Posted on 12/28/2014 6:39:49 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The "CRomnibus" government funding bill passed handily last weekend, but not before Senators Lee and Cruz had their say. In a controversial move, the two senators managed to put their colleagues on record voting for or against funding President Obama's latest unconstitutional executive power grab. Many Republican senators, however, protest too much, claiming that Lee and Cruz may have allowed the Democrats to pass a number of executive nominees because of their insistence upon making their point.
As the story goes, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had promised to adjourn the Senate after passing the CRomnibus and a couple of other bills, leaving these controversial nominees on the table. The Republicans lambasting Senators Lee and Cruz are making the argument that Reid was absolutely, totally going to keep his word and not advance these controversial nominees. As Senator Lee has pointed out this was not only unlikely, but it would be “political malpractice” for a departing Democrat majority leader to fail to cram through every one of his president’s nominees as possible. In Lee's words, "if you think… that [Reid] was going to leave town without confirming everybody that he wanted to confirm in the post-nuclear Senate, they’re crazy."
Even the same day that Lee and Cruz put forth their point of order, Reid and the Democrats were reportedly searching for ways to get their nominees through before the end of the session. Were Lee and Cruz really supposed to let Reid’s non-binding promises stop them from exercising their ability to get the Senate on the record against executive overreach?
The point that dissenting Republicans are covering up is that their party alone could and should have held up the bloated spending bill on account of its many flaws, but they chose not to. But apparently, they were more concerned with getting home for the holidays without controversy, since 77 Senators, including 28 Republicans, voted to let the bloated Cromnibus through without a contest.
In the end, the real story is that a few principled senators exercised their ability to force their colleagues to go on the record supporting a massive presidential breach of Constitutional authority. The fact that their fellow Republicans are upset about this speaks volumes.
we’ll be rid of the apointees soon enough but those RINO’s votes are going to be around forever.
The EXEMPT must be held accountable
by Constitutional amendment.
They have created a new slavery of the
non-EXEMPT for the EXEMPT.
There must be a redistribution of wealth
from the EXEMPT to the non-EXEMPT.
“...The EXEMPT must be held accountable by Constitutional amendment...”
-
How would you word that; Maybe something like this?
All actions and activities of the federal government of the United States,
including all laws, all enactments, and all legislation of the federal government:
- Shall apply equally to each individual citizen of the United States; and
- Shall apply no preferential or punitive treatment for any individual citizen
of the United States based upon any distinction, including but not limited to age,
or race, or gender, or religion, or social status, or financial status,
or health status, or any other distinction;
except as a punishment for a federal crime wherein the party shall have been duly convicted.
I’ve heard that Freedom Works supports Amnesty ...
That’s a damned shame. Let’s see how much work FreedomWorks has cut out for it when we have millions of new Latino socialists voting in elections.
Please contemplate the mischief done by the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Yet this is worse: You just went on record as supporting the ERA. I suggest you consult Phyllis Schlafly as to why that's a bad idea.
The power to enforce a right is the power to violate it. Best we hose representatives who pull these stunts instead of enacting such legislative "fixes" that each become their own can of worms.
I was responding to a poster who said “we need an amendment”;
why is having all laws apply equally to all people bad?
A four year old girl is a person. I see that you can't envision drafting a four year old girl into the army as inappropriate. In other words, a just system does not treat all people the same because all people are not the same.
Good grief.
“...you can’t envision drafting a four year old girl into the army...”
-
no, and not even a 4 year old boy, for that matter...
The language you propose requires that children would be eligible for military service. People are not all the same. Treating them as if they are is unjust.
“we the people” are all created equal, ain’t that right?
That does not mean we are all the same or that we should all be treated as such. It is simply unjust to expect a child to be subject to the same laws as adults. Similarly, we have laws protecting the blind, the sick, and the injured that expect unequal treatment compared to those not suffering those maladies. If you refuse to deal with the foolishness of the language you have offered and the real-life examples I have offered as to why it won't work, then I won't waste my time discussing it further with you.
How about "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States", followed by a clarification that rules which grant government employees immunity to certain laws shall only be effective when those employees are making a good faith effort to carry out their legitimate duties, and when such protection is necessary to the carrying out of those duties. It should further note that illegitimate actions form no part of a person's legitimate duties, and it should further recognize that even if people who exhibit a certain standard of comment may be presumed to be acting in good faith, agents wanting to ensure legal protection for themselves must strive to attain a higher standard. An affirmative showing that someone deliberately failed to act according to that higher standard, even if their actions would otherwise have been presumed legitimate, should be considered a demonstration of bad faith.
One of the major mechanisms for the erosion of freedom is a presumption that if courts find some standard of overt conduct acceptable, that entitles agents to protection if they make a good faith effort to aim for that standard of conduct. If the conduct of those who fall short is held acceptable, then that will in turn become the new standard. Having separate thresholds for "agents whose conduct falls below level X should expect to be punished" and "agents wishing not to be punished must maintain their conduct above level Y" could help avoid such erosion if those who were shown to have deliberately acted below Y were considered eligible for punishment even if their conduct was not below X.
God Created Men; Sam Colt Made Them Equal .
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.