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.
How’s about both?
Interesting discussion at Citizen Wells about the fact that when Congressmen are disabled by illness, as is Sen. Byrd (age 92 I think) presently, and Ted Kennedy not so long ago, why should they be allowed to continue to vote on various issues. How do we know they are competent to make decisions and “phone it in”. Or who is holding their hand to paper to sign letters indicating how they may wish to vote. Or what is their medication doing to their normal thought processes, etc. And just because they may be on record as to their wishes in regard to a certain vote, who is to know whether they may have had a change of heart.
It's an exercise in faux constitutionality, and if it flies he can ignore the constitution entirely. How long will it take before Obama decides he doesn't need the political cover of a legislative body at all? Or for that matter, a SCOTUS?
I've been thinking of awful scenarios in which the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional and Obama, with the blessing of a Dem Congress, simply implements the law regardless of the Supreme's ruling. What happens then? The SCOTUS has no troops. Implementing court decisions is the burden of law enforcement, but what if they simply refuse?
bttt
Interesting discussion at Citizen Wells about the fact that when Congressmen are disabled by illness, as is Sen. Byrd (age 92 I think) presently, and Ted Kennedy not so long ago, why should they be allowed to continue to vote on various issues. How do we know they are competent to make decisions and “phone it in”. Or who is holding their hand to paper to sign letters indicating how they may wish to vote. Or what is their medication doing to their normal thought processes, etc. And just because they may be on record as to their wishes in regard to a certain vote, who is to know whether they may have had a change of heart.
Works for me... this would be the final straw and the start of an armed revolution. I figure we’d take the nation back quicker then we grabbed Baghdad and I’d still have a few thousand rounds left !!
AR-15s and "Serious Social Purposes" shotguns, along with those Zillion candlepower flashlights?
Actually "only" 85,000 candlepower for this one. :)
This one is similar to mine, but it's all Stag Arms, whereas mine only has a Stag Arms stripped lower.
RECTUM: Government
A: Rham
B: BO
C: Pelosi
D: Reid
Clot: Healthcare Bill
Works for me, as long as it ends with his personal destruction.
Let ‘em do whatever they please.
Maybe the joint chiefs will roll the tanks onto the mall and restore our constitution.
/wishful thinking
No.
Emanuel said that great progress has been made.
I am afraid the Parliamentarian may be giving the green light on a simple majority.
They called the ‘storm troopers’ on us. Here’s the updates...this is NOT the first round of cut and gut we’ve had to do.
TennCare cuts threaten Nashville General hospital | tennessean.com
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100204/NEWS0204/2040350/TennCare-cuts-threaten-Nashville-General-hospital
TennCare Cuts Under Way Now
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=47622
Call it coincidence or bad timing, but many physicians in Tennessee began taking a 14 percent cut for seeing TennCare patients on the same day Gov. Phil Bredesen announced deep cuts in health care spending.
TennCare Cuts May Close Some Hospitals
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/020710-tenncare-cuts-may-close-some-hospitals
TennCare Cuts May Close Some Hospitals
Proposed TennCare funding cuts would close The Med, hospital officials say
By Toby Sells
Published Friday, January 29, 2010
http://m.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jan/29/med-cuts-would-kill-us/
|
My, although admittedly limited, understanding is that Honduras encourages private gun ownership.
None of the European or ex-European countries like AUS get it. They are just to used to being pushed around by GOV.
My guess is that the general and admiral level of officers (the butt-wipers, if you will) may support the government but I think that the other officers--and enlisted pesonnel--will remember their oath.
pesonnel = personnel
Hopefully for them, they flee to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S. .
I may take you up on that.
self ping
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.