Posted on 07/29/2011 8:23:26 AM PDT by Kackikat
"WASHINGTON—Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid served notice Friday that he's pushing ahead with his debt-limit bill as House Speaker John Boehner's rival measure languished in limbo, further escalating a wrenching political standoff that has heightened fears of a market-rattling government default. "This is likely our last chance to save this nation from default," Reid declared glumly on the Senate floor, as a Tuesday's deadline drew closer.
Reid's move came with Boehner's bill still in wait of a vote and a bitter standoff between GOP leaders and their conservative rank and file. Demoralized House Republicans were striving for a third straight day to pass the Boehner bill, even though it had virtually no chance of surviving the Senate."
(Excerpt) Read more at marinij.com ...
I have to agree with Rush that I don't ever want to hear another lecture from liberals about "civility" with POLITICO.com and others calling Tea Partiers "terrorists" coupled with all of Schumer's nasty, ugly commentaries!!!
Laura Ingram, however, is still supporting Congressman West and Speaker Boehner!!!
Yup, the real nasty hate filled rethoric comes from the left, but they continue to project it on to the American Citizens and any and all Conservatives.
They especially dislike the Tea Party Movement as it is undermining their monetary kingdoms and power.
I saw Laura Ingrahmam tell people to vote for the lame cop out bill and was very dissapointed to say the least
Does she have to do that to keep her job with that jerk bill o”reilly???
Well I reckon Dole is as close to a dead white guy as anyone still standing could be.
It’s a shell game and we’re even letting the hustlers pick the shell for us.
Yes, I hear from them occasionally, lol.
“but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Yes, but Reid’s bill does NOT have an Amendment...Boehner’s had Cut, Cap and Balance, however it was not brought to the floor, so REID can’t use his bill to present anything. In fact, it would amount to a brand new piece of legislation, if they use anything that passed, which is NOT part of the Debt Limit being raised legislation.
Of course, when has this group of criminals followed the rules?
Where is that in Constitution? or Amendments?
They are spending tax payers dollars, when they raise the debt limit, so it is a bill regarding taxes, no matter what is in it!
The Origination Clause (Article I, section 7)
“
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
The key word is “Amendments”, which REID is not proposing. And although no tax raises are in the bill, the whole DEBT CEILING is about taxes, the taxes that were misspent, as well as, the fact if the DEBT CEILING is raised, it is the spending of more taxpayer dollars..What is it about if not taxes?.
That is a violation of the Constitution, but the problem is NOONE will challenge the buzzheads.
” Article 1, 7
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
They can’t take just any old amendment bill, and enter this “NON REALTED NEW” stuff in it, it isn’t what the founder meant, it is all been distorted. The reason the opposition does not challenge it is they do the same thing. Howe inappropriate.
That title has nothing to do with my post, just who does this? My title was appropriate to the content. I feel like I’m on a Dem forum at times, and that’s disturbing.
Yes, they can. Show me in the Constitution where it says that you cannot propose amendments to a bill that are "non-related new stuff." You cannot.
An appropriations bill was duly passed by the House, and sent to the Senate for them to "propose or concur with Amendments." They proposed an amendment that struck every single word from the original bill.
Again, I understand that it isn't the spirit of the Founder's intention, but it is completely Constitutional under the letter of the law.
There was a move a few years ago (and at my age that could mean from the 1970s) to offer a Constitutional Amendment that bills could only be about one subject (no more unrelated pork spending bills attached to a bill changing the tax code, for example.) If that were passed, then the Senate could no longer change the original intent of a House revenue bill by striking the entire thing.
Oh! That's right!! I didn't think of that!!!
Well it must be that living Constitution attitude, that things change over time.
By George! I think you’ve got tit!!!
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.