Posted on 03/02/2010 9:07:39 PM PST by Sun
Obama, Biden, Clinton, Dodd & More Believe Reconciliation is Unconstitutional by Human Events
The Obama White House has recently announced that they will go forward with a reconciliation process -- sometimes called the “nuclear option” -- to try and pass their government run healthcare plan in the Senate. This process circumvents a Republican filibuster and only requires a simple majority vote of 51 rather than 60.
What did top Democrats think of this process previously? See below…
Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
See my tagline.
Hahaha! That’s the truth.
LOL
And since Schumer is up for reelection this year, I’ve got to post this one from the link:
“Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.”
Can’t laugh, these assholes are ruining our nation!!!!!
Self Ping
They’re dirty. Voters need to clean out the cesspool in Washington.
“Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.”
But that was then and this is now. NOW it’s OK to change the Senate rules, and go against our Founding Fathers’ wishes.
Voters need to become more informed, and not vote for whoever they see the most on tv, which is what the “swing voters” do.
bump
If they are on record as believing that it is unconstitutional, and they have sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution in their oath of office, are they not then, provably impeachable or breaking the law when they proceed to do what they themselves believe to be unconstitutional? Does the oath they take mean NOTHING?
Logically: 1. My belief is that “x” is unconstitutional. 2. I swear to uphold the Constitution. 3. I am going to do “x”. 4. I have broken my oath of office.
You bring up great points. Well said!
Dictator Obama admonished SCOTUS at the State of the Union because he didn’t agree with their decision. I never heard of such a thing from a president, and it’s another sign he doesn’t respect the Constitution, imo.
A picture is worth a thousand words!
Thought this was interesting from Michele Bachmann on Larry King:
“A big question that has to be addressed right now, Larry, is what in the world is going on in the White House?
Because today, the president offered a judgeship to the brother of a member of Congress. Tonight, the president has that same member of Congress at the White House pressuring him to change his vote on health care. We really need to have an independent investigation into this matter. Because we’ve seen the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the union loophole and now the big question is, is the White House trading health care votes for judgeships? This is a pretty serious issue, Larry.”
Rush explained it well on his Wed. show:
“RUSH: This whole reconciliation route, it’s a confusing term because the actual term is “BUDGET (emphasis mine) reconciliation,” and it is an exception to the 60-vote requirement in the Senate, which is a Senate rule, a long-standing Senate rule, and it is used only for items that have BUDGETARY (emphasis mine) consequences because the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT (emphasis mine). So they made an exception to the 60-vote rule.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030310/content/01125116.guest.html
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.