GOOD NEWS? Drudge links report of GOP REVOLT!

[Liability]

House GOP revolts against Boehner plan - Washington Times

Mr. Boehner’s bill would reduce future discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion, grant an immediate debt increase of $1 trillion, and set up a committee to work on trillions of dollars in future deficit reduction either through more spending cuts or tax increases, which would then earn another future debt increase. It would also require both the House and Senate to hold votes on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states.

Id.

It could cut in unexpected ways, but as a matter of principle: GOOD!

 

[Full-Auto]

House GOP revolts against Boehner plan - Washington Times

Mr. Boehner’s bill would reduce future discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion, grant an immediate debt increase of $1 trillion, and set up a committee to work on trillions of dollars in future deficit reduction either through more spending cuts or tax increases, which would then earn another future debt increase. It would also require both the House and Senate to hold votes on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states.

Id.

It could cut in unexpected ways, but as a matter of principle: GOOD!

Thats what debate is all about. I still like the NOT ANOTHER DIME.

 

[Conservative]

But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states.

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the only way to send an amendment to the Constitution to the states, for it to be voted on by the House, Senate... passed... signed by the President? Isn't it then up to 3/4's of the states to ratify it?

 

[Liability]

But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states.

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the only way to send an amendment to the Constitution to the states, for it to be voted on by the House, Senate... passed... signed by the President? Isn't it then up to 3/4's of the states to ratify it?

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. * * * *

-- Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

See:

Article 5 - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Conservatives are not happy with the milktoast republicans who keep watering down the plan...if it's not going to do the real job that is needed....why pass it....?

some are promoting a bill to priortize bond payments, social security, and military pay if nothing gets passed by Aug 2...

 

[the_savage]

Obama will have no bill to sign so he won't get blamed for this crash that is coming

 

[8537]

Demanding that a Balanced Budget amendment has "assurances it will be sent to the states" is voting for default. I wish the Tea Partiers would just be honest.

 

[Liability]

Demanding that a Balanced Budget amendment has "assurances it will be sent to the states" is voting for default. I wish the Tea Partiers would just be honest.

No. It's not.

I wish you'd be honest.

 

[Liability]

Obama will have no bill to sign so he won't get blamed for this crash that is coming

There is no default coming (even if there's no agreement). There will be no "crash" coming unless, for traitorous partisan political reasons, the liberal Democrats cause one.

 

[8537]

Demanding that a Balanced Budget amendment has "assurances it will be sent to the states" is voting for default. I wish the Tea Partiers would just be honest.

No. It's not.

I wish you'd be honest.

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.

 

[the_savage]

Conservatives are not happy with the milktoast republicans who keep watering down the plan...if it's not going to do the job....why pass it....?

some are promoting a bill to priortize bond payments, social security, and military pay if nothing gets passed by Aug 2...

Obama will veto it! There is a big sheeet sandwich coming and America is going to eat it! ha ha ha!! Hope and Change!!!

 

[8537]

Conservatives are not happy with the milktoast republicans who keep watering down the plan...if it's not going to do the job....why pass it....?

some are promoting a bill to priortize bond payments, social security, and military pay if nothing gets passed by Aug 2...

Obama will veto it! There is a big sheeet sandwich coming and America is going to eat it! ha ha ha!! Hope and Change!!!

Another so-called patriotic conservatarian cheering economic collapse and millions of Americans losing their livelyhoods? Just another day in the USMessageboard office.

 

[the_savage]

Obama will have no bill to sign so he won't get blamed for this crash that is coming

There is no default coming (even if there's no agreement). There will be no "crash" coming unless, for traitorous partisan political reasons, the liberal Democrats cause one.

The Tea Party is blocking the bill and it is going to cause a big crash. It's all good bro, don't worry, sometimes out of extreme hardship comes good. I'm enjoying the ride!

 

[the_savage]

Conservatives are not happy with the milktoast republicans who keep watering down the plan...if it's not going to do the job....why pass it....?

some are promoting a bill to priortize bond payments, social security, and military pay if nothing gets passed by Aug 2...

Obama will veto it! There is a big sheeet sandwich coming and America is going to eat it! ha ha ha!! Hope and Change!!!

Another so-called patriotic conservatarian cheering economic collapse and millions of Americans losing their livelyhoods? Just another day in the USMessageboard office.

That's what Americans voted for in 2008 when they gave us this guy. He's as bad as Abe Lincoln! Crash and burn America! We earned it

 

[Conservative]

But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states.

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the only way to send an amendment to the Constitution to the states, for it to be voted on by the House, Senate... passed... signed by the President? Isn't it then up to 3/4's of the states to ratify it?

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. * * * *

-- Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

See:

Article 5 - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Ok.. thakns. So, other than the President art, I was close

 

[8537]

Obama will veto it! There is a big sheeet sandwich coming and America is going to eat it! ha ha ha!! Hope and Change!!!

Another so-called patriotic conservatarian cheering economic collapse and millions of Americans losing their livelyhoods? Just another day in the USMessageboard office.

That's what Americans voted for in 2008 when they gave us this guy. He's as bad as Abe Lincoln! Crash and burn America! We earned it

Crash and Burn America? As bad as Abe Lincoln? LoL...surely you're a liberal, sent here to make conservatives look ridiculous.

 

[highway234]

Another so-called patriotic conservatarian cheering economic collapse and millions of Americans losing their livelyhoods? Just another day in the USMessageboard office.

where there's cons, there's treason. the internet taught me that.

 

[the_savage]

Another so-called patriotic conservatarian cheering economic collapse and millions of Americans losing their livelyhoods? Just another day in the USMessageboard office.

where there's cons, there's treason. the internet taught me that.

Tough love, but you wouldn't understand that

 

[highway234]

where there's cons, there's treason. the internet taught me that.

Tough love, but you wouldn't understand that

riight. we had to destroy the country in order to save it from the scary black president. never mind that the cons cared not a whit about fiscal responsibility when bush was president, and will immediately stop caring about it when a republican gets back in the white house, but when there's a democrat in the white house, they're perfectly willing to destroy the country simply to undermine him. you can call that a lot of things, but "patriotism" ain't one of them. if you were sent by a foreign adversary to undermine america from within, i'm not sure what you cons would do differently.

 

[the_savage]

Another so-called patriotic conservatarian cheering economic collapse and millions of Americans losing their livelyhoods? Just another day in the USMessageboard office.

That's what Americans voted for in 2008 when they gave us this guy. He's as bad as Abe Lincoln! Crash and burn America! We earned it

Crash and Burn America? As bad as Abe Lincoln? LoL...surely you're a liberal, sent here to make conservatives look ridiculous.

Don't EVER call me a liberal!