Landmark Legal Foundation to File Suit to Stop President’s Health Plan if...

The T

George S. Patton Party
May 24, 2009
48,111
5,582
1,773
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
Landmark Legal Foundation to File Suit to Stop President’s Health Plan if ‘Slaughter Rule’ is Used <Landmark Legal

(LEESBURG, VA, MARCH 17, 2010)…Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called “deem and pass,” “self-executing,” or “Slaughter Rule” to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance.

“Landmark has already prepared a lawsuit that will be filed in federal court the moment the House acts. Such a brazen violation of the core functions of Congress simply cannot be ignored. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is clear respecting the manner in which a bill becomes law. Members are required to vote on this bill, not claim they did when they didn’t. The Speaker of the House and her lieutenants are temporary custodians of congressional authority. They are not empowered to do permanent violence to our Constitution.”

Draft Available HERE **

**OP NOTE: You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader To View the Documents. There are 9 Pages

Get Adobe Reader HERE

______________________

I hope they USE the "Slaughter Rule"...I hope the Court takes the case...it will FREEZE this shit for the time to HEAR the case...

What say you? (KUDOS TO MARK LEVIN)

~T
 
**OP NOTE**

The Link to the text Of the Lawsuit has been updated as of a few hours ago, despite the story came out yesterday...so the links are valid as of a couple hours ago *Per Mark Levin*.

Stand up for your Liberty Folks...

~T
 
Citizenship, at a minimum.
 
Their standing? *IF* you know Mark Levin? He worked for Ronald Reagan...Mark, and his foundation watchdog the Government for Constitutional issues...

*This One* is of import, citing the Constitution Article 1, Section 7, Clause two in regard to the Slaughter Rule, launched last week by Pelosi, and the Democrats...

The LINK to the site is there in the OP. A bit of googling would be beneficial. The Foundation are Constitutionalists...
 
Ohhhhh NOOOOOOooooooooooo

mr-bill.jpg


Not a LAWSUIT!!! Please....Please.... Not that

What will we do?? What will we do??
 
Ohhhhh NOOOOOOooooooooooo

mr-bill.jpg


Not a LAWSUIT!!! Please....Please.... Not that

What will we do?? What will we do??

Right, what good will a lawsuit do against a marxist who wipes his ass with the constitution ? .......... :clap2:
 
Ohhhhh NOOOOOOooooooooooo

mr-bill.jpg


Not a LAWSUIT!!! Please....Please.... Not that

What will we do?? What will we do??
As with all your posts........no logical substance. Typical liberal reaction.:cuckoo:

That's because RW is an Idiot, and thinks the Constitution is just a piece of moldy PARCHMENT that deserves to be ignored...*NEVERMIND* that it is the ROOT of ALL LAW in this Republic.

RW has hereby shown he is just a HACK, and isn't here for substanitive Conversation...he/she/IT is just a MORON with too much time on their hands.
 
NOT FAIR!

The Democrats passed the Healthcare Bill

crying-baby-272x300.jpg
 
This is all one big cluster fuck...I sure hope that all these crooks that vote yes goes to fucking JAIL! Enemy of the states!
 

They need specific standing to challege this bill. They need some sort of injury. What is it?

Being forced to buy health care is the standing. Being threatened with penalty if they do not. Neither is legal.

That would be it...AND another is Article 1, Section 7, Clause TWO of the Constitution...

It sets a nasty precident to where the Congress may use such a rule to circumvent the intent of the Constitution to where each BILL presented to the President for signature will have proper Signatures affixed to the entirety of a Bill, rather than to Rule Changes, or *Allowed Amendmets* by the Ruling Party, in the FORM of an amendment with "Pretending" that the entire Bill was read and understood by each member of the house...as the Senate bill...with the "PROMISE" that the "KINKS" would be worked out later....

That is what this is about.

*I* Affix a HUGE HELL NO to the Slaughter Rule...
 
Last edited:
They need specific standing to challege this bill. They need some sort of injury. What is it?

Being forced to buy health care is the standing. Being threatened with penalty if they do not. Neither is legal.

That would be it...AND another is Article 1, Section 7, Clause TWO of the Constitution...

It sets a nasty precident to where the Congress may use such a rule to circumvent the intent of the Constitution to where each BILL presented to the President for signature will have proper Signatures affixed to the entirety of a Bill, rather than to Rule Changes, or *Allowed Amendmets* by the Ruling Party, in the FORM of an amendment with "Pretending" that the entire Bill was read and understood by each member of the house...as the Senate bill...with the "PROMISE" that the "KINKS" would be worked out later....

That is what this is about.

*I* Affix a HUGE HELL NO to the Slaughter Rule...
T,

Did you hear what Judge Napolitano said about Levin's case?
 

They need specific standing to challege this bill. They need some sort of injury. What is it?

Being forced to buy health care is the standing. Being threatened with penalty if they do not. Neither is legal.

this is the likely winner, it goes beyond mere taxpayer 'standing' and into a specific injury that is not simply about your tax dollars and the litigant has a personal stake and it can be redressed by a court

simple taxpayer standing will basically only pass if the tax spent specifically violates the constitution or a high court ruling
 

Forum List

Back
Top