Is there something wrong with majority rules?

[txlonghorn]

I would LOVE to use majority rule...we should let the country vote on healthcare. As long as we can keep ACORN's cast of Disney characters out of the voting booths and require proof of citizenship, we might actually get a decent representation of the desires of the American people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Abuse of Power - WSJ.com

 

[AvgGuyIA]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.

 

[Contumacious]

Reeeeeally?

Identify the proviso by Article, section and clause.

.

It's in the design - it's why we have three branches of government. The design is intended to make it difficult to change the status quo based upon temporal popular whim.

Yes, we concur.

In a constitutional republic , a communist can be elected to power - but it is understood that my rights are UNALIENABLE so my right to bear arms, life, liberty and property are inviolable.

.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

majority rule is totally evil, if you are in the minority.

burp

For me and others it always depends on what constitutes a majority. I think 51/49 is always a recipe for disaster or an unsound foundation. It doesn't always mean I think the 51 were wrong, only that as time goes by, the 51 needs to convince more of the 49 that they were right.

A simple majority is not the same things as a large majority or overwhelming majority. Nuance is needed. The very thing the neo anti-reconciliation folks are asking for now: nuance.

Socialized healthcare is a total reorganization of our Society. It should not be allowed just on a simple majority. This action should require an amendment to the constitution since it affects all of our lives.

 

[skookerasbil]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

s0n.........do all bears sh!t the same volume in the woods???

Ive been following politics for 35 years..........have yet to find a principled liberal. Not a one.............and this issue is a perfect illustration of that. The government forcing somebody to buy something is totally unconstitutional...........but then again, what liberal gives a sh!t about the constitution???

Heres the poop............reconcilliation has NEVER been used on public policy of this magnitude. And the situation is a win-win for conservatives either way the vote goes. Pass = the Dums get bushwacked in November. Fail = our healthcare system is saved.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits reconciliation as a congressional prerogative for the majority to ram its agenda down the minority's throats. Elections have consequences, and we are facing one of them now. The Democrats will have to swallow the same bitter pill when the Republicans take the Senate back, as they surely will.

 

[rikules]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

yeah!


why can't you liberals just get it through your thick heads!!!!

when liberals and democrats do it....it's BAD!!!!!

but when conservatives and republicans do it....it's GOOD!


how often do we have to explain this to you!?!?!?!

 

[skookerasbil]

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits reconciliation as a congressional prerogative for the majority to ram its agenda down the minority's throats. Elections have consequences, and we are facing one of them now. The Democrats will have to swallow the same bitter pill when the Republicans take the Senate back, as they surely will.

never said reconcilliation was unconstitutional s0n..........

 

[rikules]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

s0n.........do all bears sh!t the same volume in the woods???

Ive been following politics for 35 years..........have yet to find a principled liberal. Not a one.............and this issue is a perfect illustration of that. The government forcing somebody to buy something is totally unconstitutional...........but then again, what liberal gives a sh!t about the constitution???

Heres the poop............reconcilliation has NEVER been used on public policy of this magnitude. And the situation is a win-win for conservatives either way the vote goes. Pass = the Dums get bushwacked in November. Fail = our healthcare system is saved.

"Ive been following politics for 35 years..........have yet to find a principled liberal. Not a one.............and this issue is a perfect illustration of that. The government forcing somebody to buy something is totally unconstitutional...........but then again, what liberal gives a sh!t about the constitution???"


not even 1, eh?


obviously there are MANY principled liberals throughout America, in and out of politics.

just because they have different values and principles does NOT mean that they have NO principles.

however, I believe that you truly believe what you said.

i've seen so many deranged conservatives that 1 more doesn't surprise me.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I would LOVE to use majority rule...we should let the country vote on healthcare. As long as we can keep ACORN's cast of Disney characters out of the voting booths and require proof of citizenship, we might actually get a decent representation of the desires of the American people.

Thats the best health care related Idea i've heard in a long time.

 

[Nonelitist]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?



people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.

Has anyone heard of this actually discussed as a viable option?

 

[rikules]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

majority rules

it does NOT tyrannize


majority rule ends where my rights begin

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits reconciliation as a congressional prerogative for the majority to ram its agenda down the minority's throats. Elections have consequences, and we are facing one of them now. The Democrats will have to swallow the same bitter pill when the Republicans take the Senate back, as they surely will.

never said reconcilliation was unconstitutional s0n..........

The guilty flee where none pursueth, dad.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.

Has anyone heard of this actually discussed as a viable option?

The president thinks it is, in his own words preceded by a very good statement by McCain
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsz5drK49M4]YouTube - Obama defends reconciliation: A majority vote makes sense[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. Those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights"

James Bovard

I assume that Democracy and majority rule can be interchanged here to mean basically the same thing. If the Democrats force this Bill on us then we will have 4 years to overturn it and probably will.

 

[Political Junky]

It is what the constitution outlines.

not really. not in all cases.

Cite where in the constitution it gives the different cases.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I have an inalienable right to not purchase something I don't want.

 

[Coyote]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?



people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.

It was used in 1996 to completely reform welfare. That was as much legislative as budgetary - much like healthcare reform and, like healthcare reform it was very partisan.

What selective memories some seem to have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article I Section 7 defines the powers of the legislative process in Congress. Nothing in that section can be construed in denying the majority party in the Senate from enacting its will by a single vote in excess of 50%..