For the People Act

[Daryl Hunt]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

 

[TNHarley]

Im all for congress not passing unconstitutional law.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Im all for congress not passing unconstitutional law.

You toss that term out there without clarification. How about clarifying why it's unconstitutional?

 

[Auld Phart]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Im all for congress not passing unconstitutional law.

Wrong.

All acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)).

And it comes as no surprise that conservatives would oppose legislation that would protect voting rights.

 

[JoeMoma]

Im all for congress not passing unconstitutional law.

Wrong.

All acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)).

And it comes as no surprise that conservatives would oppose legislation that would protect voting rights.

So when the Supreme court rules that an act of congress is unconstitutional, does that mean that the act was constitutional up until the time that the Supreme court made it's ruling?

Members of congress have the duty to vote against bills if they believe that such legislation would be unconstitutional law. This goes along with their oath to protect the constitution. For example, if would be wrong for congress to pass a law making it illegal to criticize the president because that would be blatantly unconstitutional. And people would be correct to hold the opinion that such a law is unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court rules on the law.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

So you are feigning ignorance once again. For the umptenth time, here is is again

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Not all of us should be considered as is the usual case of a HR bill. But there are some really good points that the Senate, if given the chance, can rewrite it and present it back to the house. That's the way it "Used to Be" done before the Party of the Rump. Sen. Bennett is correct.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

So you are feigning ignorance once again. For the umptenth time, here is is again

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Not all of us should be considered as is the usual case of a HR bill. But there are some really good points that the Senate, if given the chance, can rewrite it and present it back to the house. That's the way it "Used to Be" done before the Party of the Rump. Sen. Bennett is correct.

REALLY? So for 2 years Reid did not sit on hundreds of bills from the Republican House?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

So you are feigning ignorance once again. For the umptenth time, here is is again

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Not all of us should be considered as is the usual case of a HR bill. But there are some really good points that the Senate, if given the chance, can rewrite it and present it back to the house. That's the way it "Used to Be" done before the Party of the Rump. Sen. Bennett is correct.

REALLY? So for 2 years Reid did not sit on hundreds of bills from the Republican House?

PolitiFact - Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate'

The count was said to be 342. But most were NOT sitting idly on Reids desk. Most were sent to committee. And for a lot of reasons, they were held up by the committee. Read the real scoop. But in Moscow Mitch's case, he's sitting on well over 500 that have not even been considered for the Committee. H.R.1 is just one of them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

So you are feigning ignorance once again. For the umptenth time, here is is again

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Not all of us should be considered as is the usual case of a HR bill. But there are some really good points that the Senate, if given the chance, can rewrite it and present it back to the house. That's the way it "Used to Be" done before the Party of the Rump. Sen. Bennett is correct.

REALLY? So for 2 years Reid did not sit on hundreds of bills from the Republican House?

PolitiFact - Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate'

The count was said to be 342. But most were NOT sitting idly on Reids desk. Most were sent to committee. And for a lot of reasons, they were held up by the committee. Read the real scoop. But in Moscow Mitch's case, he's sitting on well over 500 that have not even been considered for the Committee. H.R.1 is just one of them.

Liar.

 

[progressive hunter]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

So you are feigning ignorance once again. For the umptenth time, here is is again

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Not all of us should be considered as is the usual case of a HR bill. But there are some really good points that the Senate, if given the chance, can rewrite it and present it back to the house. That's the way it "Used to Be" done before the Party of the Rump. Sen. Bennett is correct.

just remember the title of any bill means the opposite of what it says,,,

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

So you are feigning ignorance once again. For the umptenth time, here is is again

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Not all of us should be considered as is the usual case of a HR bill. But there are some really good points that the Senate, if given the chance, can rewrite it and present it back to the house. That's the way it "Used to Be" done before the Party of the Rump. Sen. Bennett is correct.

Correction. That's the way it used to be before democrats turned communist and became the enemy of all things American.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Im all for congress not passing unconstitutional law.

Wrong.

All acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)).

And it comes as no surprise that conservatives would oppose legislation that would protect voting rights.

So when the Supreme court rules that an act of congress is unconstitutional, does that mean that the act was constitutional up until the time that the Supreme court made it's ruling?

Members of congress have the duty to vote against bills if they believe that such legislation would be unconstitutional law. This goes along with their oath to protect the constitution. For example, if would be wrong for congress to pass a law making it illegal to criticize the president because that would be blatantly unconstitutional. And people would be correct to hold the opinion that such a law is unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court rules on the law.

That a law might be ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is subjective, having nothing to do with its constitutionality.

Moreover, comparing the For the People Act to a measure making it illegal to criticize the president fails as a fallacy, as the two are nothing alike.

There is ample precedent in First Amendment jurisprudence to hold a measure making it illegal to criticize the president invalid; no such jurisprudence exists with regard to the Fort the People Act.

The will of the people is paramount, as expressed by their elected representatives – the courts as a consequence defer to that will, and reluctantly resort to invalidating acts of Congress unless constitutionally compelled to do so.

As a partisan rightist you oppose the measure because you believe it will benefit Democrats politically, having nothing to do with its constitutionality.

 

[JoeMoma]

That a law might be ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is subjective, having nothing to do with its constitutionality.

I agree. I did not say that bad or wrong law equals unconstitutional.

Truth be told, I don't know whether the For the People Act would be good or bad as I have not read the law. I was neither supporting nor opposing that law. What I was doing was addressing whether members of congress should oppose a bill that they believe to be unconstitutional.

Moreover, comparing the For the People Act to a measure making it illegal to criticize the president fails as a fallacy, as the two are nothing alike.

If they were to be come law, both would be passed by congress and signed by the president. You previously stated that a law passed by congress is presumed to be constitutional. I'm stating that our representatives have a duty to oppose any bills that in their opinion do not meet constitutional muster. So I used an example of a hypothetical law that obviously would not pass constitutional muster. Likewise, any representatives or senators that believe the For the People Act would be unconstitutional should oppose it or try to amend it to make it conform to the constitution.

The will of the people is paramount, as expressed by their elected representatives – the courts as a consequence defer to that will, and reluctantly resort to invalidating acts of Congress unless constitutionally compelled to do so.

Members of congress also have sworn to protect the constitution. Thus, they should consider the constitution when expressing the will of the people.

As a partisan rightist you oppose the measure because you believe it will benefit Democrats politically, having nothing to do with its constitutionality.

I do tend to lean to the right. However, as I previously stated, I neither oppose nor support the For the People Act, because I do not even know what is in the bill. I was addressing whether members of congress should support bill's that they believe to be unconstitutional, the answer is no, they should not.

When Congress passes a bill into law and it it signed by the president, the law legally "presumed" constitutional, but that does not mean it actually is constitutional. Otherwise we would not need the courts to ever rule on laws once they are passed by congress.

 

[sparky]

the bill promotes honesty and accountability of election funding Daryl

methinks we both know why it's never going to see the light of Congressional approval

~S~

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer

What bill?

Got a number, or a name??

So you are feigning ignorance once again. For the umptenth time, here is is again

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Not all of us should be considered as is the usual case of a HR bill. But there are some really good points that the Senate, if given the chance, can rewrite it and present it back to the house. That's the way it "Used to Be" done before the Party of the Rump. Sen. Bennett is correct.

Correction. That's the way it used to be before democrats turned communist and became the enemy of all things American.

Facts and reality are your enemy.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

the bill promotes honesty and accountability of election funding Daryl

methinks we both know why it's never going to see the light of Congressional approval

~S~

It does a lot more than that. It also faces the way districts are formed for political reasons. And it also features methods of polling places are done as well as same day registration. And mail-in votes. There is a lot there. It scares the living hell out of the states that cheat and I mean both parties. But in the last 40 years, it's been mostly the Republican controlled states.

For instance, we had a drop off voting box completely ignored. In the local vote in 2019 for the City, that drop off box was ignored. It was found out just this month. I don't believe it is a coincidence that it was in a predominant democratic area. It's too late to count those votes into the election. The County Clerk who controls not only the collection and tabulating has come up with some reasons for it.

1. Her budget isn't large enough and she needs to hire more people. The response from the City Council is that she has 4 paid unfilled positions right now that need to be filled so she has enough funding. Since she took office (it's an elected position) those 4 have quit and no one has stepped forward to fill those positions.

2. She claims it's the Democrat Volunteers fault. Our law says that when a ballot or poll box is collected it must be a representative of one Democrat and one Republican.

3. She claims it's the Senior Citizen Volunteers fault. She says they are too old to be competent.

What's sad is, I have heard that the reason she is right is that she is a Republican. She refuses to even say a simple "Oops" and it's always someone elses fault. There has been a call for her to resign but the republican party stands firmly behind her because "She is a Republican".

This is how low the bar has been lowered since "The Party of the Rump".

 

[sparky]

So the devil in the 'we the people' details is really the crux of this bill Daryl

I get that much in my pointy little farm boy head

~S~

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So the devil in the 'we the people' details is really the crux of this bill Daryl

I get that much in my pointy little farm boy head

~S~

Corporate America could not afford to have Bennett as President. Unlike the others, he is rich but he made it on his own honestly. He's a true public servant who is beholden to no one. What's even more frightening, he speaks his mind. And he represents the people that sent him there in the first place. Not like the other one (Gardner) that owes Corporate America. "We the People" needs more of people like Bennett in Washington.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This bill sits in the bottom desk drawer of Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow it to go to committee much less the senate floor.

I started thinking back to 2009 when Obama allowed the "Swine Flu" to enter the US and did nothing about it until 1,000 people, mostly kids were dead. Why didnt the brown turd shut businesses down, to prevent the Virus from Mexico from spreading? Why didnt Oblummer put out a stimulus for the people, but instead bailed out the banks, Warren Buffet and other liberal elites? Because at the time it was Politics as usual and liberals could care less how many of those CO2 breathing peons they killed off, and the lickspittle, lapdog. lamestream, media just carried the turds water not trying to make him look even worse and feckless as he did with the cash for clunkers. This Wuhan Virus is just like the Pig Flu, except the Dimwitocraps are once again, playing politics with peoples lives and proves they dont give a shit, by not passing the bill that would put millions back to work. Fuck the Demoncraps, they are playing the Cloward and Piven strategy even now.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy to implement socialist revolution

“Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

When the country goes to the shitter, then there will be almost 200,000,000 armed citizens going to look for blood.