The Slaughter Solution: The Metamorphosis of The American Republic Into Government By Fiat

NewsReal ^ | MARCH 14 | LIZ BLAINE

[cliff630]

You write Ummm, dems are going to be voted OUT of
power over this one.

What most of the freepers don't realize is that for
every vote the dems lose they will pick up two or
three. The new bill brings in 30 million who don't
have HC. Also, zero plans to initiate a scheme to
issue a work ID card for illegals. Don't you think
many of those will vote? ACORN will see to it that
votes will go to areas to assure that the dems hold
hold their majority. For 2012 Odumba only needs to
carry Florida & Ohio. I haven't even included
this new rider for the Govt. to take over the college
loan program. Please, someone show me that I haven't
overlooked something and/or my reasoning is skewed.

[John-Irish]

And also Eisenhower had no qualms about putting owners of business’s who hired illegals in jail. Not fining them but actually putting them in jail. A nation that won’t protect it’s borders is a traitor to it’s people.

[freekitty]

I agree

[chichipow]

“And here’s a post supporting the constitutionality of the self-executing rule.”

From a liberal douche bag. Same for TIME.

Nice. Fan the flames over at DU please.

[opentalk]

bump

[kittykat77]

Okay, last time around on this one. All I'm saying is that (1) the self-executing rule has been used before and by both parties; (2) at the time, neither party in the minority bothered to challenge its use in court; (3) the reason why neither party has challenged the use of the self-executing rule in court is because both parties want to reserve the option of using it when they're in the majority. That's politics for you.

Mark Levin has said the same thing. Is he a flaming liberal douchebag?

Now, is there an established legal distinction between using the self-executing rule for raising debt ceilings versus implementing Obamacare? There doesn't seem to be. I haven't found any info saying that the House limits the use of self-executing rules only to certain matters. If you find something saying so, please send me the link.

Now, is there an ethical distinction between using the self-executing rule for raising debt ceilings versus implementing Obamacare? That's for the voters to decide in November.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have been reluctant to get involved in disputes concerning Senate and House rules. If Obamacare should pass, the best option is to challenge it in court on its very shaky constitutional grounds, ie, the individual mandate.

[chichipow]

Last time. A self executing rule used to raise the debt ceiling because there was clerical error I believe. The Dems that are proposing it now were against it even though it was because of clerical error. The SCOTUS said it was constitutional because of INTENT. This is completely different.

Or am I completely wrong here?

Your links were suspect to say the least. Link Levine then. Problem is, I’m thinking he’s saying what I’ve been saying while you are seeming to cheerlead for the Dem’s response and the precedent set forth by procedural minutia done by Congress when it was a Republican majority like the links you posted.

[chichipow]

BTW the link from Levine would be great.

This is what I found him saying so far -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470576/posts

[kittykat77]

My comment about Levin is based on his phone interview on Neil Cavuto’s FOXNews show yesterday (Monday 3/14/10). I’ll see if there’s a transcript available.

[kittykat77]

Better than a transcript! Here’s the YouTube link. The clip runs about 8-9 minutes. Watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dai9aHxpSsE