Posted on 03/10/2010 3:32:37 PM PST by Reaganesque
We are hearing word that House Democrats, led by House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) are attemping an end-run around one of the most basic Constitutional principles taught in Junior High Civics - the mechanism by which a bill becomes law. Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution is clear:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
This mechanism, of course, is referred to in Constitutional and legal shorthand as “bicameralism plus presentment,” which stands for the basic premise, stated above, that before a bill can become law, that bill must be passed by BOTH chambers of Congress and be presented to the President for either his veto or his approval. It is obvious to any thinking person (and indeed even to members of Congress) that if the House passes one bill and the Senate passes a different bill touching on the same topic, this does not equate to the same bill having passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, per Article 1, Section 7. Which is why, as they teach you in junior high, when the Senate and House pass different versions of a bill, they must hammer out their differences in a conference committee, and then the compromise bill (to the extent it contains changes from the bill passed by both chambers) must be sent back to *both chambers* for a vote, so that both chambers of Congress will have in fact passed the same bill. This is also why, after the election of Scott Brown, Democrats have found it necessary for the House to pass the Senate bill exactly as-is, knowing that compromise bill between the two will be defeated after it returns from the Senate.
Having determined that they lack the votes in the House to pass the Senate bills as-is, House Democrats are attempting one of the most breathtakingly unconstitutional power grabs ever witnessed - a maneuver to deem the Senate bill ALREADY PASSED by the House by rule, despite the fact that it clearly has not. Now, as we have constantly reminded our ahistorical liberal friends who have already forgotten all of 2002-2006, the filibuster is constitutional because it is a Senate rule of debate, which is expressly authorized by Article I’s delegation of power to each house of Congress to set its own rules of debate. Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all [] Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.
And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact. They already know the American people don’t want this bill. They know by now that what they’re trying to do is illegal. The question now is whether they still have the shame to care about either.
I think we already know the answer to that question and we had better realize that it's gonna take more pure pressure than townhalls, teaparties and marches on Washington D.C. to enforce fealty to the highest law of our land and it's limitations on rogue governings as we are about to whitness!!!
(no loose cannons, and/or lone wolves, however)
We already are whitnessing more stress on and threats to our freedoms than the founders were forced to deal with from the King of England and we better find the courage to make it stop. Otherwise, it never will!!!
“And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact. They already know the American people don’t want this bill. They know by now that what they’re trying to do is illegal. The question now is whether they still have the shame to care about either.”
That’s from the article.
The Wapo has summarized it here.
[I know it looks a little long, but the Declaration contains statements which are not often brought to our attention.]
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ... The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ... He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. ... He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: ... For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: ... For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: ... For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: ... For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. ... He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us."
--- Fortunately, all WE have to do is vote in November.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”
We knew that the Dems don’t feel the need to heed the voice of the voter but, now they’ve suggested that they don’t have to heed the voice of House either. That’s not a democracy.
OK. Thanks!
“whitness” should obviously be witness!!!
What is the contemporary version of Torches and Pitchforks?????
The day this happens, our nation becomes a tyranny.
It's obvious that both questions must be answered in the negative.
They don't care about the opinions of The People, nor about legality, especially Constitutional legality. Concern for legality is for the "little people".
All you need to do to bring the city to a halt is park your old John Deere tractor in the duck pond by the Vietnam Memorial. That was pure traffic hell for many days.
I’ll be there, working at my job, but I predict you will not garner ANY attention. Those in charge here are soulless and without conscience. Good luck anyway, but the cherry blossoms will still be out. Sorry.
pm me here and when you’re in town. I’ll buy you lunch.
Thanks, LZ_Bayonet. That’s probably the fundamental aspect of the Declaration.
That pretty much sums it up. If they’re really brain dead enough to try such a stunt.
I do not want Obama IMPEACHED... I want him IMPRISONED.
Remember what Stalin said about voting.
You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.
From: Vospominaniia Byvshego Sekretaria Stalina [ Memoirs of the former secretary of Stalin], Bazhanov, Boris.
He was taling about votes within the Communist Party, but the same principal applies to other votes.
The Washington rulers don't give a whit what happens on the Mall, do they?
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.