Dem Congress Moves to Repeal the House Fairness Rules

Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
This thread has been derailed

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy



I'm interested to see if anyone is going to try to defend this move by Pelosi and the Dems. Basically they are moving to repeal the rules that were enacted to protect THEM when Republicans took control of the House in 1994.


The Dems want to give themselves the power to push a bill through the house with no opportunity for debate or dissention or even the offering of alternatives.


This isn't a partisan issue. This is about openess in government. This is a a group of power hungry people who are blatently attempting to allow themselves to operate away from the public eye, passing legislation without debate. They will repeal the rules that make congress subject to the same federal laws as the rest of us. They will repeal the rules that require committe sessions and congressional sessions to be open to the public and the media.

Why?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi?s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi?s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich?s ?Contract with America.?

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.

After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi?s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America?s governing legislative process.


Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.

January 5, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.

President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans? trust and confidence in the People?s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.

As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government ? a theme central to President-elect Obama?s campaign last year. He promoted a message of ?change,? but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of ?change.? Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.

The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority?s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.

This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.

Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation?s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican


 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
They will just dig their hole that much faster.

They are fools if they think they have a perpetual majority. The Republicans thought the same thing and look at them now.
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Bunch of whining losers.

How sad it is indeed when people care more about being 'winners' than about the country they claim to be trying to improve.

Despite being a california democrat, I've never had a particularly good opinion of Pelosi, so this doesn't really surprise me at all. I'm guessing there's approximately equal R/D in congress after 2012 elections if things like this continue, although yes, I really did just pull that number out of my @ss.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
I hope Senate goes nuclear on the GOP too. They should not be allowed to filibuster important legislation.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
And yet another reason why D.C. needs an enema. The Dems and Repubs don't give 2 shits about the average person. Both parties only care about improving their power base and giving the rest of us the big F U.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: brandonbull
And yet another reason why D.C. needs an enema. The Dems and Repubs don't give 2 shits about the average person. Both parties only care about improving their power base and giving the rest of us the big F U.

Who is this "average person" that is clamoring to preserve the way the House did things under Republicans?

Is it Joe the Plumber? :D
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope Senate goes nuclear on the GOP too. They should not be allowed to filibuster important legislation.

Why not just give the President the ability to pass legislation then? It would make it easier for him to pass important laws more quickly.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope Senate goes nuclear on the GOP too. They should not be allowed to filibuster important legislation.

Why not just give the President the ability to pass legislation then? It would make it easier for him to pass important laws more quickly.

The Constitution. Gingrich's house rules and Senate filibusters are not in it.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope Senate goes nuclear on the GOP too. They should not be allowed to filibuster important legislation.

Why not just give the President the ability to pass legislation then? It would make it easier for him to pass important laws more quickly.

why not just elect the president for a life term? having to run for reelection takes too much time away from passing important legislation.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
wow... that's seriously fucked up.

Anyone who would defend this course of action is a hypocritical douchebag.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,898
63
91
Originally posted by: palehorse
wow... that's seriously fucked up.

Anyone who would defend this course of action is a hypocritical douchebag.

Yup similar to the Iraq war supporters.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: palehorse
wow... that's seriously fucked up.

Anyone who would defend this course of action is a hypocritical douchebag.

Yup similar to the Iraq war supporters.

on topic ------->




<------- you
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope Senate goes nuclear on the GOP too. They should not be allowed to filibuster important legislation.

Why not just give the President the ability to pass legislation then? It would make it easier for him to pass important laws more quickly.

The Constitution. Gingrich's house rules and Senate filibusters are not in it.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would the Constitution prevent the the president from having the ability to pass legislation? It only makes sense for a more efficient government that the president be able to pass important legislation quickly and without being filibustered.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Won't see me trying to defend it, this is the kind of shit I was afraid of.

What would be needed to eliminate these rules? Simple majority vote, or 2/3? Either way I'd think this would be very hard to achieve, because I couldn't see the more moderate Democrats going along with it (and fortunately, most are not partisan hacks like Pelosi). Hopefully I'm not wrong, though. :(

Any other sources on this, though? I'm having trouble finding info on it that doesn't link back to that conservative website...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope Senate goes nuclear on the GOP too. They should not be allowed to filibuster important legislation.

Why not just give the President the ability to pass legislation then? It would make it easier for him to pass important laws more quickly.

The Constitution. Gingrich's house rules and Senate filibusters are not in it.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would the Constitution prevent the the president from having the ability to pass legislation? It only makes sense for a more efficient government that the president be able to pass important legislation quickly and without being filibustered.

It would also be more "efficient" if we were a monarchy instead of a Republic...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,034
136
Can we get some independent sources on this one? Your only source is a hyper partisan website along with an author so partisan that she uses "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" to describe the opposition party. This is an absolutely awful source.

If it turns out to be as she says it is, I'll be the first to condemn it... but pardon me if I question the idea that the self described "headquarters of the conservative underground" is giving an objective evaluation of affairs.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: senseamp
I hope Senate goes nuclear on the GOP too. They should not be allowed to filibuster important legislation.

Why not just give the President the ability to pass legislation then? It would make it easier for him to pass important laws more quickly.

The Constitution. Gingrich's house rules and Senate filibusters are not in it.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would the Constitution prevent the the president from having the ability to pass legislation? It only makes sense for a more efficient government that the president be able to pass important legislation quickly and without being filibustered.

What doesn't make sense? Congress passing laws and President executing them is in our Constitution. Filibusters and Gingrich's rules are not part of the Constitution. So the parallel doesn't work.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
if what we have now is after 14 years of these "rules" its time to gtfo.