Posted on 03/20/2010 7:07:53 AM PDT by SE Mom
Edited on 03/21/2010 5:00:38 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
10 AM Rules Committee meeting (C-span2 LIVE all day)
11 AM Stupak press conference
12 PM Demonstration at the Capitol
3 PM Obama meets with the Democratic caucus
Sunday
2 p.m.: The House will debate for one hour the rules of debate for the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill.
3 p.m.: The House will vote to end debate and vote on the rules of the debate.
3:15 p.m.: The House will debate the reconciliation package for two hours.
5:15 p.m.: The House will vote on the reconciliation package.
5:30 p.m.: The House will debate for 15 minutes on a Republican substitute and then vote on the substitute.
6 p.m.: The House will vote on the final reconciliation package.
6:15 p.m.: If the reconciliation bill passes, the House will immediately vote on the Senate bill, without debate.
BUT what about the dems who are voting for this because it does have the abortion component? How does all that jive with the executive order? Something stinks to high heaven!
I voted McCAin, but we were in a no win situation. That election is over anyway. Conservatives voted for McCain. They didn’t vote Obama.
Doris Matsui. Democrat Sacramento.
Oh Lord, not Matsui! She gave this same spiel yesterday in front of the rules committee.
Wearing her SEIU purple, I see.
BINGO.
No way the guy sells his soul for a piece of paper that’s worth spit, and a few minutes to blather.
Methinks there was a carrot and stick here - and we may never know just what was at the other end of the stick..but we can sure imagine.
If the Republicans did not screw up, then we would not be facing this day. They acted like Democrats when they had the majority. Most of them are sell outs. It does not matter if they have an R in front of their name.
You need to vote for conservatives only. The hell with the party because the party always comes before the country. It’s screwed up.
I’m thinking National Strike.
The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president's whim is of course true. This particuar EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impound funds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can't use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.
You have a valid point. Obama has show America the real intent of the Democrat to destroy our nation. It sadly had to take him. McCain would have just had the same radicals after him as Bush.
Executive Order Hijinks [Andy McCarthy]
I know we tire of the hypocrisy, but I really think this is remarkable. We spent the eight years through January 19, 2009, listening to Democrats complain that President Bush had purportedly caused a constitutional crisis by issuing signing statements when he signed bills into law. Democrats and Arlen Specter (now a Democrat) complained that these unenforceable, non-binding expressions of the executive’s interpretation of the laws Bush was signing were a usurpation Congress’s power to enact legislation.
But now Democrats are going to abide not a mere signing statement but an executive order that purports to have the effect of legislation — in fact, has the effect of nullifying legislation that Congress is simultaneously enacting?
The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president’s whim is of course true. This particuar EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impound funds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can’t use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.
But even if all that weren’t true, how do we go from congressional Democrats claiming that signing statements were a shredding of the Constitution to congressional Democrats acquiescing in a claim that the president can enact or cancel out statutory law by diktat?
© National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved.
Darlin’ - I am soooooooooo there with you. Hubby bought two big bottles of Sangria and a huge bottle of pre-mix mojitos...I think he thinks if I’m drunk I’ll be quiet. Silly man should know better after almost 15 years of marriage.
So did I while holding my nose. But that was the last time ever. From now on, I vow to vote on principles, not on party affiliation.
We probably can’t get rid of it other than court challenge until 2012, but we have time. It does not go into effect right away.
See jenk's post to me here, # 2690
:)
I’m willing if that is what it takes.
Can someone please summarize the tax increases that go into effect as a result of this monstrosity?
Virginia Foxx R-North Carolina speaking against now.
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.