an illusion.
In 1988, I was an "independent" voter. I was watching the Democratic Convention after Lloyd Bentsen was nominated for VP, and somebody came on and shouted at a reporterette "this is the last time the Democratic Party will nominate a white male for POTUS or VPOTUS!"
I had my two little white males on my lap, and it struck me that there was something seriously wrong with a party who would send a spokeswoman out to say such a thing.
The naked racialist anti-white agenda of the Democrats has become much more apparent. They don't even try to hide it anay more.
So, the split will be going away.
And the importance of the "minorities" will be declining (unless you accept rule by minorities).
The question is, will the "minorities" accept as legitimate a regime installed by an 80% white vote with 20% or less "minority" votes, or will it come to civil war?
Time will tell.
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.