Posted on 03/16/2010 11:36:03 AM PDT by truthandlife
What? It doesn’t matter what margin the scotus overturns it by, if they overturn it, it is as if it never existed. There’s no appeal. And we’ll get a stay on it very, very fast, and not by the scotus. Look if they manage to do the cram down, that’s not the time to give up.
I doubt either of those things will happen. Any backlash will be shortlived, and will be based on the content of the bill, not the procedures used to pass it. And there will be no constitutional crisis. I doubt a court will even try the case.
Nobody would support that. The military would NEVER support that.
2. Cause so much backlash that they can expect to see physical resistance, monetaty noncomplience, legal interference, and awful voter backlash for decades.
Let's hope the meltdown starts soon.
“(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may ‘become a law.’ Art. I, Section 7.
“If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105—33 would not have been validly enacted. [Emphasis added] If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law - one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature.
“Something that might be known as ‘Public Law 105—33 as modified by the President’ may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may ‘become a law’ pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution.”
There. A direct ruling on procedure. Right there.
Doubt if you will. I seem to be leaning more and more that you are mistaken.
My concern is that some would give up until it passes, THEN try to institute a stay/appeal/overturn. THAT is a very bad plan. Don’t plan on an instant stay; remember that McCain-Feingold took _years_ to get even part overturned (and that was a relatively easy case).
Not sure what you mean by “we’ll get a stay ... not by the SCOTUS”. Get a stay via whom?
How do you know it was a cutie?
Self-immolation would be a nice gesture.
They still have to vote to “deem it passed”, so it’s not like they’re going to do it on a voice acclamation. It will still be clear who voted for it. This is just a way to a) give them a degree of separation from the vote, and 2) pass the desired “fixes” or amendments to it at the same time, which is another thing that’s unconstitutional.
It’s time for a DAY OF RAGE!
That’s an entirely different matter, as it is a controversy BETWEEN two branches of government. That is always a matter for judicial interpretation. This is merely a question of whether the house can pass a bill via a vote on a rule. It’s none of the courts business and they won’t get involved.
The majority of generals would - they’re politicians anyway.
The majority of actual footsoldiers no. That’s where it would get interesting.
What do you call the backlash we have been seeing since July?
Politicaly speaking, it's HISTORICAL, up there with Taxation Without Representation, Emancipation and Sufferage. In other words, what we are doing right now is extremely rare.
SCOTUS may not. However, I am starting to doubt your assertion due to the very grey area involved — and the precedent in the interpretation of the rules of the Constitution as it applies to process.
That's my point. The slaughter rule is new. But the backlash has been around for a while. The backlash has to do with the substance of the bill, not the process. The process won't add any further backlash because it will be all the same people that are pissed about both.
Well hopefully the rule will not pass and we’ll never find out.
Unbelievable.
The Constitution was intended to be easily understandable to the average citizen. Its intent is clear and unambiguous, yet because of the past number of decades of "interpretation" by leftist judges and "scholars" most people now believe that its meaning can only be divined by a "constitutional expert." This is a complete perversion of the Founders' intent.
Of course, the real reason that leftists are so intent on convincing people that the Constitution must be interpreted is that the plain meaning of the words it contains is poison to their anti-American agenda. The Constitution was intended to serve as "chains" to bind the federal government to our founding principles, as described by Thomas Jefferson. It was designed to thwart the plans of would-be tyrants, and to be very difficult to change. But the leftists would have us believe that it is really a "living document" that can be reinterpreted according to the whims of the time. These people are nothing less than enemies of America. They must be stopped at all costs. Were Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al here with us today, I am certain they would be far less tolerant of this despicable behavior than we have been.
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.