Posted on 03/17/2010 4:58:28 AM PDT by Rufus2007
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
133 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
“Although this “deem and pass” scheme looks obviously unconstitutional some pretty smart guys on our side are saying that it is legal. It has been used in the past. It has been challenged in court and been upheld.”
It is also unprecedented for this sort of bill, and has been used primarily for budget ceilings. So where this has previously has flown under the radar for obscure budgetary considerations (kind of like reconciliation), now it’s being flaunted in front of the watching world as a legit way to ‘fundamentally transform the United States of America.’
Don’t think so.
Yes, there are Constitutional questions that need to be clarified by the SCOTUS regarding this rule and it’s massively unprecendented use.
LOL!
Back in the 1940s, there was a Republican Congressman from Minneapolis named Richard Gale. Maybe the Republican Congresswoman from the Minneapolis suburbs, Michele Bachmann, can do her best Dorothy Gale imitation and make Pelosi melt away.
Huck: “The whole idea is nonsensical.”
Well, let’s look at what Bachmann said:
“That should laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment of something like this,” Bachmann continued. “That’s how bad this is. I mean, trust me - Dennis Hastert could have never gotten away with this. President Bush never could have gotten away with it.”
Clearly Bachmann is being imprecise. But she did throw in a President (Bush) in the context - could she have been talking about laughing Pelosi out of the House (say expulsion), and impeaching Obama? Even that’s a bit of a stretch based on what she said, as she brings in Hastert, before Bush. So, she very well may need to be educated, and then more precise.
But if that’s her worst sin, I’ll take that in conjunction with her DEMANDING that we talk about the SLAUGHTER in the national media.
Hopefully she’ll make sure what she says in future is more accurate, or at least clearer.
If House members were subject to impeachment (which they aren’t, as you noted), it would make sense for the House to commence impeachment proceedings (instead of expelling the member) only if a simple majority of Representatives can be convinced that a particular member that committed a crime should be removed but 2/3 of the Senate could be so convinced. I guess that such case would be possible if you have a Jack Murtha-type figure that is universally found to be corrupt and that a large majority of Senators wants to see removed but that has a loyal cadre of 1/3 +1 House members that could block expulsion by the House.
Why is it that the only Republicans with a set are women? Where are the MEN?
Yes, she does! She may be grandstanding, but I’ll take it!
“Where is Sarah? “
Fund raising for McCain? Backing Rand Paul? Dunno.
I think that people are guessing that INTENT will be the thing that the SCOTUS has used to shoot down the other challenges. Some have said since those other bills were of the exact same intent that this one would fail because of the huge changes? I think it’s an unknown with something this big.
I think that is what people saying it is unconstitutional are hanging their hat & hope on.
She also pimped for Bachmann recently so pfffft to the other commenter.
SP has been out against the #deemoNcrats and Obama from the jump as well as this nonsense going on now.
"The House (of Representatives) concluded, after spirited debate, that a senator was an impeachable official and ordered the chairman of its committee to inform the Senate that the House planned to present articles of impeachment. The House also demanded that the Senate suspend Blount from his seat and guarantee his appearance to answer the charges."
"Further, the Senate ordered Blount to appear on July 10 to answer the representatives' articles of impeachment. Although Blount gave assurances that he would appear on that date, he instead spurred his horse home to Tennessee."
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/expulsion_cases/Blount_expulsion.htm
It is somewhat silly, but constitutional to impeach a member of Congress.
I like this idea!!
I would vote for a law allowing corporal punishment of them BOTH-!!
Impeach Pelosi, ABSOLUTELY. She does look like she’s reaching her breaking point. Saw her on the news last night, she looked positively rabid and almost over the edge.
Wow... thanks for that info, SueRae! My husband and I just might make the trip from Connecticut to DC, if we can do something to help...
Why would the media change their ways now? If they had DONE THEIR JOBS of being truly investigative instead of being in the tank for liberals, Obama would’ve never been elected in the first place.
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.