Read the 20th Amendment: New Republican Senators Violating US Constitution

[California Girl]

..we believe it would be improper for the Senate to consider the New START Treaty or any other treaty in a lame duck session prior to January 3, 2011.

That's nice that they believe that.

They're wrong, of course.

No. They're not. They said "improper," not illegal.

It is arguably "improper." It would, despite that, be perfectly lawful.

There is a great alternative, however.

Lame duck the lame duck session. FILIBUSTER the damn ratification process until the new Term begins.

Lots of Americans seem to struggle with very basic comprehension skills. I blame the public school system for turning out stupid people.

 

[Liability]

The incomings cannot filibuster till they are sworn, Liability.

No shit, Sherlock. The present Senate CAN, however.

Democratic Caucus
(59 members)
Republican Conference
(41 members)

Unless some fucking RINOs broke ranks, it would work just fine.

 

[goldcatt]

The incomings cannot filibuster till they are sworn, Liability.

No shit, Sherlock. The present Senate CAN, however.

I couldn't care less about whether the current or next Congress takes up the items mentioned. Personally I see no "impropriety" either way. But I haven't seen a good filibuster in a long time. The Senate seems to have lost its collective balls, all they have to do is whisper "filibuster" and the other side caves.

Bring in the cots and the phone books and let's go!

 

[RadiomanATL]

That's nice that they believe that.

They're wrong, of course.

No. They're not. They said "improper," not illegal.

It is arguably "improper." It would, despite that, be perfectly lawful.

There is a great alternative, however.

Lame duck the lame duck session. FILIBUSTER the damn ratification process until the new Term begins.

Lots of Americans seem to struggle with very basic comprehension skills. I blame the public school system for turning out stupid people.

Herp-a-derp?

 

[Liability]

The incomings cannot filibuster till they are sworn, Liability.

No shit, Sherlock. The present Senate CAN, however.

I couldn't care less about whether the current or next Congress takes up the items mentioned. Personally I see no "impropriety" either way. But I haven't seen a good filibuster in a long time. The Senate seems to have lost its collective balls, all they have to do is whisper "filibuster" and the other side caves.

Bring in the cots and the phone books and let's go!

I agree that filibusters have lost their charm given the new sissified version of that tool.

But I do care which SENATE considers the possible ratification. The old outgoing Senate is too fucking close to giving it an utterly un-thought-out rubber stamp merely because they can.

The next Senate is far more likely to say "no," which means the arguments over the ratification (pro and con) would necessarily be more robust and maybe even informative.

"Propriety" is an interesting word. Since the People have expressed their will at the polling booth, it would be considered by some folks "proper" to defer the ratification matter to the incoming Senate -- thereby giving more deference to the now expressed will of the People.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ok, can we start a pool on when Failgo is officially admitted to the psych ward?

O lay off, will ya? He didn't make any more serious mistake in this Op than the editors at HuffPo themselves made, and Flayglo ain't a lawyer.

Ain't you ever been wrong, Soggy?

Of course... Just not consistently... on everything.



P.S. If he weren't from the same cloth as Topsin and Truthmatters... I'd be a lot more tolerant. I don't suffer pretentious shitbags very well.

 

[Bern80]

I agree with zzzz, and I think not all earmarks are bad. T'aint excatly good news that Boehner feels he owes no special loyalty to Ohio, yanno.

Are we ever gonna hear about the tea baggers' plan to Save The Economy And Create Jobs? We're getting desperate here in Cleveland....we'd work for just about anyone.

See that's the problem. You idiots think it's government's job to create jobs and fix the economy in the first place. The Tea Party's plan ought to be STAY THE FUCK OUT OF IT.

 

[Oddball]

Steve Clemons: Read the 20th Amendment: New Republican Senators Violating US Constitution

Repugs are not constitutional loyalists, except when they want to control shat.

Since when did leftist moonbats like you give a hoot in hell about the Constitution?...I mean other than the times when you need to "interpret" your way out of its constraints.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Propriety" is an interesting word. Since the People have expressed their will at the polling booth, it would be considered by some folks "proper" to defer the ratification matter to the incoming Senate -- thereby giving more deference to the now expressed will of the People.

That would be the problem. Since when has this Congress considered the will of the people?

 

[goldcatt]

No shit, Sherlock. The present Senate CAN, however.

I couldn't care less about whether the current or next Congress takes up the items mentioned. Personally I see no "impropriety" either way. But I haven't seen a good filibuster in a long time. The Senate seems to have lost its collective balls, all they have to do is whisper "filibuster" and the other side caves.

Bring in the cots and the phone books and let's go!

I agree that filibusters have lost their charm given the new sissified version of that tool.

But I do care which SENATE considers the possible ratification. The old outgoing Senate is too fucking close to giving it an utterly un-thought-out rubber stamp merely because they can.

The next Senate is far more likely to say "no," which means the arguments over the ratification (pro and con) would necessarily be more robust and maybe even informative.

"Propriety" is an interesting word. Since the People have expressed their will at the polling booth, it would be considered by some folks "proper" to defer the ratification matter to the incoming Senate -- thereby giving more deference to the now expressed will of the People.

Some folks are entitled to their opinion, of course. For me personally, I voted for the people I voted for knowing their term wouldn't start till January. So it's certainly not beyond reasonable expectations that the old guys would do stuff to earn their keep in between.

I also disagree that the next Senate would be more likely overall to say "no". The addition of a few freshmen in the grandstand doesn't exactly strike me as a situation likely to be informative either. So....it really doesn't matter to me either way.

I just want to see somebody, anybody, grow a pair and force it. For real. Bluffing and folding is such a chickenshit way to run a country.

 

[Liability]

I couldn't care less about whether the current or next Congress takes up the items mentioned. Personally I see no "impropriety" either way. But I haven't seen a good filibuster in a long time. The Senate seems to have lost its collective balls, all they have to do is whisper "filibuster" and the other side caves.

Bring in the cots and the phone books and let's go!

I agree that filibusters have lost their charm given the new sissified version of that tool.

But I do care which SENATE considers the possible ratification. The old outgoing Senate is too fucking close to giving it an utterly un-thought-out rubber stamp merely because they can.

The next Senate is far more likely to say "no," which means the arguments over the ratification (pro and con) would necessarily be more robust and maybe even informative.

"Propriety" is an interesting word. Since the People have expressed their will at the polling booth, it would be considered by some folks "proper" to defer the ratification matter to the incoming Senate -- thereby giving more deference to the now expressed will of the People.

Some folks are entitled to their opinion, of course. For me personally, I voted for the people I voted for knowing their term wouldn't start till January. So it's certainly not beyond reasonable expectations that the old guys would do stuff to earn their keep in between.

I also disagree that the next Senate would be more likely overall to say "no". The addition of a few freshmen in the grandstand doesn't exactly strike me as a situation likely to be informative either. So....it really doesn't matter to me either way.

I just want to see somebody, anybody, grow a pair and force it. For real. Bluffing and folding is such a chickenshit way to run a country.

For me personally (yes, that is redundant) I voted for the Senators I voted for knowing that the other guys and gals would win anyway. So, naturally, I'm always thrilled if and when antything can stop the present collection of idiots from doing almost anything!

And since the Senate lost some liberals and gained some conservatives, the prospect has indeed improved that the ratification process will not get a ruber stamp. Agree or not. IT is what it is.

And I am ALL for a real filibuster. Stall the shit out of the Senate not just on that one matter, but on ALL matters for as long as that filibuster continues or until it gets prevented, period.

 

[zzzz]

So we should just let congress go home and do nothing after every election? Three months of legislative inactivity? Maybe we should just let the Pres take off too after he gets voted off so we don't have any elected government for three months, let the civil servants run the country!

Yes the people have spoken and are sending different people to Washington but they sent the old ones in the first place and they are still conductiong the people's business. They have a duty to legislate and even if what they do is against what the majority wants they have that right. Both parties have been doing this forever and there is always an outcry by the outgoing party but they never change it so it looks like to me just a ploy for the incoming to placate the people who voted for them.

 

[goldcatt]

I agree that filibusters have lost their charm given the new sissified version of that tool.

But I do care which SENATE considers the possible ratification. The old outgoing Senate is too fucking close to giving it an utterly un-thought-out rubber stamp merely because they can.

The next Senate is far more likely to say "no," which means the arguments over the ratification (pro and con) would necessarily be more robust and maybe even informative.

"Propriety" is an interesting word. Since the People have expressed their will at the polling booth, it would be considered by some folks "proper" to defer the ratification matter to the incoming Senate -- thereby giving more deference to the now expressed will of the People.

Some folks are entitled to their opinion, of course. For me personally, I voted for the people I voted for knowing their term wouldn't start till January. So it's certainly not beyond reasonable expectations that the old guys would do stuff to earn their keep in between.

I also disagree that the next Senate would be more likely overall to say "no". The addition of a few freshmen in the grandstand doesn't exactly strike me as a situation likely to be informative either. So....it really doesn't matter to me either way.

I just want to see somebody, anybody, grow a pair and force it. For real. Bluffing and folding is such a chickenshit way to run a country.

For me personally (yes, that is redundant) I voted for the Senators I voted for knowing that the other guys and gals would win anyway. So, naturally, I'm always thrilled if and when antything can stop the present collection of idiots from doing almost anything!

And since the Senate lost some liberals and gained some conservatives, the prospect has indeed improved that the ratification process will not get a ruber stamp. Agree or not. IT is what it is.

And I am ALL for a real filibuster. Stall the shit out of the Senate not just on that one matter, but on ALL matters for as long as that filibuster continues or until it gets prevented, period.

Since when have the D's been able to rubber stamp a parking ticket?

 

[Bern80]

So we should just let congress go home and do nothing after every election? Three months of legislative inactivity? Maybe we should just let the Pres take off too after he gets voted off so we don't have any elected government for three months, let the civil servants run the country!

For a body that generally makes things worse the more it trys to 'fix' them. I'm not sure 3 months of inactivity would be such a bad thing. When those of us screaming for less government in our lives, part of that obviously being government actually doing less. Shrinking government doesn't have to just come from spending less. Stop coming up with new laws and regs and figure out how to get rid of some old ones.

 

[Liability]

So we should just let congress go home and do nothing after every election? Three months of legislative inactivity? Maybe we should just let the Pres take off too after he gets voted off so we don't have any elected government for three months, let the civil servants run the country!

Yes the people have spoken and are sending different people to Washington but they sent the old ones in the first place and they are still conductiong the people's business. They have a duty to legislate and even if what they do is against what the majority wants they have that right. Both parties have been doing this forever and there is always an outcry by the outgoing party but they never change it so it looks like to me just a ploy for the incoming to placate the people who voted for them.

What a wonderful idea.

Yes. I SECOND the motion.

Let's put it to a vote, shall we?

All in FAVOR of making Congress a VERY PART-TIME position, signify by saying "Aye!" All opposed, "Nay."

AYE!

But we need to break down some of your ideas. Like, your proposed alternative being to permit the civil servants to run the country?

No. Bad concept. Instead, let's pass a law which puts an firm expiration date on ALL federal bureaucracies. And let's make it a LAW that no administrative "rule making" will be allowed between sessions of Congress and no rules made by ANY bureaucratic administration shall be given any legal force or effect until and unless it gets approved by both houses of Congress! And no rule administratively put into effect by any bureaucracy shall be effective for a period of time greater than one year unless Congress, by law, shall authorize it to exist for a longer period of time! Otherwise, all administrative rules get a sunset provision automatically!

All in Favor, say "Aye!" All opposed, say "nay."

AYE!

 

[Avatar4321]

So we should just let congress go home and do nothing after every election? Three months of legislative inactivity? Maybe we should just let the Pres take off too after he gets voted off so we don't have any elected government for three months, let the civil servants run the country!

Yes the people have spoken and are sending different people to Washington but they sent the old ones in the first place and they are still conductiong the people's business. They have a duty to legislate and even if what they do is against what the majority wants they have that right. Both parties have been doing this forever and there is always an outcry by the outgoing party but they never change it so it looks like to me just a ploy for the incoming to placate the people who voted for them.

Yeah sounds good to me. They are in Washington too much as it is. Representatives and Senators were not meant to be full time jobs.

 

[Liability]

Some folks are entitled to their opinion, of course. For me personally, I voted for the people I voted for knowing their term wouldn't start till January. So it's certainly not beyond reasonable expectations that the old guys would do stuff to earn their keep in between.

I also disagree that the next Senate would be more likely overall to say "no". The addition of a few freshmen in the grandstand doesn't exactly strike me as a situation likely to be informative either. So....it really doesn't matter to me either way.

I just want to see somebody, anybody, grow a pair and force it. For real. Bluffing and folding is such a chickenshit way to run a country.

For me personally (yes, that is redundant) I voted for the Senators I voted for knowing that the other guys and gals would win anyway. So, naturally, I'm always thrilled if and when antything can stop the present collection of idiots from doing almost anything!

And since the Senate lost some liberals and gained some conservatives, the prospect has indeed improved that the ratification process will not get a ruber stamp. Agree or not. IT is what it is.

And I am ALL for a real filibuster. Stall the shit out of the Senate not just on that one matter, but on ALL matters for as long as that filibuster continues or until it gets prevented, period.

Since when have the D's been able to rubber stamp a parking ticket?

Since Pelousy discovered the value of outright (legalized) BRIBERY!

 

[goldcatt]

For me personally (yes, that is redundant) I voted for the Senators I voted for knowing that the other guys and gals would win anyway. So, naturally, I'm always thrilled if and when antything can stop the present collection of idiots from doing almost anything!

And since the Senate lost some liberals and gained some conservatives, the prospect has indeed improved that the ratification process will not get a ruber stamp. Agree or not. IT is what it is.

And I am ALL for a real filibuster. Stall the shit out of the Senate not just on that one matter, but on ALL matters for as long as that filibuster continues or until it gets prevented, period.

Since when have the D's been able to rubber stamp a parking ticket?

Since Pelousy discovered the value of outright (legalized) BRIBERY!

We're talking about the Senate here.

Odds of them getting it together and keeping it together long enough to rubber stamp a dead chicken? Anyone?

 

[Liability]

Since when have the D's been able to rubber stamp a parking ticket?

Since Pelousy discovered the value of outright (legalized) BRIBERY!

We're talking about the Senate here.

Odds of them getting it together and keeping it together long enough to rubber stamp a dead chicken? Anyone?

No. You said "Democrats" not "Democrat Senators."

And if that's your big quibble, anyway, then simply change the name from Pelousy to "Reid."

Do you actually NOT recall the bribes offered by Reid to shitheads like Sen. Landrieu (the Loisiana Purchase?) and so forth?

The "odds" of which you speak are far too favorable to that trash.

 

[goldcatt]

Since Pelousy discovered the value of outright (legalized) BRIBERY!

We're talking about the Senate here.

Odds of them getting it together and keeping it together long enough to rubber stamp a dead chicken? Anyone?

No. You said "Democrats" not "Democrat Senators."

And if that's your big quibble, anyway, then simply change the name from Pelousy to "Reid."

Do you actually NOT recall the bribes offered by Reid to shitheads like Sen. Landrieu (the Loisiana Purchase?) and so forth?

The "odds" of which you speak are far too favorable to that trash.

I wonder. Bribery is of course a time-honored legislative tradition but the D's have always been a three ring circus anyway. They've had to water down or nix an awful lot of their agenda the last 2 years not because of the R's but because of defections in their own ranks. Particularly in the Senate.

Or...the R's could whisper softly, quietly, in that come hither little voice......"filibuster". Reid will quit the floor to change his panties, and it's game over.