Posted on 03/13/2010 8:14:52 PM PST by Whenifhow
Arguing that Slaughter is attempting an unprecedented violation of the constitution, Mark Levin in this audio clip , argues that the House Republicans should initiate expulsion proceedings against her .
He concedes it may be a futile gesture, but I think there is merit in this. It will make it harder for those who vote for this wrap around cramdown bill to consider a fig leaf behind which they can pretend they didn't vote for the odious Senate bill.
Levin also brilliantly expounds on the constitutional issue. First, the relevant portion from Article I, Section VII, Clause II of our founding document:
"...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."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were... They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President...
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law... the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.
This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution's words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who... aren't sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren't sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, ...openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you'll ever get... So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race -- with scores of others -- to the courthouse to stop this.
I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!
...It's not only absurd on its face -- that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on... that's not only absurd on its face, it's blatantly unconstitutional!
Expelling her at the least...You know I get a headache trying to figure out how they can come up with these nutty ideas and then think they can enact them without consequence...
The liberal MSM are NOT ignoring this.
Starting with Jim Lehrer, they have begged Pres_ _ent Obama
to begin violence against unarmed Americans.
Other Threads:
House Aide Confirms Slaughter Solution Never Used Before’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470079/posts
Posts 24, 25, 26
Slaughter House Surprise: Simply ‘Deem’ Health Bill Passed after Voting on Fix Bill
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470324/posts
HEALTH CARE EXPOSES DEMOCRATS CONTEMPT FOR AMERICA!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470257/posts
This is just sickening...
Yes! Expell that witch. I was in her district when I first moved out here to NY and for several years following and tried like heck to get rid of her with no luck at all. My neighbors are either daft or smoking something. I finally got out from under her in redistricting and got finally got an R.
I hope they kick her to the curb so hard she lands in Venezuela where she belongs.
Imagine a law which nobody’s representitive voted for.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the Republicals all vote against reconciliation.
TGO Ping
Mark hit it out of the park on this subject.
This woman should be hauled out and tried for treason.
The current process is like delivering a baby in pieces over several days and at on the final day they can “deem” that the baby’s alive.
Das Krapital...it's all right there.
(In German,of course)
The media’s discussion of this has been deceptive. There has also been concern expressed over Republs calling it the “Slaughter” rule or whatever. The fact the Dem leadership has not wholeheartedly squashed any speculation about this is concerning.
Hoyer Rules by the Rule of Rules [Daniel Foster]
Starting at about minute five, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) ducks and dodges a question from Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) as to whether the Democrats will use the Slaughter Rule to pass the Senate bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlm8eEF6t8o
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYwOTExM2Y1Nzc1M2U3MTQ1Y2IyNGRhYjAyOWI1MjU=
I heard Mark Levin on Friday and sent the audio link to everyone I know. He is right on the money!
from memo
2.-- I continue to encourage all of you not to get into debates about process and to try and persuade your Member not to get into process arguments either.threadAt this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote -- up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL. People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.
As someone noted on another thread, if Levin were right, then all voice votes also would be unconstitutional, as they are often taken with the express purpose of masking who actually supported a bill, i.e., so House members can avoid going “on the record” with a vote that might cost them votes in their district.
I wish Levin were correct, but even Cantor has conceded the Slaughter solution is a legal procedure. House members want to be able to say they voted for the Senate bill in combination with fixes to that bill that addressed the most odious parts. Needless to say, if they were 100% confident that Senate would follow through in passing reconciliation, there would be no need to rely on this strategy to give themselves a “backup plan” in the event they don’t. Unfortunately, they have found a technical loophole that allows them to do so.
Our energies would be better spent convincing Stupak supporters to stand firm on principle and not to buy into “end justifies the means” thinking about their votes. This bill will provide public funding for abortions: that alone is a reason to oppose it.
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.