Posted on 04/04/2011 8:53:18 AM PDT by cc2k
Representative Richard Nugent
Fax: (202) 226-6559
1517 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Representative Nugent:
I saw the news about the “Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011.” I also noted your vote in favor of this piece of legislation.
While the title of the bill sounds like a good idea, did you actually read this bill before you voted on it? It is only 4 pages, sir, so it shouldn't have taken long to read it yourself.
I have some questions.
I'll start with Section 3 of the bill.
SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.(a) Treatment of Members During a Government Shutdown- The Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, respectively, shall not disburse to each Member or Delegate the amount of his or her salary for each day that--(1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution; or
(2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.
Are you familiar with Amendment 27 to the United States Constitution. That amendment states “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.” This section of H.R.1255 seems to be a direct contradiction to Amendment 27. Can you please explain how a Representative who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States could vote for this bill? Or point out where in H.R.1255 it states that this provision will not take effect until after the 2012 elections? Also, exactly how that will this provision apply to a government shutdown, for example, on April 8, 2011?
My second concern is with Section 2 of H.R.1255.
Article 1 Section 7 of the United States Constitution outlines how bills become law. The constitutional process is: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.”
SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.(a) Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011- If the House has not received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.
(b) Publication of Act- In publishing this Act in slip form and in the United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1, United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include after the date of approval, if applicable, an appendix setting forth the text of the bill referred to in subsection (a).
Mr. Nugent, can you please explain to me what amendment has been made to the Constitution which allows Section 2 of H.R.1255 to stand? Again, how can you, as a sworn Representative who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution have voted in favor of this measure?
Finally, I thought the Republican party was committed to more transparency, and to posting bills for the public to review for at least 72 hours before bringing them for a vote. This bill was introduced on March 30, and the final vote on passage was less than 48 hours later on April 1.
I look forward to your answers. You can fax the answers to me at ###-###-####.
Thank you for your attention to this,
Here are the 15 who actually read the bill and have some respect for the constitution:
If your representative is on that list, they deserve a glowing letter of praise. Please send them one. They are fighting the good fight.
I hate praising Demcorats. However, they got this one right. It was for all the wrong reasons (mostly pure partisanship) but their partisanship lead them blindly to a correct constitutional position.
If you have a Republican representative (such as mine) who voted for this, or even worse, cosponsored it (mine did that as well), you need to ask the constitutional questions about this.
Republicans, get a clue. If you want the support of Constitutional conservatives, you need to stand up for the constitution. This is yet another example of why Republicans in general have not earned my vote.
IMO, every Republican who voted for H.R.1255 needs a serious primary challenge from someone who understands the Constitution of the United States.
Just wondering out loud, does it make a difference that this is a resolution, and not a bill? I don’t think this is binding on the Senate since it is a resolution of the House. I don’t believe that resolutions have the force of law, they are merely the pulse of the body. I am certainly willing to be corrected.
But, I agree that the House shouldn’t be consuming time with such trivial matters when we are staring down the barrel of a multi-trillion dollar gun.
Best regards,
Gwjack
That would matter if it were true. H.R.1255 is a bill, not a resolutions. Bills that originate in the House of Representatives. House Resolutions get numbers H.Res.xxxx. Joint resolutions get numbers either H.J.Res. or S.J.Res. depending on where they originate.
gwjack wrote:
Just wondering out loud, does it make a difference that this is a resolution, and not a bill?
Thanks for your kind reply. I will call my “tea partier” congressman and ask his office the same questions you asked yours. Thank you for your vigilance on this!
Gwjack
It makes me Proud to find a true patriot such as you. Not someone who talks it, but someone who walks it,and takes a patriotic principled stand. I am a Purple Heart combat corpsman & Nam vet. I’ve always considered myself a patriotic man, even though I am more politically left leaning...a lot than some. In fact, I swore I’d never join this site because of the name calling,speculation,and denigration of people with opposing views.
However, I found your Letter to your Congressman re: H.R. 1255 while on the Internet last night. You not only demanded an explanation on his vote, but asked why an unconstitutional act was offerred and passed by the majority of House Republicans.
And, you asked if he had even read it? Well, it prompted me to look at it, and I was alarmed that the Republicans who took the first day of Congress to read the U.S. Constitution and swear an Oath to uphold it would then violate that Oath.
You asked your Congressman if it was a known unconstitutional act they committed? I read the Congressional record and they were told in debate that it was Unconstitutional and a knowing violation of their Oath.
Their response was that the Senate and President were responsible for this bill because they didn’t sign the related funding Bill the House passed on Feb. 19, 20ll. (the senate rejected it and the Pres. said he would veto it)
I suggest you look at for yourself and come to your own conclusion. The TeaParty congressman (new ones) authored it and Republicans joined it. My take: No bill, resolution, act, or piece of paper should be offered or passed if the author or sponsers or supporters admit it’s Unconstitutional on it’s face or content.
But, my purpose was to contact you because I wanted to give you the respect you deserve for being a true patriot. I believe you are more of a patriot than those who do acts that are offensive to our U.S. Constitution, in the undeserved name of being a true “patriot.”
You changed my mind about this site, and if everyone who is a member has your character I am glad I joined. You are a man of principal, character, and everyone should admire your actions even if it’s not popular with some. If you would accept my sincere thanks and admiration, I would consider it an honor to correspond with you.
My motto on politics is that we have a two party system and compromise is how laws get made. I don’t like bully Dems or Repubs, but I respect their right to disagree. I only wish that they would respect one another and respect their sworn duty. Thanks Again cc2k or whatever you real name is...
John D. Baker
Educated, definitely.
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.