Skip to comments.Sen. Inhofe: Earmarks Apart Of Congress' "Constitutional Duties"
Posted on 11/15/2010 2:50:13 PM PST by i88schwartz
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) spent a lengthy period of time on the Senate floor this afternoon defending earmarks. Inhofe argues it is the constitutional duty (citing Article 1, Section 9) of the Congress to appropriate earmarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Inhoff...kiss my Obama.
Apart or “A part”?...makes a difference RCP.
This slug is up for reelection in 2012?
“This slug is up for reelection in 2012?
Technically he may have a point (i.e., why should Obama direct spending, and thereby have the power to ignore his state?). But TOO LATE. Mr. Inhofe should have made that point to Mr. McCain and ESPECIALLY Mr. Stevens first.
This is not the fight to pick - GIVE IT UP, at least for now. Mr. Inhofe is a top-of-the-line conservative, don’t throw it away for a few “demonstration projects”.
For a number of years now, Senator Inhofe has been among the top three or four most conservative U. S. Senators. We Okies aren’t going to “toss him” because of this.
Who are your two Senators? Care to compare?
U. S. Constitution Article I Section 9
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Sixteenth Amendment}
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Watering the Tree of Liberty from time to time is a duty as well.
Certainly not while he keeps the pork rolling in.
How do you spell R-I-N-O whiner?
Blame the poster. It’s correct at RCP.
Don't toss Inhofe. He's also one of the strongest crusaders in Congress against Al Gore and Global Warming.
“Blame the poster. Its correct at RCP.”
It is NOW. But I have a witness that it was wrong at RCP when I posted.
Dad: Junior, did you see that RCP blew it?
Junior: Yeh. I’m trying to text my friends. Friggin parents.
The problem I have with pork is that they are ADDED to bills in the middle of the night and have nothing to do with the bill itself. It could be the VA appropriation, and all of a sudden 1000 earmarks are added for bridges to nowhere, studies of mosquitoes in Brazil and for the son-in-law’s “green” business.
Earmarks are often used for wasteful projects, and thus they should be stopped for that reason alone regardless of their total cost.
Also, earmarks are also often used to bribe legislators to vote for other bills, and thus they should be stopped for that as well.
They are also used to keep people in power (look at Alaska) when they should get the boot.
They are bad in every way.
If you think that’s it, then you are exceedingly misinformed.
It’s hard to see your Blackberry when you’re reporting from your Mom’s basement...
(referring to RCP, not you)