Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tea Party at the Capitol-HR 3962 Vote
On March 21, 2010, America was dealt a near fatal blow!
Attempted Assult With Deadly Weapon At Tea Party Rally DC
Monday, March 15, 2010
Constitutional Debate
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
History You Should Know!
If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans, they will preserve, and hand down to their latest posterity, the transactions of the present times; and, though I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty..."
Patrick Henry
_
This paper, titled Instructions to the Delegates by Jefferson, soon came to be re-printed widely as A Summary View of the Rights of British America. It was (and is) a remarkable document, for it offered the first rational argument for what, until this time, had been a little known dirty secret of the revolutionary movement. While the public outcry was all about taxation without representation, the unspoken goal was to refute ANY right of royal sovereignty over the colonies. Jefferson protests here that he could never get anyone except his teacher George Wythe to agree with this idea, but in fact nearly all of the members of the congress recognized it immediately. Not all, however, were resolved that the time for asserting this argument had come. Some the most respected members, Pendleton, R. H. Lee, Dickinson, Jay, and Nicholas, had invested their public integrity in the argument opposing internal taxes, but conceding the rights of Parliament concerning external taxes. To change the nature of their protest at this point would subject them to charges of hypocrisy.The idea offered by A Summary View was so popular with the members of the Congress that, though they could not adopt it, they did have it printed and then forwarded to England. Nowhere in the article was the author identified, yet Jefferson's authorship was well known at the time.
Jefferson was misinformed regarding the English edition. The ministry did modify & distribute the work, however Edmund Burke had it reprinted in the popular press with only slight modifications to format.
Jefferson was misinformed regarding the English edition. The ministry did modify & distribute the work, however Edmund Burke had it reprinted in the popular press with only slight modifications to format.
_________________________________________________________________
The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution
Slaughter House Rules
How Democrats may 'deem' ObamaCare into law, without voting.
We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.
Under the "reconciliation" process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate's Christmas Eve bill and then use "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it doesn't like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.
But Mrs. Pelosi & Co. fear they lack the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for the Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that were added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.
Democrats would thus send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature even as they claimed to oppose the same Senate bill. They would be declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill in the same vote. Even John Kerry never went that far with his Iraq war machinations. As we went to press, the precise mechanics that Democrats will use remained unclear, though yesterday Mrs. Pelosi endorsed this "deem and pass" strategy in a meeting with left-wing bloggers.
This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate." This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes. While sometimes one house cedes entirely to another, the expectation is that its Members must re-vote on the exact language of the other body's bill.
As Stanford law professor Michael McConnell pointed out in these pages yesterday, "The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory
Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past, but as the Congressional Research Service put it in a 2006 paper, "Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills." They've also been used for amendments such as to a 1998 bill that "would have permitted the CIA to offer employees an early-out retirement program"—but never before to elide a vote on the entire fundamental legislation.
We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn't want to vote for it. Fence-sitting Members are being threatened with primary challengers, a withdrawal of union support and of course ostracism. Michigan's Bart Stupak is being pounded nightly by MSNBC for the high crime of refusing to vote for a bill that he believes will subsidize insurance for abortions.
Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. They are also leaving behind a procedural bloody trail that will fuel public fury and make such a vast change of law seem illegitimate to millions of Americans.
The concoction has become so toxic that even Mrs. Pelosi isn't bothering to defend the merits anymore, saying instead last week that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Or rather, "deeming" to have passed it.
Thus a new picture of Obamacare emerges: it will force people to pay for what they don’t want and purchase what they don’t need, in a massive expansion of the size and power of government. The entire proposal functions not as a method of improving care or lowering premiums but as a massive regressive tax falling disproportionately on the young and those on the lower end of the income scale. And once in place, it will trap its supposed beneficiaries in ways that cannot be undone.
Combine this regressive tax with a massive increase in spending via a government entitlement which will only grow, and you have a recipe for long-term economic stagnation and the permanent enshrinement of two Americas into our national social policy.
By Ben Domenech:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Michael Savage was correct "Liberalism is a mental disease."
Under the "reconciliation" process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate's Christmas Eve bill and then use "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it doesn't like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.
But Mrs. Pelosi & Co. fear they lack the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for the Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that were added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.
Associated Press
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y
So at the Speaker's command, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may insert what's known as a "self-executing rule," also known as a "hereby rule." Under this amazing procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.
This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate." This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes. While sometimes one house cedes entirely to another, the expectation is that its Members must re-vote on the exact language of the other body's bill.
As Stanford law professor Michael McConnell pointed out in these pages yesterday, "The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory
Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past, but as the Congressional Research Service put it in a 2006 paper, "Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills." They've also been used for amendments such as to a 1998 bill that "would have permitted the CIA to offer employees an early-out retirement program"—but never before to elide a vote on the entire fundamental legislation.
We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn't want to vote for it. Fence-sitting Members are being threatened with primary challengers, a withdrawal of union support and of course ostracism. Michigan's Bart Stupak is being pounded nightly by MSNBC for the high crime of refusing to vote for a bill that he believes will subsidize insurance for abortions.
Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. They are also leaving behind a procedural bloody trail that will fuel public fury and make such a vast change of law seem illegitimate to millions of Americans.
The concoction has become so toxic that even Mrs. Pelosi isn't bothering to defend the merits anymore, saying instead last week that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Or rather, "deeming" to have passed it.
Combine this regressive tax with a massive increase in spending via a government entitlement which will only grow, and you have a recipe for long-term economic stagnation and the permanent enshrinement of two Americas into our national social policy.
By Ben Domenech:
Michael Savage was correct "Liberalism is a mental disease."
Accorn??: you're so fuggin' adorable when you formulate full sentences! *muah*
My Reply: I formulated one? Did u save me a copy?
Reply To Me: congress doesn't exempt themselves... They are well-off and so have no need for a public option as they can afford private!
Comment To Me:"I know the human being & fish can coexist peacefully" George Bush, Republicans choose brilliant leaders, need I quote ms palin?
Comment To Me: read this and give me your opinion http://bit.ly/a6oQ33
My Reply:WOW & u thought MY spelling was bad..AND IT IS, lol..still reading it
My Reply: no used reading farther..BLATANT false claim right off the bat! Much better debating then name calling, just need to keep it...
Comment By Me: Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
My Reply: Again my friend, understanding the context, seeing the big picture, knowing WHO & WHAT the quote is related to.
Question: I am willing to agree with that point. it is VERY important to know what the quotes used... actually mean!
My Reply: agreed, the "reason" is the issue
My Reply: agreed, the "reason" is the issue
My Reply: YEP, I tweeted it too..we are NOT a Democracy for that very reason. Context shows..Democracy is NOT what USA is!
My Reply: Do u understand that Quote? Democracy vrs Republic? AND WHY US was set up as a REPUBLIC?
My Reply: All the plans WITHOUT destructive "hooks" have been thrown out by the progressives.
Comment: If only they'd let the poor people die so the rich people could be treated faster?! I'd rather wait 10 hrs than get told GTFO!
My Reply: Im not rich, have no insurance & been to hospital 1 time this yr, ambulance once & docs 3 times...No problem here! Ur deceptive!
Continued: He pulls a fake injury & goes to the hospital w/ cameras and humor...GREAT PLAN! LOL! RT @justsayes: wanna see more?
Reply: Here is Fake..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)