So, nothing on the unconstitutional practices Pelosi is trying...?

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Now, que, or whoever, I can find some right wing hit piece on HOW Pelosi is using the constitution as a personal tampon? However, I know the only thing that would accomplished is ridicule from the likes of Vegas and Thought. So I ask you, Que, the almighty, ALWAYS objective, moderator to PLEASE post the Washington Post article dealing with health care that came out.....I THINK MONDAY. I'll appreciate it...
 
Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care

:smh: I just don't know why people even vote for these hypocrites.

source: Huffington Post
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"
The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.
Officials at several hospitals in that area declined to give out information on patient visits.


I would like to see how ignorant I will be when Palin is running against Obama.
custom_1244578630421_begging.jpeg

"Please Sarah, Please Run Against Obama!"
source Yahoo News
Sarah Palin shopping reality TV series
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Sarah Palin -- reality TV star?
The former Alaska governor is teaming with uber-producer Mark Burnett ("Survivor") to shop a reality series about her home state, network sources confirm. Palin and Burnett made the rounds at least three of the major broadcasters (NBC, ABC and Fox) while in Los Angeles for her taping of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" this week.
Palin and her family would be on-camera in the show, which one executive described as "'Planet Earth' meets Alaska meets her family," referring to Discovery's high-definition nature hit.
"There's an awful lot of interest in her," one executive said. "As a short-order series, it might work. It would depend on what kind of footage you get."
 
Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care

:smh: I just don't know why people even vote for these hypocrites.

source: Huffington Post
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"
The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.
Officials at several hospitals in that area declined to give out information on patient visits.



custom_1244578630421_begging.jpeg

"Please Sarah, Please Run Against Obama!"
source Yahoo News
Sarah Palin shopping reality TV series
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Sarah Palin -- reality TV star?
The former Alaska governor is teaming with uber-producer Mark Burnett ("Survivor") to shop a reality series about her home state, network sources confirm. Palin and Burnett made the rounds at least three of the major broadcasters (NBC, ABC and Fox) while in Los Angeles for her taping of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" this week.
Palin and her family would be on-camera in the show, which one executive described as "'Planet Earth' meets Alaska meets her family," referring to Discovery's high-definition nature hit.
"There's an awful lot of interest in her," one executive said. "As a short-order series, it might work. It would depend on what kind of footage you get."

Still on Palin I see?

Surely she will get destroyed by Obama if the election was held right now...

Still waiting on Que to be "objective" .
 
Still on Palin I see?

Surely she will get destroyed by Obama if the election was held right now...

Still waiting on Que to be "objective" .


You "conveniently" stayed out of that thread. You are more suited to commenting on the Mavericks or your dreads rather than politics.
 
Now, que, or whoever, I can find some right wing hit piece on HOW Pelosi is using the constitution as a personal tampon? However, I know the only thing that would accomplished is ridicule from the likes of Vegas and Thought. So I ask you, Que, the almighty, ALWAYS objective, moderator to PLEASE post the Washington Post article dealing with health care that came out.....I THINK MONDAY. I'll appreciate it...

If you saw the article, if you knew the article to exist, you should have posted it. I'm not doing your homework for you.


More importantly, however, you mentioned in the subject line the term "unconstitutional practices". Why don't you expound on that. What "unconstitutional practices" are you referring to ??? PLEASE CITE the authority (court of competent jurisdiction) that has declared the practices that you're referring to be unconstitutional.

I'm willing to bet, if a court has declared whatever practice you're referring to as unconstitutional, that practice will not be used to do whatever it is you're saying its being used to do.

SO, I understand that you're from Texas. I'm going give you an opporunity to do a famous Texas dance - - the Texas Two Step:

  • <font size="3">Step 1: Whats the unconstitutional practice ??? AND</font size>

  • <font size="4">Step 2: What court has declared that practice to be, unconstitutional ???</font size>

Step now, and <font size="3">Please be specific.</font size>

QueEx
 
If you saw the article, if you knew the article to exist, you should have posted it. I'm not doing your homework for you.


More importantly, however, you mentioned in the subject line the term "unconstitutional practices". Why don't you expound on that. What "unconstitutional practices" are you referring to ??? PLEASE CITE the authority (court of competent jurisdiction) that has declared the practices that you're referring to be unconstitutional.

I'm willing to bet, if a court has declared whatever practice you're referring to as unconstitutional, that practice will not be used to do whatever it is you're saying its being used to do.

SO, I understand that you're from Texas. I'm going give you an opporunity to do a famous Texas dance - - the Texas Two Step:

  • <font size="3">Step 1: Whats the unconstitutional practice ??? AND</font size>

  • <font size="4">Step 2: What court has declared that practice to be, unconstitutional ???</font size>

Step now, and <font size="3">Please be specific.</font size>

QueEx

:dance:
Swing yer pardner, do see do....:lol:
 
If you saw the article, if you knew the article to exist, you should have posted it. I'm not doing your homework for you.


More importantly, however, you mentioned in the subject line the term "unconstitutional practices". Why don't you expound on that. What "unconstitutional practices" are you referring to ??? PLEASE CITE the authority (court of competent jurisdiction) that has declared the practices that you're referring to be unconstitutional.

I'm willing to bet, if a court has declared whatever practice you're referring to as unconstitutional, that practice will not be used to do whatever it is you're saying its being used to do.

SO, I understand that you're from Texas. I'm going give you an opporunity to do a famous Texas dance - - the Texas Two Step:

  • <font size="3">Step 1: Whats the unconstitutional practice ??? AND</font size>

  • <font size="4">Step 2: What court has declared that practice to be, unconstitutional ???</font size>

Step now, and <font size="3">Please be specific.</font size>

QueEx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031703593.html

Va. set to challenge federal health-care reform legislation

By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 18, 2010

RICHMOND -- Virginia will file a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Democratic health-care reform bill if Congress approves the measure, a spokesman for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II said Wednesday.

Cuccinelli (R), a social and fiscal conservative who has expressed deep skepticism about the growth of the federal government, has said since his fall election campaign that he was studying the legal issues involved in such a suit. His spokesman said Wednesday that Cuccinelli has decided he will challenge the measure.

The announcement came two days before President Obama is scheduled to visit Fairfax County to hold a final rally in support of the health-care bill before the congressional vote. Last week, Virginia became the first state to pass a bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key component of the bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.

Cuccinelli's spokesman Brian Gottstein would provide no details on the legal rationale for such a suit and indicated the office is studying the issue.

But in a column in this month's American Spectator magazine, Cuccinelli wrote that the reform efforts "violate the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments."

"Proponents of liberty must use all of the tools the Constitution provides to defend against this onslaught on our liberty," he wrote.

"In seeking to protect the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, we are vigorously pursuing freedom for our citizens in the face of a government that, no matter how well intentioned, seeks to expand its power at citizens' expense."

Also Wednesday, Cuccinelli wrote a letter to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), warning that use of a parliamentary procedure known as "deem and pass," in which the House would approve the Senate's health-care bill without a direct vote, would "expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge." Pelosi is weighing use of the procedure.

Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), said: "The governor shares the significant concerns raised about various components of the health-care bill currently in front of Congress, including the mandatory coverage piece of the legislation. He has not reviewed the constitutional issues involved in the 'deem and pass' procedure that may be employed for passage of the bill, and we cannot comment on that matter at this time."

It is not clear whether Cuccinelli and other state attorneys general would have standing to sue over the federal reform and whether such suits would find favor with the federal courts.

"The attorney general is tapped into a strong sentiment -- that Congress should not be telling us what we must do," said Richmond lawyer and constitutional scholar Steve Benjamin. "The problem is that Congress has been doing just that for over 80 years. The better chance for success probably lies at the polls."

Cuccinelli has filed legal challenges to the Obama administration's effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.



This is one of the articles. I couldn't find the one I was looking for...
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031703593.html

Va. set to challenge federal health-care reform legislation


This is one of the articles. I couldn't find the one I was looking for...

<font size="3">What ? ? ?

You step your ass in here wagging your tail like, "I got that mofo now, I got that mofo now . . ." :lol:

And, I give you an opportunity to do your best Texas Two Step . . .

AND, what do you do: SteppinFuckiingFetchit

GTFOH :lol:

</font size>
 
<font size="3">What ? ? ?

You step your ass in here wagging your tail like, "I got that mofo now, I got that mofo now . . ." :lol:

And, I give you an opportunity to do your best Texas Two Step . . .

AND, what do you do: SteppinFuckiingFetchit

GTFOH :lol:

</font size>

actually, this wasn't a "got you" moment. I just wanted to find that article. I'm not about to play your game Que.

BTW, I was fucking specific.

1. I knew it was the Washington POST.

2. I knew it was either between Monday, and Wednsday.

3. Rush, Hannity, and every other conservative talking head has been quoting from it. *If you was truly "objective" you would be able to listen to them without getting pissed off....but that's another subject*

4. I was simply giving you an opportunity to be "objective". Yet, you try to throw it back at me like I'm the one claiming to be the "middle man". How about being a good moderator, and actually figure out what I'm talking about. Hell, nothing has stopped you when it comes with finding anything, and everything to debunk my, or anyone's opinion/beliefs on a subject. Que, I thought you wouldn't be this damn defensive....
 
actually, this wasn't a "got you" moment. I just wanted to find that article. I'm not about to play your game Que.

:lol:

Mayne, I asked you to do the Texas Two Step (see my questions above).

Instead, you comeback with a damn <s>Line</s><u>Lyin</u>dance. :lol:


BTW, I was fucking specific.

1. I knew it was the Washington POST.

2. I knew it was either between Monday, and Wednsday.

3. Rush, Hannity, and every other conservative talking head has been quoting from it. *If you was truly "objective" you would be able to listen to them without getting pissed off....but that's another subject*

4. I was simply giving you an opportunity to be "objective". Yet, you try to throw it back at me like I'm the one claiming to be the "middle man". How about being a good moderator, and actually figure out what I'm talking about. Hell, nothing has stopped you when it comes with finding anything, and everything to debunk my, or anyone's opinion/beliefs on a subject. Que, I thought you wouldn't be this damn defensive....

Okay, Okay, Okay. I didn't know you were trying to be sarcastic-friendly. LOL

Seriously. I been peeping in and out of here but I'm kicking ass (at my office via tele-conference with a bunch of unrealistic attys and adjusters) this morning and I didn't have time to nuance your post.

But, what about those two questions ???

QueEx
 
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">

One again <i>ad nauseam</i> we are witnessing the RepubliKlan strategy for dealing with inconvenient truths; Lie!, Lie! Lie!, Lie! & Lie!<br>
4034791.jpg

<table width="500" border="6" color="#0000FF" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td><br><font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000"> If you want to know why the Lie!, Lie! & Lie! Strategy works so well with the RepubliKlan brain-addled base, <b>even though the lies are so easy to prove as false, look at the passage below.</b></font>
<blockquote><font color="#240466" size="4" face="trebuchet ms"><b>
Functional illiteracy in North America is epidemic. There are 7 million illiterate Americans. Another 27 million are unable to read well enough to complete a job application, and 30 million can’t read a simple sentence. There are some 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate – a figure that is growing by more than 2 million a year. A third of high-school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives, and neither do 42 percent of college graduates. In 2007, 80 percent of the families in the United States did not buy or read a book.</b></font></blockquote><br>
[/color] by Chris Hedges page 44</td>
</tr>
</table>

Now let us document the facts for those whose brains aren’t firmly encounsed in the rectum of the RepubliKlan lie factory.

With Democrats now about to use a constitutional procedure called "deem and pass" to efficiently pass the Senate bill with House & Senate agreed upon “fixes”; the RepubliKlan Lie Machine has been on blast 24/7 indoctrinating their brain-addled sycophants with perpetual lies.

The newest RepubliKlan Lie! is that "deem and pass" is illegal, even though one RepubliKlan politician after another – like Eric Cantor -- has been forced to admit when confronted directly in a reality-based forum that it's not only legal, but also commonplace.

Watch video of Cantor on ABC News admit “deem and pass” is legal and constitutional
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW">
When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, RepubliKlans used "deem and pass" 90 times in the 104th and 105th Congress .</span>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW">
When Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House during the BuShit administration "deem and pass" was used over 120 times.</span>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW">
The RepubliKlan congresses from 1995 until 2006 used "deem and pass" to pass over 300 bills.</span>


Where do these stubborn inconvenient facts and truth in the 3 sentences above come from?
Do they come from what RepubliKlans deride as the <i>Communist & Socialist Democratic Party?</i>

Do they come from what RepubliKlans deride as the <i>Lenin, Trotsky, Maoist,</i> New York Times?

Do they come from what RepubliKlans deride as the <i>Fidel Castro Vision MSNBC</i> cable channel?

NO! The truth is from those dreaded historians & scholars, the non-partisan Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

READ: When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to "deem and pass"

Now that the RepubliKlans running the Texas School board have removed Thomas Jefferson and Thurgood Marshall from the school textbooks, it's just a matter of time before they remove <i>"that socialist"</i> Woodrow Wilson too.

texas-books2.jpg

dems-majority-vote-310.jpg

hc-steam-roller.jpg


</font>
 
Aight, Aight! Let me come a little different than AAA. The whole damn thang is "unconstitutional"

"Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the government can force people to buy health insurance?"

I understand "elected" socialism but when it is forced, thats something different, right?
 
Last edited:
Aight, Aight! Let me come a little different than AAA. The whole damn thang is "unconstitutional"

"Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the government can force people to buy health insurance?"

I understand "elected" socialism but when it is forced, thats something different, right?

<font size="3">If you contend something is unconstitutional, please point to the "authority" that says, its unconstitutional. Authority = a court of competent jurisdiction.

Waiting . . .

QueEx

</font size>
 
Aight, Aight! Let me come a little different than AAA. The whole damn thang is "unconstitutional"

"Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the government can force people to buy health insurance?"

I understand "elected" socialism but when it is forced, thats something different, right?

When AAA says something reckless, it's okay because he's playing his role but I've come to expect better of Lamarr than this even though we often disagree.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is more about what the federal government can't do than what it can do.

<font size="3">If you contend something is unconstitutional, please point to the "authority" that says, its unconstitutional. Authority = a court of competent jurisdiction.

Waiting . . .

QueEx

</font size>

Waiting still. Rush and Hannity can't deem anything unconstitutional anymore than Chuck Grassley or John Boehner. The state of Virginia can sue and judges will decide the merit of their suit.
 
1. Pelosi is trying to bypass the senate bill by "deeming" it as law without putting it to a vote in the house. Read the article I posted...

2. There's no court YET. However, find me a bill that this has occurred with. This seems like a new scheme altogether... I need help on this....
 
<font size="3">If you contend something is unconstitutional, please point to the "authority" that says, its unconstitutional. Authority = a court of competent jurisdiction.

Waiting . . .

QueEx

</font size>

Good wordplay dawg! But get real, there is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, (that lists the powers of Congress) that says the Govt can force citizens to buy health insurance, NUTHIN!
 
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is more about what the federal government can't do than what it can do.

Exactly, my view is the Constitution was written to restrain the power/scope of govt. and to protect each of our civil liberties.

This Bill does neither, I just don't see where this "mandate" is visible in Article 1 Section 8.

Think about it Dave: The govt is going to force each citizen to buy health insurance. Thats Theft!

Now, let me be perfectly honest with the board: Dubya shredded the hell out of the 4th Amendment (FISA), so I have no allegiance to either side. I'm just callin it the way I see it :smh:
 
Exactly, my view is the Constitution was written to restrain the power/scope of govt. and to protect each of our civil liberties.

This Bill does neither, I just don't see where this "mandate" is visible in Article 1 Section 8.

Think about it Dave: The govt is going to force each citizen to buy health insurance. Thats Theft!

Now, let me be perfectly honest with the board: Dubya shredded the hell out of the 4th Amendment (FISA), so I have no allegiance to either side. I'm just callin it the way I see it :smh:

I did mean to insinuate that you were playing the "one side against another/ Libs are bad,Conseratives good" game. You're usually better than that but when you call something "unconstitutional" that word has real meaning and shouldn't be flippantly thrown around. The mandate may be but it will take a court to figure that out. As it is, the government already makes people buy many things from motorcycle helmets to baby seats for your car and the pro-mandate side will argue that this falls into the same category.
 
Now, que, or whoever, I can find some right wing hit piece on HOW Pelosi is using the constitution as a personal tampon? However, I know the only thing that would accomplished is ridicule from the likes of Vegas and Thought. So I ask you, Que, the almighty, ALWAYS objective, moderator to PLEASE post the Washington Post article dealing with health care that came out.....I THINK MONDAY. I'll appreciate it...

Think for yourself.Don't parrot talking point arguments dude! The RePUBICans used the same procedure called "deem and pass" over 13 times in the last couple of years!

Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush Tax cuts(The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote!),and the 2006 Tax relief extension act 0f 2006 ( the final vote being 54-44!Don't go there!

Wanna talk about accountability? What about Turd Blossom and the boys:Rove,Bush and Cheney? They literally have the Blood of over four thousand American lives on their hands! Were you really concerned then? How about the RePUBICans funding the Iraqi war on the backs of our children? You all also had the gall to not even properly account for it in the National Budget! Concerned then?

You and your peeps are Hypocrites who count on the fact that you keep the masses of people brain-washed,Titty-fed of course by The Faux News Channel,flavored with wedge issues and slander to work against their own best interest!!
:smh:Dumb Asses!:smh:
 
You're usually better than that but when you call something "unconstitutional" that word has real meaning and shouldn't be flippantly thrown around. The mandate may be but it will take a court to figure that out. As it is, the government already makes people buy many things from motorcycle helmets to baby seats for your car and the pro-mandate side will argue that this falls into the same category.

point taken, so let me rephrase: I strongly question the constitutionality of forcing citizens to buy health insurance ;).

I still stand firmly by the principle though: There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 giving Congress the authority to force citizens to buy health insurance.

Atleast, in the past, we could choose not to drive or not to ride a motorcycle, you know? This scenario says pay me or your going to jail! It's like child support without the child (oops, my bad, there I go again, huh? But think about it

I've said all I wanna say, so I'll let AAA speak his peace
 
Think for yourself.Don't parrot talking point arguments dude! The RePUBICans used the same procedure called "deem and pass" over 13 times in the last couple of years!

Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush Tax cuts(The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote!),and the 2006 Tax relief extension act 0f 2006 ( the final vote being 54-44!Don't go there!

Wanna talk about accountability? What about Turd Blossom and the boys:Rove,Bush and Cheney? They literally have the Blood of over four thousand American lives on their hands! Were you really concerned then? How about the RePUBICans funding the Iraqi war on the backs of our children? You all also had the gall to not even properly account for it in the National Budget! Concerned then?

You and your peeps are Hypocrites who count on the fact that you keep the masses of people brain-washed,Titty-fed of course by The Faux News Channel,flavored with wedge issues and slander to work against their own best interest!!
:smh:Dumb Asses!:smh:

1. The vice president can be the tie breaker in any senate vote if it's a tie. If you don't know this rule, go watch F 9-11. Al Gore could of signed the protest the Black caucus had for the 2000 election *he chose not to*.

2. Still on Iraq huh? Speaking on Iraq, funny that the media kinda forgot the death toll when OBAMA got in office... BTW, if there's blood on Bush's and my hands, there's blood on every democrat that voted for it. Not to mention, KEPT VOTING FOR FUNDING EVEN AFTER THEY CLAIM BUSH LIED. Funny how you forgot to mention that.... Have it ever occurred to you that all the things the democrats said during Bush's last year was utter bullshit? Just let that marinate...

3. I love how people wanna call conservative hypocrites like we suppose to be perfect. What is with people wanting other people to fall on their ass anyway? If you asked me, I think its a form of hating. I guess since the republicans can get big bills that will actually HELP America pass, people has to hate. Face it, Bush got more shit done because the bills he was for benefited the majority who voted for it. Obama wants your party to fall on the health care sword, and many are rebelling against it. That's why you think Republicans are to blame. Before you step into a debate, please make sure your side is doing the right thing, the right way.

BTW, please do not think Iraq will not pay itself. Maybe we might get some oil money in the process..... Win Win right?
 


Since this video Dennis Kucinich has sold out once he went on that plane and they offered his wife a job to work with Michelle Obama.
http://www.infowars.com/kucinich-sells-out-on-health-care-after-ride-in-air-force-one/


Kucinich did not sell out. He didn't want the good to be the enemy of the perfect. If he aided in the defeat of this (half ass in a lot of ways) bill, there wouldn't be another attempt for another decade and then health care wouldn't be 1/6th of our economy but at least a fifth. There have been two options presented: do something or do nothing. Dennis Kucinich decided for the former.
 
KUHNER: Impeach the president?
The 'Slaughter Solution' would violate the Constitution
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.

Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.

Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

OTHER TWT STORIES:
• Democrats make final reform push
• Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
• Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
• Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census


Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/
 
KUHNER: Impeach the president?
The 'Slaughter Solution' would violate the Constitution


In a word that I hope doesn't get me banned: bullshit. No one ever worried about the constitutionality of "deem and pass" when Republicans used it repeatedly but now it's a top concern.
 
In a word that I hope doesn't get me banned: bullshit. No one ever worried about the constitutionality of "deem and pass" when Republicans used it repeatedly but now it's a top concern.


All this concern from the republicans about the process of passing law of late. How disingenuous.
 
Both Democrats and Republicans have pissed on the constitution, I am not a Democrat or Republican I am a political atheist at the end of the Democrats are about social welfare and the Republicans are about corporate welfare:smh:. When is America going to wake up and break of away from this 2 party system which at the end of the day they both fuck the middle class:smh:.
In a word that I hope doesn't get me banned: bullshit. No one ever worried about the constitutionality of "deem and pass" when Republicans used it repeatedly but now it's a top concern.
 
Both Democrats and Republicans have pissed on the constitution, I am not a Democrat or Republican I am a political atheist at the end of the Democrats are about social welfare and the Republicans are about corporate welfare:smh:. When is America going to wake up and break of away from this 2 party system which at the end of the day they both fuck the middle class:smh:.

Some truth but there's nothing unconstitutional about "deem and pass". Both parties are co-opted by different constituencies: Labor and unions for the Dems, Big Business for the Republicans (with Big Business playing both sides, depending on who's winning). I'm politically independent and a registered Independent but I know that there are more people on my level that belong to unions and are members of labor than own major corporations so I vote in my own interests and the interests of my neighbors.
And I'm not challenging you directly but I am challenging the author of the article you printed and the Washington Times where it was printed.
 
Is the problem that its HEALTH insurance?
Doesn't the government make you buy auto insurance?
Is that unconstitutional?

I know one is state and one is fed, but same deal, right?
 
Is the problem that its HEALTH insurance?
Doesn't the government make you buy auto insurance?
Is that unconstitutional?

I know one is state and one is fed, but same deal, right?

The government makes you buy auto insurance, however, they also allows auto insurance to be sold over state lines. Something this bill does not allow...
 
In a word that I hope doesn't get me banned: bullshit. No one ever worried about the constitutionality of "deem and pass" when Republicans used it repeatedly but now it's a top concern.

When has this happened so I can stand corrected?

BTW, the slaughter proposal *the deem and pass bill* was shot down. Pelosi has to get her votes now...
 
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">

One again <i>ad nauseam</i> we are witnessing the RepubliKlan strategy for dealing with inconvenient truths; Lie!, Lie! Lie!, Lie! & Lie!<br>
4034791.jpg

<table width="500" border="6" color="#0000FF" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<td><br><font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000"> If you want to know why the Lie!, Lie! & Lie! Strategy works so well with the RepubliKlan brain-addled base, <b>even though the lies are so easy to prove as false, look at the passage below.</b></font>
<blockquote><font color="#240466" size="4" face="trebuchet ms"><b>
Functional illiteracy in North America is epidemic. There are 7 million illiterate Americans. Another 27 million are unable to read well enough to complete a job application, and 30 million can’t read a simple sentence. There are some 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate – a figure that is growing by more than 2 million a year. A third of high-school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives, and neither do 42 percent of college graduates. In 2007, 80 percent of the families in the United States did not buy or read a book.</b></font></blockquote><br>
[/color] by Chris Hedges page 44</td>
</tr>
</table>

Now let us document the facts for those whose brains aren’t firmly encounsed in the rectum of the RepubliKlan lie factory.

With Democrats now about to use a constitutional procedure called "deem and pass" to efficiently pass the Senate bill with House & Senate agreed upon “fixes”; the RepubliKlan Lie Machine has been on blast 24/7 indoctrinating their brain-addled sycophants with perpetual lies.

The newest RepubliKlan Lie! is that "deem and pass" is illegal, even though one RepubliKlan politician after another – like Eric Cantor -- has been forced to admit when confronted directly in a reality-based forum that it's not only legal, but also commonplace.

Watch video of Cantor on ABC News admit “deem and pass” is legal and constitutional
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW">
When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, RepubliKlans used "deem and pass" 90 times in the 104th and 105th Congress .</span>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW">
When Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House during the BuShit administration "deem and pass" was used over 120 times.</span>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW">
The RepubliKlan congresses from 1995 until 2006 used "deem and pass" to pass over 300 bills.</span>


Where do these stubborn inconvenient facts and truth in the 3 sentences above come from?
Do they come from what RepubliKlans deride as the <i>Communist & Socialist Democratic Party?</i>

Do they come from what RepubliKlans deride as the <i>Lenin, Trotsky, Maoist,</i> New York Times?

Do they come from what RepubliKlans deride as the <i>Fidel Castro Vision MSNBC</i> cable channel?

NO! The truth is from those dreaded historians & scholars, the non-partisan Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

READ: When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to "deem and pass"

Now that the RepubliKlans running the Texas School board have removed Thomas Jefferson and Thurgood Marshall from the school textbooks, it's just a matter of time before they remove <i>"that socialist"</i> Woodrow Wilson too.

texas-books2.jpg

dems-majority-vote-310.jpg

hc-steam-roller.jpg


</font>

The government makes you buy auto insurance, however, they also allows auto insurance to be sold over state lines. Something this bill does not allow...

I think this could have been done by rescinding the anti-trust exemptions that health insurance companies have but that was fought strongly by Republicans and some conservative Dems/Ind.

When has this happened so I can stand corrected?
BTW, the slaughter proposal *the deem and pass bill* was shot down. Pelosi has to get her votes now...


Did you really ask me to show you something that was already posted in this thread? That's lazy as hell, Triple-A.
 
I think this could have been done by rescinding the anti-trust exemptions that health insurance companies have but that was fought strongly by Republicans and some conservative Dems/Ind.




Did you really ask me to show you something that was already posted in this thread? That's lazy as hell, Triple-A.

That's lazy as hell, Triple-A.

Did you expect any thing else?
 
I think this could have been done by rescinding the anti-trust exemptions that health insurance companies have but that was fought strongly by Republicans and some conservative Dems/Ind.




Did you really ask me to show you something that was already posted in this thread? That's lazy as hell, Triple-A.

Did you expect any thing else?

look the proof was on y'all side. Hell I'm trying to play devil's advocate, but people like you two will just let me win huh?
 
Back
Top