'A Threat to Our Democracy'

8 replies [Last post]
Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009

'A Threat to Our Democracy'

"Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go into any legislator and say, if you don't vote our way on this bill, we're going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district. And that is a threat to our democracy. It's going to further reduce the voice of the American people, and it's something we have to push back vigorously on." --White House aide David Axelrod on ABC's "This Week," March 14

"At the same time, Obama intends to lobby wavering House Democrats to vote for a Senate version of the [ObamaCare] legislation and to support the subsequent reconciliation process, which Republicans have characterized as an unjustified use of majority power. Among the rewards Obama is ready to offer, White House officials said, are election-year visits to competitive congressional districts, where a presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds." --Washington Post, March 11

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Joe.. this whole mess in blatenly Unconstitutional..

For the Dems to try a Parlimentory trick in the Slaughter Rule by voting on the rule and they then "Deem the Bill as passed without ever voting on the bill" is CRIMINAL at best Subversive at worst..

“The Democrat health care bill that’s being brought through the Congress this week is nothing more than a government takeover of health care, and the American people know it. I know the administration doesn’t like us to use that phrase, but come on. When you mandate that every American purchase health insurance whether they want it or need it or not, you mandate that every business provide it, you create a massive government-run bureaucracy exchange that mandates what’s in insurance plans, you wrap that all in about $1 trillion worth of spending, that’s a government takeover of health care.

“But what’s really remarkable about this whole business is that not only the American people rejected this plan but Democrats are so desperate to pass it that they’re willing to trample on the traditional rules of the House and Senate and even trample on the Constitution of the United States to get it done.

“The Constitution provides that a bill becomes a law if it’s passed the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats actually don’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill, so they’ve decided they’re going to try and pass the bill without a vote.

“Well that would be news to the Founders of this country, and a betrayal of the commitment of every Member of this Congress to the American people. I urge the Speaker, if you have the votes for the Senate bill, bring it to the floor. If you don’t, let’s scrap the bill and start over for the American people.” Rep Mike Pence

"It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. 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."Michael McConnell Constitutional scholar

"Signaling her growing desperation, Nancy Pelosi said Monday that a Rules Committee scheme to "deem" the healthcare bill as having passed the House without being voted on had won her support. "I like it," the speaker of the House told a roundtable of bloggers Monday, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." For Pelosi, winning is no longer the most important thing. It has become the only thing--and apparently by any means necessary. "USNews

They will do anything.. Including subverting the Constitution is no biggie for them.

We have lost our Government.. Can you say Torches and Pitchforks.. Oh YES WE CAN...

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Lindsey

This kind of talk---pitchforks and not voting on bills--is what is unconstitutional!
The ayes have it!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bonk Old Ben said it best about you

"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason."
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1735

and as for the Pitchforks.. well lets say there is Historical precedence for just such a action...

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."John Adams

"Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent."
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Rewards??? An Obama visit is a reward??? Please....

"Among the rewards Obama is ready to offer, White House officials said, are election-year visits to competitive congressional districts, where a presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds."

Better consult Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, and Martha Coakley about how much of a "reward" his visit was for them. Also, check that article on Huff & Puff about all those Congressional candidates who suddenly had "schedule conflicts" when the Community Organizer came to campaign for them. I'm sure Harry Reid is banking on Obama's recent campaign visit to turn those abysmal poll numbers of his around too.

Did anyone arrange for Obama to campaign for King Roy yet????

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Punishment instead of reward

Withholding an Obama appearance isn't punishment by any means, but sending Pelosi or Reid would be. If they really want to twist some Dems' arms, threatening to have one of those clowns campaigning for you in your home district would probably work a lot better than some BS about Obama not coming. Who wants him campaigning for you when the last 3 elections he showed that his coattails are very short?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Joe, SL, MOC Unconstitutional?

Apparently, "deeming" legislation to have passed is not a violation of the Constitution. Each house can make its own rules and if the House decides that an Act has passed and forwards it to the Senate or President, then it has passed.

However, The Supremes have ruled in several cases that before legislation can be deemed as passed from the legislative branch and sent to the Prez for signature, the language must be identical in bills passed by both houses. It appears that this will not be the case if the bill is included in a reconciliation package.

It certainly appears that this would be un-Constitutional legislation unless the Senate re-votes. This is way into arcane rules and so this is just my opinion not backed by precedent. I'm just throwing in my two cents worth, but expect the challenge to be against the language of the bill, not against the rules by which it was passed.

It's risky business by the House either way.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff according to most Constitutional Scholars

that are commenting on Deem and pass all say this method of passing a bill by NOT voting on it is Un-Constitutional.

It clearly violates Article 1 Section 7

"It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. 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."Michael McConnell Constitutional scholar"

This was one of DOZENS I found on the subject..

"Speaker Pelosi is trying to give House members a way of saying they did not vote for the Senate bill, but my point is that however much she and they may be trying to do this rhetorically, she and they can't really do this politically and constitutionally. They have to take responsibility for what they are doing and the language of the bill has to say that they are taking responsibility. This is the point of Article I, section 7.Jack Balkin

"If I were advising somebody," on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, "I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it,’” said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization Public Citizen. “What does ‘deem’ mean? In class I always say it means ‘let's pretend.’ 'Deems' means it's not true.”Politico

By not actually voting on the bill but using a Parliamentary trick by voting on a rule that says it is passed is wrong, CORRUPT and circumvents the SPIRIT of the Constitution..

Democrats are destroying themselves as fast as they are trying to destroy the Constitution.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
JeffC

Even though it is obvious, I must state I am not a lawyer and certainly not a Constitutional expert. It is a toss-up whether the Dems have gotten legal advice that this will pass muster or whether their egos and arrogance are out of control. Either way, they are going to ram this through and damn the fallout.

I do know this. They know this bill stinks. They also know they do not have the votes or they would schedule it for vote. It is obvious that this tactic is solely intended to provide cover for the Dems. They believe in this bill SO MUCH....that they don't want Dems to answer for their votes, either way. I can't fathom that the American voters would swallow this maneuver better than a straight up-and-down vote showdown. Arrogance knows no bounds here.

Finally, you gotta love Obama's statement today on "the process". He said "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate." Apparently none of his thugs do either.

Recent Comments