Inaugural Speech by the New Speaker of the House

American Thinker ^ | December 14, 2012 | J.T. Hatter

[neverdem]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, fellow congressmen and women, and my fellow citizens. I'm pleased to take up the gavel as your new Majority Leader and Speaker of the House of Representatives. I wish my predecessor all the best as he resumes his duties as a member of the House from Ohio.

We have a new beginning today and I want the American people to know that everything is on the table. And I do mean everything. We have an ambitious term planned. I promise you we will work diligently to accomplish the following:

First, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with its new chairman,will conduct a full investigation on the question of President Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.

This is a question that has hung over our republic for four long years, and the American people demand and deserve a clear answer to it. I have personally reviewed the investigative material collected by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his team of lawyers, detectives and document specialists, and I believe that the incongruities surrounding Obama's birth certificate, selective service records, and social security numbers, must be investigated. I find there is credible evidence that document fraud has occurred and we're going to get to the bottom of it all.

I will ask the Senate to undertake similar investigations and I will ask the Supreme Court for their definition of the term 'natural born citizen' under Section I, Article II of the Constitution. I will also ask the Supreme Court to clarify the definition of 'citizen' under the Fourteenth Amendment. Aliens should not be able to illegally enter our country and claim citizenship for their children born illegally on our soil. The American people deserve clear legal definitions and honest answers...

[neverdem]

Replacing Speaker Boehner - Here's how and why it has to be done.

J.T. sounds like a mad hatter, but why can't we dream?

[Arthur McGowan]

He’s a bit shaky on how the Constitution works. E.g., you don’t go to any court and just ask questions.

[Malesherbes]

Put another wad in your pipe and dream on.

What could be done - by Boehner or any other Republican Speaker - is to do what Newt Gingrich has suggested. Instead of massive appropriations, start nickle and dimeing the Senate with small bills. For example, the appropriation for the EPA would be a single bill with deep cuts. If the Senate or BO rejects it, the EPA gets nothing.

It would be a continuing battle but it would show that the House has real power.

[Yosemitest]

Righteously mad, I'd say.
And there's plenty of evidence on ALL accounts. Go get'em, Newt!

[nathanbedford]

Nor can the House of Representatives alone build a border fence. It can investigate why no border fence has been built, it can pass a bill that a border fence should be built and hope for the concurrence of the Senate and the president, it can appropriate monies to build a fence, but unless our congresspersons themselves have become unaccountably invigorated and are willing to do a little pick and shovel work, they cannot build a fence.

But I understand what the author is trying to do, he is trying to run the government from the House of Representatives which is a very difficult undertaking and the closest we have come in my lifetime occurred under Newt Gingrich. There is much that can be done with House of Representatives alone, most of all it can provide the country with an alternative vision. That can only be done, however, with a spokesman who himself is not only articulate but happens to be invested of a vision.

The first words out of Boehner's mouth after the election were that he was going to acquiesce in "the law of the land" concerning Obama care which presumably means that the house will fund it. Here is an area in which the House of Representatives can actually act alone, but that was tossed to Obama free for the taking.

To anticipate a response from Boehner, it is unreasonable to expect the Speaker of the House to prevail against a freshly elected president when our presidential candidate funded with nearly $1 billion or more, could not convince the country. The response: if you cannot convince the country, step aside and let us find someone who can-or at least someone who is willing to try.

[Yosemitest]

Who said anything about going to court?
The House can hold hearing on anything they choose, and and they should do it on television, with NO closed hearings!
Yes, the House of Representatives can ask ANY question they choose, in ANY manner they choose, to WHOMEVER they choose,
and accept ANY evidence they choose to accept.
They set their own rules.

[Yosemitest]

Ah, excuse me, my FReind, but something you just said needs emphasizing.

"There is much that can be done with House of Representatives alone,
most of all it can provide the country with an alternative vision.
That can ONLY be done, however, with a spokesman who himself is not only articulate but happens to be INVESTED of a vision."

Thank you very much for those words.

[Arthur McGowan]

I’m not talking about hearings. I’m talking about his suggestion that anybody can go to the Supreme Court to get a definition of “citizen.”

The only way to get any such definition out of the Supreme Court is for someone to bring a lawsuit, and eventually get it heard before the Court.

[A. Patriot]

The only vision our present Speaker has is his own metro-sexual image he sees in the mirror. Obama/Boehner fellow narcissists.

[DNME]

The Framers gave so much power to the Congress because it represents most closely the will of the people. The House of Representatives is the voice of the people and the Senate is (or was, until that damned 17th Amendment) the voice of the States.

The bottom line is that We The People run this government, not the other way around. Checks and balances will keep the House from growing too big for its britches, but it would sure be nice to see the House walking around in something other than diapers.

So yeah, I agree. Get a strong Speaker in there and let the renovations begin!

[Yosemitest]

" I’m talking about his suggestion that anybody can go to the Supreme Court to get a definition of “citizen.” "

He's not talking about "anybody".
He's talking about the NEW Speaker of the House of Representatives Of the United States.

"The only way to get any such definition out of the Supreme Court is for someone to bring a lawsuit, and eventually get it heard before the Court."

Says WHO ?

I would assume the House of Representatives Speaker could send a formal letter, requesting each of the nine Supreme Court of the United States Judges

to write an opinion, stating what they think the definition of
"the term 'natural born citizen' under Section I, Article II of the Constitution" is,

Yes, he should have typed "under Article II, Section I; but that's a minor thing.
We know what he meant.
Bact to the debate... :

and to
"clarify the definition of 'citizen' under the Fourteenth Amendment".

Why would that be a problem?
Is there some law that says, "There can be no clarity." ?

WE THE PEOPLE ... really do need to know:

“Should states BE FORCED TO ACCEPT any candidate from a political party for presentation on state ballots even when the candidates do NOT meet the required qualifications?”

“Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II ‘natural born citizens,’ REGARDLESS of the citizenship of their parents?”

I think the answer to both is a resounding "NO !"
There is ample proof to anyone with the guts and vision to use it, to IMPEACH the Arab-Kenyan, and ALL his Fabian Fascists that surround and support him.

[Yosemitest]

I agree. Boehner is useless, and a real RINO!

[Arthur McGowan]

“Says WHO?”

Because that’s what a court IS. Courts hear cases. They do not respond to letters—from anybody.

[editor-surveyor]

Congress does have the right to request that the SCOTUS examine a pertinant point of law. Why would you believe otherwise? Because they rarely have the honesty to do so?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “It would be a continuing battle but it would show that the House has real power.” <<

.
But there is too little room in Boehner’s lace bikini panties for the balls required to follow that path.

[Arthur McGowan]

Needless to say, it’s news to me that a Court can act as a board of experts when there’s no case before them.