Posted on 03/16/2010 3:34:49 AM PDT by Man50D
Very True, and whilst ever we hold these words as truth in our hearts, the country will always belong to us and not them. This is not over by a long shot. Even if the bill passes. It will have only just begun.
“The non-repeal clause in a piece of legislation does not trump the Constitutional prerogatives of a Congress to write new legislation.”
I agree... and if you can say it... why not drier or any other elected republican Ostrich? That is a weak but prime example of what I am suggesting.
LLS
A California elected Republican... must be about like the communists we have around here... we only have a few... mostly College professors that never made it in real life.
LLS
“Look at the post right above your response... that is what I think that they could be doing. Public opinion will never be brought to a deafening roar by talking about procedures and tactics... we need an in your face counter attack on the evilcrats and their destruction of our way of life. All we get is pablum with a side order of mush”
ABSOLUTELY!!!! The Ace in this game is the Consitituion. We must use it and they cannot escape it.
““If this passes and is signed into law, I think it becomes law,” Dreier said. “I’m not a constitutional lawyer and that’s the response from some of the experts with whom I’ve spoken – I didn’t speak to but have gotten some input from. I’m not in a position to raise the (constitutionality) question right now.” “
Drier is a fool. If he doesn’t know Constitutional Law, why is he shooting off his mouth to a bunch of thugs?
“Drier sounds like he’s encouraging the Rats to do this.”
Of course he is. There is no other reason to bring his opinion public.
We the people cannot depend on the current Supreme Court to declare the bill unconstitutional. At best the current court would rule 5-4 to declare the bill unconstitutional. However, Kennedy cannot be depended on and might be persuaded to vote the other way.
It will take months, if not a year or more, for the case to work its way through the legal system to reach the Supreme Court. Two of the justices who might support the proposition the bill is unconstitutional are over 70 years of age — Scalia (74) and Kennedy (73). No doubt if either departed the Court, Obama and the Democrat Congress would try to fill the vacancy with a left wing judge. It is likely they would be successful, tilting the balance of the Court permanently to those who openly advocate a “living” Constitution.
Today we have the tyranny of the imperial presidency supported by a rubber stamp Congress and a sometimes acquiescent judicial branch. Not unlike the tyranny of King George III and Parliament at the time of the Revolution. Our institutions have been corrupted. It is now time for the people to decide if they wish to live in slavery or shake off the chains of an oppressive collective government.
Hamas suicide belts are available.
“Yes except that Reid put thE phrase that this bill cannot be rescinded by any future Congress.”
Wanna bet, Reid??
Yes. Of course it’s unconstitutional. So was the VAWA. So has been much bipartisan, unconstitutional, anti-business, anti-family legislation over the years. Republican politicians have laughed in my face in their support of the efforts of NOW members in the judicial system. They’ve supported anti-competition regulations in nearly every locale for local special interests. If they want superior numbers in Congress, they’d better stop shoving special-interest-backed, politically correct candidates at us and get conservative.
Otherwise, spend, spend. They’ll get the default option, then we’ll get small, unintrusive government.
“The non-repeal clause in a piece of legislation does not trump the Constitutional prerogatives of a Congress to write new legislation.”
I understand that but I imagine it will take a ruling by the SCOTUS to affirm that the provision is unconstitutional. Otherwise why have it in there.
I agree that Reid doesn’t get that the people are the ultimate government. But the “people” have been trumped by the pols before and will be so again.
Don’t like it or agree with it but there it is.
Please read all my posts, and all the replies debating my replies, starting here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2470758/posts?page=16#16
Please read thoughtfully with a copy of the Constitution open to Art I Sec 7 next to you.
Because of the construction of Paragraph 2 from beginning to end, taken as a whole, I find it clear that the Yeas and Nays are only required to be reported on the 2/3 votes to over-ride presidential vetoes.
Please note that I’m not saying bills do not need to be voted on, but rather that each house has the power to determine the rules for the process of legislating, as long as the rules do not violate the restrictions and mandates in the Constitution.
So, IMO, the Slaughter House Rule will not be overturned by the USSC.
that is my reading as well. I’m a little stunned that so many have latched on to the this clause. Its not very helpful.
That the same piece of legislation must be presented to president is with out question. Not an amended bill. Not an appended bill. Same bill to be signed. The yeas and nays are not required. That being said, its disgusting to have a rule that by passes even so much as a voice vote. (which is quite common.)
Thank you. You are the first FReeper to agree with me.
No, you are not alone.
I’m with you too.
The Cornhusker Kickback
The Lousiana Purchase
The Slaughter House Rules
that George Lakoff guy must really be swilling the Maalox these days
The fix is in.
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.