When the Constitution gets in Pelosi's way, she'll just ignore it....

[spidey07]

R's have used this to pass things like a ban of smoking on airplanes, not something that will change every persons life, and raise taxes on many of us, and change the way we do business.

Make no mistake. This bill and "process" affects EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN OUR COUNTRY, EVERY SINGLE ONE. Never has a bill had that kind of impact on every single person, ever.

To have it done via this means is criminal.

 

[Patranus]

R's have used this to pass things like a ban of smoking on airplanes.....

Well, Wikipedia states that it was actually a regulation put in place by the Department of Transportation not a law passed by congress but it could be wrong.

But Wikipedia could be wrong.......

R's have used this to pass things like a ban of smoking on airplanes, not something that will change every persons life, and raise taxes on many of us, and change the way we do business.

Just because something has been/is being done doesn't make it any more Constitutional.

 

[Brainonska511]

Cap & Tax cant pass congress?
Don't worry, Obama will just order the EPA to issue new regulations.

Congress won't form a debt panel?
Don't worry, Obama will just issue an executive order.

Can't pass net neutrality?
Don't worry, Obama will just order the FCC to start regulating the internet.

Think the executive branch is overstepping its authority? Sue in federal court and lobby your representatives to reign in said issues then.

 

[Patranus]

Think the executive branch is overstepping its authority? Sue in federal court and lobby your representatives to reign in said issues then.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot grant its power to any other branch of government.

 

[Brainonska511]

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot grant its power to any other branch of government.

Of course, but if you think the executive is overstepping its bounds, one way to correct that is through the courts. Balance and separation of powers.

 

[nonlnear]

View Post
Totally wrong. The government is not charged with protecting life, it is restricted from depriving the people of it.

Thats sig worthy.

To be fair it's a slight overstatement for poetic effect. More precisely, the only explicit mandate in the founding documents is that the government shall not deprive the people of life, liberty, etc. There is definitely room for statutory protections of life to be arrived at through legislation, such as the murder statutes, etc.

I fear that if that line were sigged people might think that I don't think the government should protect life! However I was responding to a misconstrued read of the DoI so I was merely clarifying what those words in particular should be interpreted to mean.

 

[Zebo]

It's a Living document according to the left and lots of right for that matter.

 

[Patranus]

It's a Living document according to the left and lots of right for that matter.

If the Constitution is inherently a living document why is there a clearly defined process to amend it?

 

[nonlnear]

If the Constitution is inherently a living document why is there a clearly defined process to amend it?

Because all living things must grow!

 

[Craig234]

If the Constitution is inherently a living document why is there a clearly defined process to amend it?

Because the things that a living document cover do not include the things amendments cover.

You don't get the 14th amendment or the presidential term limits from living document.

 

[dmcowen674]

When the Constitution gets in Pelosi's way, she'll just ignore it....

Good

Bout damn time the Dems learned from the Republicans

 

[Joepublic2]

That tree of liberty is looking pretty weak, malnourished and scraggy. Forcing an individual to purchase a defective by design product (private insurance) or any product for that matter is a recipe for disaster.

I'm sure that tree would perk right up if it was watered, though.

Not that I necessarily agree with the premise of this thread or any of the post contained herein.

 

[cubby1223]

Oh, and lest not forget this health care reconciliation package with also reform how student loans are funded...

figure that one out...


they're just piling on all they can. I bet it's primarily to use that little bit of cost savings in this student loans reform to make the CBO scoring of the health care bill appear rosier...


*sigh*

 

[her209]

It's a Living document according to the left and lots of right for that matter.

The Constitution makes no mention of the Air Force.

 

[EXman]

If the Constitution is inherently a living document why is there a clearly defined process to amend it?

Because the looney left says it is a living document.

 

[daishi5]

There's no question that the exact text must be voted on in each house of Congress. What I meant is that he has no precedent to support his original premise - that two bills passed under one vote must be treated as a new, integrated bill which then would have to be voted on in full by the Senate. Here, we have a Senate bill which has already been passed and does not require another vote, and a second bill, which does require another vote. The fact that the House chooses to pass both with one formal vote does not turn them into one, integrated bill. If they *are* one integrated bill, *then* this precedent would apply, but he has not established his rather arbitrary premise.

I may have been wrong about the intent of the procedure being to avoid the trust issue. I read one news report this morning which said that the core bill would be deemed passed only in the event that the reconciliation bill passed. However, I just read another news report which says that the core bill will be deemed passed immediately. If that second report is correct, then the intent is to avoid the appearance of house members voting on the core bill. If that is all this really is, it's an incredibly stupid idea since they will never actually avoid accountability so it's best to just stay away from any procedure which even *might* be misunderstood as sneaky or deceptive, even though it's probably Constitutional.

- wolf

Let me get this straight, there is a bill the senate voted on, and the house will vote on that bill, but if and only if that bill is amended will their vote be counted? It sounds to me like they are not voting on the senate bill, but they are voting on a new bill, because if I understand your summation correctly they are voting on the bill and the changes to that bill at the same time. In other words, I don't see any difference between what you described and voting on a single bill that has had the changes already made, I.E. new text.

To me, it really does sound like they are using the "two bills voted at once" to vote on a new bill with new text, because they are not willing to accept the text of the senate bill as written, but they will accept the senate bill if it is written differently. The big point to me is that they are voting on the bill conditionally, so they are not really voting on the original text that the senate voted on, because their vote requires that the text change to be accepted. If they just voted on both, and they were willing to accept the amendments not being passed, then I would view it as a vote on the senate bill and a new bill.

So, now I have a health care bill I don't understand being voted on by a procedure I don't understand. I am amazed any government manages to survive politics.

 

[nick1985]

I like how the liberals are pointing to when this type of bullshit has been used in the past, as if that justifies it.

What happened to "hope and change"? I thought Obama was going to change the way Washington worked? I guess thats not true?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Good

Bout damn time the Dems learned from the Republicans

Yeah, it is GREAT that both parties have demonstrated their corruption and that the only thing they care about is staying in power. That helps us SO much!

Why do you hate America Dave?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So...this is change we can believe in? Transparency my ass. Most ethical congress ever my ass. Nothing but lies and ugly, underhanded, conniving politics as usual. Dems have reached a new low in slimy politics. Something to be ashamed of...but I somehow doubt few are.

 

[nick1985]

So...this is change we can believe in? Transparency my ass. Most ethical congress ever my ass. Nothing but lies and ugly, underhanded, conniving politics as usual. Dems have reached a new low in slimy politics. Something to be ashamed of...but I somehow doubt few are.

heh...yeah pretty much wraps this one up.

 

[Fear No Evil]

heh...yeah pretty much wraps this one up.

They're draining the swamp!

 

[Harvey]

I like how the liberals are pointing to when this type of bullshit has been used in the past, as if that justifies it.

Amazing. We agree on something. I like how liberals are pointing to Republican whining as the hypocrisy it is. Obviously you missed my previous post, so here it is again.

The House is not ducking the vote or subverting any democratic process. A vote to impliment a law through a self-executing rule must still pass by a majority vote. They're simply voting to make passage contingent on another action, in this case, passage by the Senate of the companion reconciliation bill.

In case you're arithmetically challenged, in the past, Democrats have passed self-executing bills 38 times while Republicans passed them 202 times. Why is it not OK for the Democratic majority to use this rule?

What happened to "hope and change"? I thought Obama was going to change the way Washington worked? I guess thats not true?

Again we agree. I'd be far happier if Obama would pursue changes like charging your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal for their crimes, including treason, murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

They're draining the swamp! They're draining the swamp!

Does that mean you'll now be eligible for financial aid for the homeless? :whiste:

 

[nick1985]

Amazing. We agree on something. I like how liberals are pointing to Republican whining as the hypocrisy it is. Obviously you missed my previous post, so here it is again.

The House is not ducking the vote or subverting any democratic process. A vote to impliment a law through a self-executing rule must still pass by a majority vote. They're simply voting to make passage contingent on another action, in this case, passage by the Senate of the companion reconciliation bill.

In case you're arithmetically challenged, in the past, Democrats have passed self-executing bills 38 times while Republicans passed them 202 times. Why is it not OK for the Democratic majority to use this rule?



Again we agree. I'd be far happier if Obama would pursue changes like charging your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal for their crimes, including treason, murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.



Does that mean you'll now be eligible for financial aid for the homeless? :whiste:

Harvey I dont care which side used it and how many times. Its wrong. Its wrong for anyone who uses it. Its unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional then, and its unconstitutional now.

I may be wrong, been a while since college, but if 1/5th of the house requests a yay or nay vote, they MUST record yay or nay's in a journal, according to article one of the consitution. Is this not what it says?

 

[BudAshes]

Damn those old people! Die already! Fucking leaches! "Old people have fucked this world beyond belief..." Nice post.

BTW, are you a poster child for the compassionate Left? I'm sure your mother must be very proud.

I'm not on the left. Being on the left or right is moronic. There aren't teams, only logical solutions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not on the left. Being on the left or right is moronic. There aren't teams, only logical solutions.

IMO your compassion for the elderly is underwhelming. So...I'm afraid to ask...what exactly is your logical solution to the 'old people' problem?