Someone prove this wrong? - PowerStrokeNation : Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-16-2010, 09:37 PM Thread Starter
Yeah, it's like that
 
ducatirider944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Right Wing, Midwest
Posts: 2,419
Someone prove this wrong?

Please show the flaws in this, because this makes it look like Obama is unstopable.

http://americansforprosperity.org/obamachart.php

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.
Ronald Reagan
ducatirider944 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-17-2010, 12:16 AM
Gandy Dancer
 
AK Gandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Villages
Posts: 5,972
Re: Someone prove this wrong?

I think a couple of questions/comparisons should be done first.

1. Define "legitimate" process. Has there been anything 'illegal' done?

2. We should also have an apples to apples comparison of previous POTUS,' on how many Executive Orders have been signed and the procedures used to get their agenda's through.

It never ceases to amaze me how whichever party is out of power (and that goes for both of them), whines about the 'other' party playing unfair............when they did the same thing when they were in power.

A perfect example is the crying going on about 'reconciliation.'

When, in fact, the Repub's have used the process 17 times since 1980 while the Dem's have used it 6 times.

Or that the Dem's whined about "signing statements" by Bush when, I'm sure when it's all said and done..................Obama will have also done it numerous times too.

Never have so many politicians, screwed so many Americans...just to make one black person lose his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binderpower View Post
I can be possible.
AK Gandy is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-17-2010, 12:26 AM
<<< THE GAUGE WHORE...
 
CSIPSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 12,083
Re: Someone prove this wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK Gandy View Post
I think a couple of questions/comparisons should be done first.

1. Define "legitimate" process. Has there been anything 'illegal' done?

2. We should also have an apples to apples comparison of previous POTUS,' on how many Executive Orders have been signed and the procedures used to get their agenda's through.

It never ceases to amaze me how whichever party is out of power (and that goes for both of them), whines about the 'other' party playing unfair............when they did the same thing when they were in power.

A perfect example is the crying going on about 'reconciliation.'

When, in fact, the Repub's have used the process 17 times since 1980 while the Dem's have used it 6 times.
Or that the Dem's whined about "signing statements" by Bush when, I'm sure when it's all said and done..................Obama will have also done it numerous times too.


Go back and look at the facts there...

Not once in those 17 times was it a FULLY republican vote that made that happen... And on NOTHING that changes a third of the economy...

[CENTER]01 F-250 SC PSD,430k,16 Isspro Gauges, AFE-2,CCV Mod,IAH delete,map reg,Modded H2e, 6.0 IC, 230/100, Studs, 910 springs, Forged rods, Hydra chip, Swamps HVHF IDM, MBRP 4" dual's, Aero, 6" tip's, 4" Revtek lift, 37/12.5/16.5 MT's
Joe
CSIPSD is offline  
 
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-17-2010, 12:32 AM
Gandy Dancer
 
AK Gandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Villages
Posts: 5,972
Re: Someone prove this wrong?

Are you trying to make the point that the Dem's weren't so stubborn and petulant, about being in the minority, that some of them were still willing to actually vote on a bi-partisan level?

If so.......................your point is well taken.

Never have so many politicians, screwed so many Americans...just to make one black person lose his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binderpower View Post
I can be possible.
AK Gandy is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-17-2010, 12:35 AM
<<< THE GAUGE WHORE...
 
CSIPSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 12,083
Re: Someone prove this wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK Gandy View Post
Are you trying to make the point that the Dem's weren't so stubborn and petulant, about being in the minority, that some of them were still willing to actually vote on a bi-partisan level?

If so.......................your point is well taken.

What I am saying is there has never been a bill that the US people are so against, that one side is so against, that the other side says screw you...

They are going to do anything they want, no matter what WE the people say, no matter what the other side asks.

This bill if passed will take years to repeal, if it can be. There is NOTHING good about this bill.

[CENTER]01 F-250 SC PSD,430k,16 Isspro Gauges, AFE-2,CCV Mod,IAH delete,map reg,Modded H2e, 6.0 IC, 230/100, Studs, 910 springs, Forged rods, Hydra chip, Swamps HVHF IDM, MBRP 4" dual's, Aero, 6" tip's, 4" Revtek lift, 37/12.5/16.5 MT's
Joe
CSIPSD is offline  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-17-2010, 12:39 AM
Gandy Dancer
 
AK Gandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Villages
Posts: 5,972
Re: Someone prove this wrong?

I disagree.

Never have so many politicians, screwed so many Americans...just to make one black person lose his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binderpower View Post
I can be possible.
AK Gandy is offline  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-17-2010, 01:00 AM Thread Starter
Yeah, it's like that
 
ducatirider944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Right Wing, Midwest
Posts: 2,419
Re: Someone prove this wrong?

Dreier Says Health Bill Would Pass if Dems Can Use Slaughter Rule
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer



Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.). (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – Representative David Dreier (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, said that if Democrats can muster enough votes to win passage of the so-called Slaughter Rule they can pass the Senate health care bill without actually holding a vote on the legislation.

The Slaughter Rule -- named for House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) who proposed it -- would allow the Senate health bill to be incorporated into the Rule for the reconciliation bill coming out of the Senate. If members vote to pass this Rule they, in effect, pass the Senate health care bill wihout actually voting on it -- they instead vote on the reconciliation package.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, however, expressly states that for any bill to beome law "the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by the yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." After that, under the Constitution, the president must either sign the bill or hold it for ten days (not counting Sundays), after which it will become law unless Congress adjourns in the interim.

Constitutional scholars have said that what the Democrats may try to do by making the Senate health care bill law without ever voting on it in the House is unconstitutional and could spark a constitutional crisis far worse than Watergate.

Dreier, who is the top House Republican responsible for making sure that Congress follows legitimate rules of procedure, told reporters yesterday that he is not a constitutional expert and that he had not spoken personally to any constitutional experts about the issue. He did say he had indirectly gotten "input" from such experts.

“If this passes and is signed into law, I think it becomes law,” Dreier said. “I’m not a constitutional lawyer and that’s the response from some of the experts with whom I’ve spoken – I didn’t speak to but have gotten some input from. I’m not in a position to raise the (constitutionality) question right now.”

Dreier said there is nothing the majority party (Democrats) cannot do so long as the Rules Committee, where Democrats hold a 9-4 majority, authorizes it. This would include passing health reform without actually voting on it.

“There’s nothing that can prevent it,” Dreier said. “It’s something, David [a reporter], that they can clearly do, if they have the votes.”

The plan Dreier was asked about is called the Slaughter Solution, named for Rules Committee chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

The Rules Committee sets the rules of debate for legislation before it is brought to the House floor. Under normal circumstances the committee lays out how much time each side is allowed for floor debates and which amendments they can offer on the floor. Amendments that the majority does not want debated or offered on the floor are often added to legislation in the Rules Committee.

Such self-executing rules, as they are known, have been used by both parties to avoid extended debate on politically embarrassing matters, such as raising the national debt ceiling.

If Democrats use the Slaughter Solution, it would send the Senate-passed bill to the president to sign, and the amendments package would go to the Senate, where it presumably would be taken up under the budget reconciliation process.

Dreier said he had “explored” questions of the plan’s legality and found that the bill would still become law.

“I’ve explored that earlier today and I think that if it becomes law, it becomes law,” he said. “I think that that’s the case.”

The question of constitutionality of the so-called Slaughter Solution stems from the plain language of Article I, Section VII of the Constitution, which states that all bills must pass Congress via a vote in both chambers that is recorded in their journals:

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sunday excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

Radio host, Landmark Legal Foundation President, and former Justice Department Chief of Staff Mark Levin said that the Slaughter Solution was a “blatant violation” of the Constitution on his radio program on Thursday, March 11.

“I can’t think of a more blatant violation of the United States Constitution than this,” said Levin. “If this is done, this will create the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate. It would be law by fiat, which would mean government by fiat.”


President Barack Obama, flanked by health care professionals, speaks about health care reform in the East Room of the White House on March 3, 2010. (AP File Photo/Alex Brandon)
Constitutional law expert Arthur Fergenson, who litigated the Buckley v. Valeo case enshrining campaign spending as a form of constitutionally protected speech, weighed in on Levin’s Thursday program, calling the plan “ludicrous,” saying that such a move would be “dangerous” because it would amount to Congress ignoring the clear constitutional provision for how a law is approved.

Fergenson explained that both chambers of Congress must each vote on identical bills before the president can sign them into law. Any bill signed by the president that had not first been voted on by both the House and Senate would be a “nullity,” he said.

“It’s preposterous, it’s ludicrous, but it’s also dangerous,” Fergenson said. “It is common sense that a bill is the same item. It can’t be multiple bills. It can’t be mash-ups of bills. It has to be identical, that’s why the House and Senate after they pass versions of the bill--and we just had this with what was euphemistically called the jobs bill--if there are any changes they have to be re-voted by both chambers until they are identical.”

“Both chambers have to vote on the bill,” Fergenson said. “If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House--and there would be a bill presented (to Obama) engrossed by the House and Senate and sent to the president for his signature that was a bill that had not been voted on identically by the two houses of Congress--that bill would be a nullity. It is not law, that is chaos.”

Former federal judge and the director of Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center Michael W. McConnell agreed with Fergenson’s assessment. Writing in The Wall Street Journal on March 15, McConnell called the Slaughter Solution “clever but … not constitutional.” McConnell noted that the House could not pass a package of amendments to a health reform bill it had not passed first.

“It may be clever, but it is not constitutional,” said McConnell in the Journal. “To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a ‘Bill’ to ‘become a Law,’ it ‘shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate’ and be ‘presented to the President of the United States’ for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has ‘passed’ both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.”

“The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote,” wrote McConnell. “The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the ‘exact text’ must be approved by one house; the other house must approve ‘precisely the same text.’”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62813

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.
Ronald Reagan
ducatirider944 is offline  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-17-2010, 01:22 AM
Gandy Dancer
 
AK Gandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Villages
Posts: 5,972
Re: Someone prove this wrong?

With the Supreme's listing hard to the right these days, I don't thing the Dem's would try something that even might be "unconstitutional"................................. that would end up in front of them.

Never have so many politicians, screwed so many Americans...just to make one black person lose his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binderpower View Post
I can be possible.
AK Gandy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the PowerStrokeNation : Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome