Levin: Landmark Legal to File 'Immediate' Lawsuit if House Dems Use Slaughter Solutio

IF (and to whatever extent) the self-effectuating "rule" method of "passing" legislation has been used in the past, the present day use of that "technique" would still not be justified.

"But, Mommy! You let Timmy do it that way!" Great fucking legal scholarship, libs. :cuckoo:

By CONTRAST, for those who are willing to discuss the actual issue (and not resort to the limp theory of faux 'precedent' as justification),* here is a link to the current DRAFT version of the Landmark Legal Foundation Complaint in pdf format.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark Complaint (00013086-2).pdf

Of course, since the House has not yet acted, the complaint cannot yet have been filed. And it might get tweaked a bit before it does get filed, if the House does act in this glaringly unConstitutional fashion.


_____________________
* It is instructive to look at Mr. Levin's draft complaint at paragraph numbered "28" on this point:

"* * * * Thus far in the public debate on the constitutionality of the Rule, Plaintiffs have detected a marked silence on the legal merits by
[7]
those who would support the use of the “deemed approved” approach to “passing” legislation. The debate on the other side of the issue has been confined to a recitation of other recent occasions when a “deemed approved” procedure was utilized, the claim being that it was employed principally to avoid approval of bills raising the national debt limit and was done so by both parties whose Members wanted to avoid actually having to cast a yea or nay because it was politically expedient not to. Whatever relevance that might have to a political debate, it carries no weight before this Court in favor of the procedure."
Levin draft complaint, pp. 6-7, paragraph 28.
 
Last edited:
Wow are you vapid.

I entered a thread you had already posted in, so that means one of us is somehow (on that basis) "following around" the other?

You are certifiable.

Oh, and I even commented on something stupid you had said. You are demanding immunity from replies?

Go bark at the moon.

Now, IF you were inclined to respond to a post on the merits (this is what's technically known as a "contrary to fact hypothetical" since your normal style is to avoid being substantive and instead to always go for the ad hominem asides), you MIGHT have chosen to address how passing the Bill in the House via a "Rule" supposedly does not violate the Constitution, Article I, Section 7.

Of course, it's glaringly obvious that the proposed METHOD of "passing" the House bill would be a clear cut violation of that provision, so maybe this accounts for why you (as always) chose to avoid the topic and just resort to your vapid deflection shit, again, instead.


Damn! I have GOT TO stop doing this following you around!

Well, at least with a bullshit post like ^ that, you underscore your own dishonesty.

It's not like I expected you to actually address the point or be on topic.

Oops...I did it again.....
 
Unprincipled maggots tend to evade.

Now, then: are there any liberals out there who wish to actually contemplate what Mark Levin and Landmark Legal are prepared to argue in Court regarding the unconstitutionality of the House method (proposed method) of "deeming" the Senate version to be the version they previously passed, when, in fact, they simply never did pass the Senate version at all?

Are there any liberals here who have enough basic honesty and integrity to address the point on the merits?
 
Considering Republicans already got a ruling in favor of this when they had control, I don't see what kind of success Levin's gonna have.
 

(A) You ignore the Levin complaint at paragraph 28.

(B) the Marshall Field case was 1892.

(C) the Clinton case was 1998. (One might conclude therefore that Marshall Field is no longer "good law.")

and, most importantly,

(D) the cases are QUITE distinguishable.

In the Public Citizen case, the plaintiff's complaint (I mean, let's be honest about it) boiled down to a fucking quibble: They claimed that the complained of law was "invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate." [excerpt of a headnote in Public Citizen.]


In the case we are talking about, the House will NEVER EVER NOT ONCE have passed a bill akin to the Senate version. They will engage in a case of "let's pretend" thereby avoiding a vote with recorded ayes and Nays as required by the Constitution. That's your "Slaughter Rule" in a scummy nutshell.

It's bullshit and the SCOTUS is unlikely to let Congress simply eviscerate that Article and section and clause of the Constitution.
 
Does the constitution say that congress must vote on everything or just decide as in pass or fail?

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

I believe the Constitution itself answers your question.
 
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..


Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.

:cuckoo:

Actually, no he isn't. Outside the realm of the "thinking" of the modern American "liberal," lawsuits are supposed to be filed only when there is a good faith basis (factually and regarding the legal arguments to be made) supporting them.

As to the proper basis for the filing of a lawsuit, Mr. Levin is a Constitutional legal scholar and he doesn't require the permission of boredtoseeya to file a suit.

As to the underlying merits, Mark Levin's analysis is already spelled out. Although it runs contrary to the nature of the modern American "liberal," one is really required to actually take a look at the Constitution in order to see why the methodology proposed by the House is invalid.

Article I, Section 7 is not in the slightest bit unclear. The House "Rule" proposal unquestionably violates it.

To argue that other uses have been made, historically, of such a self-effectuating rule is to entirely miss the point. If something has been done in the past (generally over procedural matters), but it was improper to do it that way provides no support for us doing it again, now, especially on a non-procedural matter. How absurd.

Whether the prospective Levin lawsuit would work is another story. Our Judiciary is lame, too. But it's worth trying!



I wonder, if Obama REGRETS his blasting the United State Supreme's during the State of the Union speech?---: :lol:
 
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..


Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.

It is illegal and unconstitutional to try and pass a bill with no vote. Or did no one teach we are a Representative Republic with actual rules of democracy in our Congress?

Actually, I think the people know this, but it's fairly apparent that Obama doesn't.:lol::lol: And people say he is soooooooooooooooooooo smart. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Does the constitution say that congress must vote on everything or just decide as in pass or fail?

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

I believe the Constitution itself answers your question.

Umm "All bills for raising Revenue "....

Try again.
 
Does the constitution say that congress must vote on everything or just decide as in pass or fail?

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

I believe the Constitution itself answers your question.

Umm "All bills for raising Revenue "....

Try again.

No. Try thinking. Really; it might help you.

The FIRST clause is just ONE specific provision that requires that revenue bills originate in the HOUSE. IT is accomplished in one brief declarative sentence ending in a period. THEN the Framers moved on.

It is NOT THE CASE that all that follows in Article I, Section 7 is addressed to Revenue Bills. Your "reading" of that Article and Section of the Constitution is erroneous.

Are you really that lacking in the most basic understandings of the Constitution?
 
presumably, now, Landmark Legal's prospective lawsuit against the Administration (with Mark Levin as the named plaintiff) will not get filed.

To its marginal credit, at least the filthy liberoidal Democratics didn't try to "pass" the bill by way of a transparently invalid legal fiction. I don't give those rats much credit, but they at least passed it in a manner consistent with the Constitutional requirement of Article I, Section 7.

NOW it will be interesting to see how the various OTHER lawsuits opposing this Federal Government over-reach get litigated.

Virginia seems to be on the right track:
NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

* * * *
UPDATE 1-Virginia to sue U.S. over healthcare reform | Reuters

Impeccable logic.

The mind-bending and dishonest contortions the Administration will now have to engage in to answer that rational contention will be amusing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top