Posted on 01/28/2009 8:24:38 PM PST by STARWISE
One of the myriad of details in the forthcoming 647-page, $825 billion economic stimulus package is the writing off of impeached, yet hilarious, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
According to CNN the bill includes a provision added by the House Appropriations Committee that would
withhold funds from the state of Illinois "unless the Legislature directs how it will be spent, or until 'Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of governor of the state of Illinois.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
~~~
I'd day the dear leader's put the IL politicians on notice, if they want some of the loot.
~~PING!
This may just come back to backfire on Obama. If Blago gets his day in court, and the opportunity to call witnesses, oh boy . . . .
Yet the Messiah lectured House Republicans not to play partisan politics with his economic stimulus package.
Am I wrong to make a connection to Khrushchev pounding his loafer on the UN’s podium and saying (at some point in time) that ‘We will bury you from within’! (?)
oh WOW !
Not that our government pays too much attention to the Constitution these days ...
His day in senate court is tomorrow:
1.5 hours available ... spill it Blago!
“The rules would allow him an hour and a half to do that from 11 to 12:30. My suggestion is we would then take a break and the House prosecutor then would have 30 minutes for rebuttal, and at that point in time, we would then start our deliberations.”
Rod got the shaft!
Ghandi and Mandela will be angered.
So, can the entire bill be challenged in court based upon this one small portion? As this seems like a very drastic violation of the separation of powers in regards to federal vs. state issues.
Just..well, a random thought, since it seems like there’s nothing else out there to stop this mad spending. Stimulus plan...Pork USA is what it should be entitled, as there’s precious little in it that’ll work for the economy, only benefit the government in the end.
Can you list Arnold Schwarzenegger, David Whathisname in NY and Jon Corzine to that list???
I’ll all for blacklisting pork to particular states and Illinois should always be on that list as far as I’m concerned.
Hmm .. it does seem awfully heavy handed .. could very well be unconstitutional.
im so rooting for blago here! if anyone could bring down obama and mayor daley its this man! go blago!
I'm sure Blago remembers what happened to Jim McDougal while he was in solitary confinement. Blago will keep his mouth shut. Just the same, he'll be considered a loose cannon while he's alive....
withhold funds from the state of Illinois "unless the Legislature directs how it will be spent, or until 'Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of governor of the state of Illinois.'"
Mugabe tactics.
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
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.