Posted on 10/12/2009 6:24:43 AM PDT by libstripper
Do you think Congress should vote on bills without reading them? How about voting on bills that don’t even exist yet, except in fragments?
The Senate Finance Committee is poised to vote on a massive health care reform bill on Tuesday allegedly authored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). A glaring, outrageous, unreported fact is that the bill’s actual text has been kept secret. No one actually knows what’s in it – not even the senators who will be told to vote for it.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
This objection, however, would run up against the provison of Article I, Section 5, of the Constitutionm that, "[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings[.]" Nevertheless, the Supreme Court limited that clause in the case of Adam Clayton Powell. Here the DemonRats are raping the whole Constitutional deliberative deliberative process by staging votes on non-bills and saying such a vote on a conceptual network is really a vote on a bill. That seaems to be stretching the quoted language of Article I, Section 5 far beyond what it was intended to cover.
This is bill silliness.
I think they have already established their feelings about the constitution (or lack thereof).
Politicians must be made to fear the consequeces of passing any bad bill, even if the public does not learn what it says until after it is enacted.
All is not lost if a bad bill is passed. It can change. Irresponsible, lying, lazy politicians can be thrown out of office. It’s never too late to fight for what is right.
Who do you think will fight this in a court of law? Maybe Orrin Hatch? Some politician needs to tell them this might not pass the smell test.
“The first thing we do, lets kill the lawyers.”
— William Shakespeare (Henry The Sixth)
Shakespeare hadn’t met our congress or he would have made lawyers second.
re: archilles heel: fighting in court of law
A bill can be bad but perfectly constitutional. I’d rather defeat this bill on “it ain’t good” basis rather than lawyer stuff.
As I noted, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution would be a large, but not necessarily insurmountable, barier to challenging this bill in court, making your point all the stronger. Nevertheless, the developing practice of passing non-bills and then calling them bills might leave an opening to challenge this monstrosity if it's ever passed.
re: libstripper: “passing non-bill and calling it a bill”.
I don’t understand that. A “bill” is a proposed law. When it is voted into effect it becomes a law.
Bump!
Bump
Bump
Bump
Bump
BTTT
Bump
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.