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 nation’s history. What they’re 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 Senate’s 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 Senate’s 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 hasn’t read might be irresponsible. “It’s 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 ...
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.
SHORT bills.
“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 Senate’s 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, they’ve 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...
LOL
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.