Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/17/2010 10:13:42 AM PDT by rightcoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: rightcoast

if these bastards pull this crap I say we go occupy washington


2 posted on 03/17/2010 10:14:29 AM PDT by Mr. K (This administration IS WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast

Impeach those who fail to defend the Constitution


4 posted on 03/17/2010 10:16:00 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast

I expect a lengthy court battle that ends up in the Supreme Court. I also believe it is unconstitutional to tell Americans what produtts they have to purchase.


5 posted on 03/17/2010 10:18:25 AM PDT by mlocher (USA is a sovereign nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast

7 posted on 03/17/2010 10:22:46 AM PDT by Bobalu (In Missouri now...back among my own people :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast
"Article I, Section 7 of the US Constituion lays out the process for a bill becoming a law. From that section: "

The process may be unconstitutional, but it's not unconstitutional for the reason you cite. You're leaving out two sentences from the paragraph you partially quote. The "But in all such Cases", refers directly and solely to cases where Congress is overruling a Presidential Veto.

I'm not sure who started this Art I, Sec 7 business, but it's insanely silly. For you to be accurate, every voice taken to pass legislation in either bicameral body, has been unconstitutional. If that's true, surely you can point to at least one case where such legislation passed by voice vote has been held to be unconstitutional, right. Can you even point to a single case that was brought, or that was granted cert based on your premise?

The Founder included in Art 5, the following paragraph...

"Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."

Why would the Framers include this provision in Sec 5, only to demand that ALL votes be recorded in Section 7? Does that make any logical sense to you? It certainly doesn't to any Constitutional scholar that has ever actually studied the Constitution.

8 posted on 03/17/2010 10:23:28 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast

I will never speak or write the word Democrat again...

They are DEEMOCRATS.


9 posted on 03/17/2010 10:25:35 AM PDT by jessduntno (A third party has risen; we have the Republicans, the Tea Party and the Deemocrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast

Mark Levin and Landmark Legal have confirmed that they will assert a Constitutional legal challenge if this passes in this way.

SnakeDoc


10 posted on 03/17/2010 10:25:57 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions." -- Robin Hood (Russell Crowe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast
Why is the House Republican leadership not hammering this point home relentlessly?

Personally, I'd like to think that it's because behind closed doors, they're saying, "Pleasepleaseplease PLEASE try it!"

Shalom.

15 posted on 03/17/2010 11:42:03 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightcoast

Thanks for your post. I find your discussion thoughtful and challenging and matches my thoughts. Here’s a questions I sent to askglennanything@yahoo.com: Dear Glenn,...
Even if the health care bill is passed, some say it would not withstand a constitutional challenge and the U.S. Supreme Court may throw out the law. There is the argument that that “Slaughter solution” is an unconstitutional avoidance of a direct vote on the healthcare bill, and the Senate’s proposed use of reconciliation is meant only for laws that are already in effect. Do you think these challenges are valid? Can you think of any other constitutional challenges?


16 posted on 03/17/2010 12:22:38 PM PDT by freedom1778 (Question to askglennanything@gmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson