Skip to comments.Alcee Hastings: 'There Ain't No Rules Here' on Health Care Reform
Posted on 03/21/2010 9:41:06 AM PDT by jessduntno
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) Florida, a member of the House Rules Committee, made one of those gaffes that is defined as speaking the truth when he really ought not to have. Hastings articulated the approach the Democrats are taking for health care reform.
"There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along."
For example, the House Democrats has attempted to use a trick called variously 'the Slaughter Rule", or "Deem and Pass" or, as some wags have suggested, "Demon Pass." This would have actually said that the Senate version of health care reform would have been "deemed to have been passed" with the House only voting on the reconciliation package that would have "fixed it." Late Saturday, the House dropped the scheme and is instead planning an up-or-down vote on the actual Senate bill and a separate vote on the reconciliation package.
There have been two theories concerning this development. One is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the 216 votes needed to pass health care reform and thus has no need for these kind of dodgy legislative gymnastics. The other is that Pelosi has concluded that "demon pass" is a little too dodgy, will hurt the House Democrats even more, and might not pass Constitutional muster.
As of this writing, the House Democrats do not seem to have secured the magic 216 votes needed to pass health care reform. That may change by the time this is read or not or perhaps even several times.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
The situation is so bad that Rep. Gene Taylor (D) Mississippi, himself a no vote, has advised his fellow Democrats who are planning to vote to vote and then run like hell, out of the House chamber, and out of town, the better to avoid the Speaker's strong arm tactics."
“...run like hell...”
Then, you’ll only be tired when they get you.
Geez! Um, what did he get impeached for?
Absolutely pathetic. No wonder certain voters are in such dire lifestyles on a permanent basis. They just keep electing same idiots year in and year out
A crook admits that he and his cohorts don’t play by rules. Nothing new here.
To all Americans
"A Republic, if you can keep it."
We are witnessing the overthrow of our government by domestic terrorists disguised as representatives of the American people. We must vote these enemies of freedom out of office in November and again in 2012. To do less is to accept slavery and the destruction of our country. That is, if we have any freedom or a country left in 2012.
My district is adjacent to Alcee “Buckwheat” Hastings’. You can imagine the kind of human detritus that continues to re-elect this hump. And on the other side of us is Nanzi’s pet gerbil, Debbie Wasserman-Test.
Amen to that, well said.
When have rules ever applied to Alcee Hastings?
NO, stand firm, form a line against her, make her walk through them and onto the plank. What the hell are they afraid of, my gosh, she ain't NOTHING.
Alice in Dumberland is hopeless. Off with her head!
“We are witnessing the overthrow of our government by domestic terrorists disguised as representatives of the American people.”
This needs to be screamed outloud AGAIN AND AGAIN!!!
The media relishes allowing them airtime to do it as well. IN YOUR FACE, whacha gonna do bout it.
Well...gee...then, if “there ain’t no rules”.....then I guess my taxes just are NOT due, are they?
So now, the vote will be at 6 p.m. Guess the Dems still have some more bribing or “persuading” to do.
“You can imagine the kind of human detritus that continues to re-elect this hump.”
Not being from FL, I would guess fellow melatonin enriched individuals?
Love the “human detritus” description!
These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No
Constitutional Control Over Each Other
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 1, 1788.
To the People of the State of New York:
IT WAS shown in the last paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other. I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained. It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others.
What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved. Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex. The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority.
They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.
In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions. The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments. It is not unfrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative sphere.
On the other side, the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat themselves. Nor is this all: as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people, and has in some constitutions full discretion, and in all a prevailing influence, over the pecuniary rewards of those who fill the other departments, a dependence is thus created in the latter, which gives still greater facility to encroachments of the former. I have appealed to our own experience for the truth of what I advance on this subject. Were it necessary to verify this experience by particular proofs, they might be multiplied without end. I might find a witness in every citizen who has shared in, or been attentive to, the course of public administrations. I might collect vouchers in abundance from the records and archives of every State in the Union. But as a more concise, and at the same time equally satisfactory, evidence, I will refer to the example of two States, attested by two unexceptionable authorities.
The first example is that of Virginia, a State which, as we have seen, has expressly declared in its constitution, that the three great departments ought not to be intermixed. The authority in support of it is Mr. Jefferson, who, besides his other advantages for remarking the operation of the government, was himself the chief magistrate of it. In order to convey fully the ideas with which his experience had impressed him on this subject, it will be necessary to quote a passage of some length from his very interesting “Notes on the State of Virginia,’’ p. 195. “All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. BUT NO BARRIER WAS PROVIDED BETWEEN THESE SEVERAL POWERS. The judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, IN MANY instances, DECIDED RIGHTS which should have been left to JUDICIARY CONTROVERSY, and THE DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE, DURING THE WHOLE TIME OF THEIR SESSION, IS BECOMING HABITUAL AND FAMILIAR.
‘’The other State which I shall take for an example is Pennsylvania; and the other authority, the Council of Censors, which assembled in the years 1783 and 1784. A part of the duty of this body, as marked out by the constitution, was “to inquire whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of government had performed their duty as guardians of the people, or assumed to themselves, or exercised, other or greater powers than they are entitled to by the constitution. ‘’ In the execution of this trust, the council were necessarily led to a comparison of both the legislative and executive proceedings, with the constitutional powers of these departments; and from the facts enumerated, and to the truth of most of which both sides in the council subscribed, it appears that the constitution had been flagrantly violated by the legislature in a variety of important instances. A great number of laws had been passed, violating, without any apparent necessity, the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people; although this is one of the precautions chiefly relied on by the constitution against improper acts of legislature. The constitutional trial by jury had been violated, and powers assumed which had not been delegated by the constitution. Executive powers had been usurped. The salaries of the judges, which the constitution expressly requires to be fixed, had been occasionally varied; and cases belonging to the judiciary department frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination. Those who wish to see the several particulars falling under each of these heads, may consult the journals of the council, which are in print. Some of them, it will be found, may be imputable to peculiar circumstances connected with the war; but the greater part of them may be considered as the spontaneous shoots of an ill-constituted government.
It appears, also, that the executive department had not been innocent of frequent breaches of the constitution. There are three observations, however, which ought to be made on this head: FIRST, a great proportion of the instances were either immediately produced by the necessities of the war, or recommended by Congress or the commander-in-chief; SECONDLY, in most of the other instances, they conformed either to the declared or the known sentiments of the legislative department; THIRDLY, the executive department of Pennsylvania is distinguished from that of the other States by the number of members composing it. In this respect, it has as much affinity to a legislative assembly as to an executive council. And being at once exempt from the restraint of an individual responsibility for the acts of the body, and deriving confidence from mutual example and joint influence, unauthorized measures would, of course, be more freely hazarded, than where the executive department is administered by a single hand, or by a few hands.
The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.
If this country doesn’t explode tomorrow morning, we deserve everything we get.
Come November when we take back the congress we can start the hearings. I hope they only put people in jail for the next two years. And after
Alcee Hastings—the last Federal judge impeached by Congress.
Alec Hastings, should have been barred from federal office after getting impeached.
Is that like running from a Marine Sniper...you’ll only die tired?
“Is that like running from a Marine Sniper...youll only die tired?”
That’s EXACTLY what it will be like.
“Alec Hastings, should have been barred from federal office after getting impeached.”
He’s a Dem...they take all kinds, just like in Blazing Saddles; thieves, murderers, rapists, cutthroats, Mugs, Pugs, Thugs, Nitwits, Half-wits, Dimwits, Vipers, Con men, Muggers, Buggerers, Bulldykes, Hornswagglers...then they wail about hypocrisy when a Pubbie gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar and they start screaming “hypocrite” because they are such scum sucking bottom feeders they couldn’t POSSIBLY do anything vile enough to be pushed from the Dim Party.
21 March 2010-—is this the day that our Democratic Republic died?
just like in Blazing Saddles; thieves, murderers, rapists, cutthroats, Mugs, Pugs, Thugs, Nitwits, Half-wits, Dimwits, Vipers, ...etc...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
During one of the ‘interviews’ the applicant named his ‘crime’ 3 or 4 times and was told “You already said that” to which he replied “It is one of my favorites”...
I want to say he repeated rape but not quite sure...
Blazing Saddles, is like Catch 22 and Seinfeld, almost EVERY situation in real life can be cited as an example in those works....
Hitler made lots of deals too, to consolidate power and make himself the totaltarian dictator..
In another memorable quote from this "intellect" Hastings, he insinuated during the last presidential campaign that Sarah Palin was bigoted against blacks and Jews because she hunts moose!
Yes, there's little doubt that the inmates are running the asylum.
No different than Monica Conyers telling the detroit city council president.
“You gonna be respectin me all up in here.”
In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing two votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont voting to convict his fellow party member, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter voting to acquit.
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.
Sporkin found some “crucial distinctions” between Nixon’s case and Hastings’s, specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually “tried” his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin’s ruling was vacated and Hastings’s conviction and removal were upheld.
 Candidacy for state office
In 1990, Hastings attempted to make a political comeback by running for Secretary of State of Florida, campaigning on a platform of legalizing casinos. In a three-way Democratic primary, he placed second with 313,758 votes, or 33%, behind newspaper columnist Jim Minter’s 357,340 votes (38%) and ahead of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon John Paul Rogers’ 275,370 votes (29%). In the runoff, which saw a large dropoff in turnout, Hastings lost to Minter in a landslide, 300,022 votes to 146,375. Minter would go on to lose the general election to incumbent Republican Jim Smith.
 Congressional career
Hastings was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1992, representing Florida’s 23rd district. After placing second in the initial Democratic primary for the post, he scored an upset victory over State Representative Lois J. Frankel in the runoff and went on to easily win election in the heavily-Democratic district. From that point on he has yet to face a serious challenge for reelection.
He is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and was elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in July 2004. Today, as a Senior Democratic Whip, Hastings is an influential member of the Democratic leadership. Representative Hastings is also a member of the powerful House Rules Committee and is a senior Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). On the HPSCI, Hastings is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
He was one of the 31 who voted in the House not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.
Hastings voted to impeach Texas federal judge Samuel B. Kent on all four counts presented against him on June 19, 2009.
By what convoluted “logic” did Hastings come to this bizarre conclusion?
By what convoluted logic did Hastings come to this bizarre conclusion?
The same logic by which they claim that opposition to abortion indicates a bias towards Black people, or that opposition to homosexuality indicates a bias against Black people, or opposition to euthanasia indicates a bias against Black people, or opposition to atheism indicates a bias against Black people, or . . .
Something has to be done now!
Oh! THAT logic!
How could I have been so negligent so as to forget THAT!
What a dark day in our nation’s history. One sixth of the economy will be taken over. It could make winning control of Congress in November an empty victory.
By his own stupidity. He said it at an event sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC). Apparently his audience, equally idiotic, thought it was funny, because the NJDC, IIRC, posted it on their site.
I guess that audience would come under the heading of self-loathing liberalism being a mental disorder. (sigh)
"If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anyone toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with blacks and Jews. So, you just think this through."
Even Jewish Democrat Susan Estrich thought that Hastings' statement was idiotic.
[Yes, there’s little doubt that the inmates are running the asylum.]
They have no fear of saying or doing anything now.
Thanks for the ping!
When Susan Estrogen sneers at a dimocrat,
It’s GOT to be BAD!
At the rate the Rats are going, we will not have any freedom or country left unless we revolt.
"There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along."As if we didn't know. :') Thanks justiceseeker93.