Skip to comments.Congressional Republicans Sink to ‘New Low’
Posted on 12/18/2010 10:46:39 AM PST by John Semmens
Both the White House and Congressional Democrats are upset about Republican plans to require that bills be read before being voted on.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the read-before-passing strategy a new low in this nations history. What theyre doing with the START Treaty, foe example, is both unconscionable and unconstitutional. Anyone familiar with the Constitution knows that the President is granted the power to make treaties. The Senates role is to advise and consent. There is no need for them to read the treaty. There is no Constitutional authorization for them to hold a treaty hostage with this kind of delaying tactic.
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) seconded and expanded upon Gibbs take on the issue. It would be bad enough if this problem were only confined to the Senate, Kerry complained. But the Republicans say they will be applying it to all legislation not just the Senates treaty consenting process. I mean, the omnibus spending bill is almost 2,000 pages long. Requiring us to read such bills before we pass them will severely hamper what we can get done in the limited time we have available.
Kerry rejected the contention that passing laws that he hasnt read might be irresponsible. Its not as if nobody has read these bills, Kerry argued. We have aides who do this sort of thing for us. Besides, pretty much everything we pass ends up in litigation anyway. The lawyers and the courts will parse the phraseology of the legislation and determine what it means. Why should we be required to duplicate their effort?
(Excerpt) Read more at azconserv1.wordpress.com ...
LOL! Good stuff!!! The "courts" do all the legislating these days!
bumpity bump bump
“There is no need for them to read the treaty.”
Then how are they going to “advise”?
If you go back into the Congressional Papers, you will find that Washington showed up at a Senate Session with his Secretary of War to complete a Treaty.
(In my own words) "Wait, said the Senator...we haven't even read it. We're not going to act on this."
Then what the hell am I doing here...and GW walked out with Knox at his side. He was flaming.
This is satire, my FRiend. Although, admittedly, I got halfway through the fourth paragraph before I even had an inkling it was satire. Such is the sad state of affairs in our nation today.
It is a sign and symptom of the intellectual disintegration of the libtards that it is very hard to tell the difference between satire and truth.
Sadly it’s not to far from the truth.
They have such huge brains, they’ve become clairvoyant?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question.
The lazy SOB, I'll bet he doesn't even wipe his own ass; 'I have aides to do that sort of thing'.
BTW look for the word "hostage" being used ad nauseam by the left during the next session of Congress.
LOL, I needed that!! Love it when you poke my ole buddy “Self Inflicted” Kerry.
Good job, once again.
Getting a little hard to write GOOD SATIRE, since the LEFT does and says the stupidest things right on cue.
You know, that’s not too far off from what Kerry actually said. Reminds me of John Conyers “read the bill” nonsense at the National Press Club.
You bet. I would hope the Republicans would treat the dim dam dems the same exact way they have treated us over the last few dozens of years.
Yes...the poorly written legislation and judicial interpretation is one of the biggest root problems we face.
Here is a thought maybe if you @$$h@t$ read them first maybe not so many would end up in litigation.
Blast! Got me AGAIN!!
Thanks again, John.
By the way, I love the rest of the piece, including the one about the Obamas not being invited to Prince William and Kate’s wedding.
Is Gibbs related to Baghdad Bob or Joseph Goebbel’s? Anyone know or is he too dense to claim a relationship to either one?
In my opinion, the biggest issue with this Congress is corruption and power-hungry, amoral liars who are human waste unworthy of being called an American.
Solution is simple.
“Consent” equals “allow.” To responsibly make a decision as to whether one should allow a treaty to enacted would require one to know and understand what was in the treaty.
“The Senates role is to advise and consent. There is no need for them to read the treaty. There is no Constitutional authorization for them to hold a treaty hostage with this kind of delaying tactic. “
How can the Senate “advise or consent” if they haven’t read the treaty????? Have you no brain matter at All, or do you just want “yes men?”
Well, what can I say? I swallowed it hook line and sinker!! Very good, John.
They have such huge brains, theyve become clairvoyant?.. I knew you’d say that.
AMEN! Actually bills should be no more than 3 or 4 pages long instead of these HUGE Nightmares that no one knows what’s in them.
Classic and oh so True.
An SEC official once told me exactly the same thing about a new regulation that her department was supposed to enforce. She was not even being semi-satirical.
Nice one, John.
“why should we duplicate their effort” - I love it.
Sorry but I’m just gonna consider this thread “read” and will see what it says later...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.