To the Conservatives.

[DiveCon]

Yet again, the Constitution does not imply that Congress can act to promote the general welfare. It says so explicitly. The words are right there in the Constitution, and cannot be simply ignored.


It's 2AM and my battery is dying. The five of you can go research Constitutional law on your own time. I have printed the clause repeatedly, I have explained it repeatedly, and any law school faculty in the country would back me up on this. This is not like the Second Amendment where we can argue the meaning, and even the punctuation, of the text: the language of Article I is clear as a bell. As I said, if you want to holler at James Madison, or wage a legal fight to amend the Constituton, or go to the Supreme Court to alter its current meaning, be my guest. But until you do, Congress is acting legally.

2 am?????

its only 9pm on the east coast
where are you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Same question -- you base this on what?

I dont know, maybe its the mere fact that he openly plans to seize control of the health care industry, eliminate the coal industry and spend trillions of dollars contrary to thet concept of limited power in the federal government.

To name a few.

 

[Gunny]

Bullcrap.

He claimed that nearly every president has violated the Constitution, and then didn't back it up.

I see. And saying nonsense refutes his claim. I think not.

He claimed my reading of the Constitution was wrong, and I shot him down using the text from the Constitution itself.

Hardly. You tried to take the Constitution out of context to support your argument.

He tried to put words in my mouth, and I shot him down.
He tried an evasion, and I shot him down.
He tried insults, and I shot him down.

You shot nothing down. All you did was deflect by attacking how he presented his arguments with handy, dismissive labels.

I can get you a souvenir scorecard of the game if you want. I win, he loses.

OMG. Another "I win" pissant. Grow up. You win nothing. You haven't changed anyone's mind, nor have you impressed anyone but yourself.

 

[Gunny]

One more time:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


The paying of debts and the providing for the general welfare are in different parts of the sentence. It's called parallel construction. You'll need to read a little more closely.

If you want to argue that it's bad policy, be my guest. But if you want to argue that it's unconstitutional, then sorry, the Constitution doesn't back you up on that.

One more time for you, junior. I read what the sentence says. You are wrong. Simple as that. Just another leftwingnut misinterpretting the Constitution to suit your agenda. Not even very novel of you.

 

[Gunny]

"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." - Article 1, Section 7 United States Constitution

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I

I take this to mean that the Senate may not vote on the legislation until it passes the House, and the bailouts had not passed the House until after it passed the Senate. Also, since they hid the bailouts within a completely separate piece of legislation I assume that they take the same meaning that I do.

The Senate HAS TO vote on the legislation to see if they are going to submit to the House.

What they were hidden in is irrelevant. That's the way Congress does business and is a seperate argument. I think ALL bills should stand alone and be given the light of day, and this hiding shit and/or attaching riders is bullshit, IMO. But it has nothing to do with the administrative procedure of the Senate submitting a bill to the House for funding.

If they don't vote on it, how do they know they want to submit it?

 

[DiveCon]

The Senate HAS TO vote on the legislation to see if they are going to submit to the House.

What they were hidden in is irrelevant. That's the way Congress does business and is a seperate argument. I think ALL bills should stand alone and be given the light of day, and this hiding shit and/or attaching riders is bullshit, IMO. But it has nothing to do with the administrative procedure of the Senate submitting a bill to the House for funding.

If they don't vote on it, how do they know they want to submit it?

exactly, end the earmark bullshit
if its a worthy project, deserving of federal funding, it should be able to pass on its own
it would also allow the administration to actually set a better budget as well, as they dont have to attempt to budget for things they dont even know will be in the funding

 

[Care4all]

I don't know.....?

the word "originate" stands out to me and Kevin's point of view on this seems like it would be correct....and how our founding father's intended imho.

I remember at the time, some discussion on this board took place on the Senate originating this bail out bill and that this was wrong....unconstitutional because it meant that the Senate initiating it or was being the source of origin....but then it was pointed out, that the Senate, in order to "get around" this constitutional restriction on the bailout, ADDED IT to a nongermane bill that had originated in the house, and passed the House, and gotten to them.

See, this was definately a slippery slope that was slidden down....sure the Senate can amend an appropriation bill from the house of reps, they can tweak it and add or subtract from what the House has suggested on their appropriations....

But this was $700 BILLION DOLLARS added to an original, debated and voted on Appropriations Bill that might have TOTALED in value as $200 billion.

If adding an amendment that nearly 4 FOLDED the appropriations that the House recommended is NOT an ABUSE of power and an abuse of the constitution, I don't know what is.....!!!

 

[jeffrockit]

Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks

He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.

Give it a rest. Remember how much we have hated the petty bitching and moaning from the left for the last 8 years. Lets be better then those guys. Stick to facts and reality.

Obama will be appointing people to positions, that gives us ammo. He will be advancing his plan for the Country, more ammo. Chose the effective High Road and avod the easy mudslinging low road.

He is already side stepping promises. Attack him on THAT. Wait for the new Congress and point out all the bad decisions by the Democrats. In 2 years we can reclaim the Congress and in 4 we can put Obama out of office if he does all the idiotic things he has promised to do.

Crying about a Birth Certificate that the State has already said is valid is a waste of time. Complaining because he did not do what you would do with the death of his Grandmother is PETTY.

There are real issues to discuss. Though most we have to wait for him to actually start pushing them.

That's not gonna stop any time soon. Even now, with Bush out, you see his name all over the boards with idiotic, grade school put downs and name calling. As RGS stated, we need to hold to a higher standard especially when it comes to name calling. How many times have you seen the word "Chimp" in reference to Bush...truly grade school comments.

I do find it curious how the left is asking for what they would not do with Bush and that is ask for everyone to work together. I am pretty confident that most mistakes or bad policies from Obama will be attributed to Bush.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Senate HAS TO vote on the legislation to see if they are going to submit to the House.

What they were hidden in is irrelevant. That's the way Congress does business and is a seperate argument. I think ALL bills should stand alone and be given the light of day, and this hiding shit and/or attaching riders is bullshit, IMO. But it has nothing to do with the administrative procedure of the Senate submitting a bill to the House for funding.

If they don't vote on it, how do they know they want to submit it?

Well the Constitution says that it must "originate in the House of Representatives," which means that it must be passed by the House before it is passed by the Senate. It also says the Senate may "propose or concur..." I don't think it's very clear on what is meant by propose. Does that mean that the entire Senate must vote whether or not to propose a piece of legislation to the House, or that a Senator may propose legislation to the House which may then be picked up and supported by a Representative? It's hard to say, though the Federalist Papers may say something of the matter and that would certainly be worth looking into.

Regardless, in the case of the bailouts it is clear that this piece of legislation that dealt with raising revenues originated in the Senate and not the House. It wasn't simply a proposal by the Senate or them concurring with the House. As I said, hiding the bailout bill inside another piece of legislation clearly shows that it was wrong and that the Senate knew that it was wrong. Otherwise why hide it? It certainly could have passed on it's own.

 

[Gunny]

I don't know.....?

the word "originate" stands out to me and Kevin's point of view on this seems like it would be correct....and how our founding father's intended imho.

I remember at the time, some discussion on this board took place on the Senate originating this bail out bill and that this was wrong....unconstitutional because it meant that the Senate initiating it or was being the source of origin....but then it was pointed out, that the Senate, in order to "get around" this constitutional restriction on the bailout, ADDED IT to a nongermane bill that had originated in the house, and passed the House, and gotten to them.

See, this was definately a slippery slope that was slidden down....sure the Senate can amend an appropriation bill from the house of reps, they can tweak it and add or subtract from what the House has suggested on their appropriations....

But this was $700 BILLION DOLLARS added to an original, debated and voted on Appropriations Bill that might have TOTALED in value as $200 billion.

If adding an amendment that nearly 4 FOLDED the appropriations that the House recommended is NOT an ABUSE of power and an abuse of the constitution, I don't know what is.....!!!

It would only be unconstitutional if the Senate sent it straight to the President. As long as it passes both Houses of Congress, it is legal for the President to sign.

By your understanding, only the House could initiate proposed legislation. If the Senate wishes to pass a bill, the senate HAS TO vote on it to see if they want to submit to the House or not. There's no way around that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It would only be unconstitutional if the Senate sent it straight to the President. As long as it passes both Houses of Congress, it is legal for the President to sign.

By your understanding, only the House could initiate proposed legislation. If the Senate wishes to pass a bill, the senate HAS TO vote on it to see if they want to submit to the House or not. There's no way around that.

Well the Constitution states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House. So if they originate in the Senate, as the bailout bill did, then they are in fact unconstitutional.

 

[Care4all]

It would only be unconstitutional if the Senate sent it straight to the President. As long as it passes both Houses of Congress, it is legal for the President to sign.

By your understanding, only the House could initiate proposed legislation. If the Senate wishes to pass a bill, the senate HAS TO vote on it to see if they want to submit to the House or not. There's no way around that.

only the House can initiate or originate an appropriations bill. Not ALL bills gunny, just appropriations must originate in the House.

I had read the reasoning beind this is that the House of Representatives, represent us....the people....no taxation without representation kind of thing...since it is our taxes paying for what they appropriate.

While the Senate or Senators represent the State they come from or the state's government....we did not even elect US senators back then, the State gvt picked them to represent them.

ALL bills must pass the senate and house before they go to the president...this can not be bypassed.

With all bills and legislation or statute, the house or senate can initiate them....according to the constitution, BUT with one exception of appropriation bills, where it says they MUST ORIGINATE in the house of representatives and pass with vote the house of representatives before they send it on to the senate for their tweaking and approval.

I don't think the Senate would have added the bailout to an existing house appropriations bill that had passed if they could have constitutionally, initiated the bailout bill on their own, to send to the house.

what they did, adding this bailout to a recently passed house appropriations bill that the senate was up to tweak, was a slippery slope, and an extreme bending of the constitution if not a flat out slap in the face to it....again, imo!

care

 

[Zoomie1980]

oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... I forgot we're not supposed to respond to idiots like glockie.

RGS's point was correct and well-stated ... but I already had to give him pos rep on another point he made yesterday and couldn't send him any this time. However, HE stated that you guys shouldn't sink to the behavior of the left.. so that opened things up to a response, since it didn't start with the left... it started with the impeachment of a popular sitting president, followed closely by a supreme court justice rendering a decision in favor of his hunting buddy from which he should have recused himself.

Follwed closely by lies about WMD's and a pretend war of choice that has, to date, left an Official DoD Count of:

Troops Killed in Iraq: 4182
Troops Killed in Afghanistan: 621
Wounded in Action: 33355

Yay baby bush! Wooo Hoooo! And Brownie did a hell of a job!

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

I have to continually remind all here that those numbers were a bad DAY in WWII (Iwo and Normandy significantly EXCEEDED those casualty counts in one day), a bad week in Korea, and a bad Month in Vietnam....

To call Iraq and Afghanistan a "war" is kind of silly....Both are Police Actions, at best....

 

[bk1983]

I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?

Are you really this stupid in real life?

 

[DiveCon]

I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?

impost - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't know.....?

the word "originate" stands out to me and Kevin's point of view on this seems like it would be correct....and how our founding father's intended imho.

I remember at the time, some discussion on this board took place on the Senate originating this bail out bill and that this was wrong....unconstitutional because it meant that the Senate initiating it or was being the source of origin....but then it was pointed out, that the Senate, in order to "get around" this constitutional restriction on the bailout, ADDED IT to a nongermane bill that had originated in the house, and passed the House, and gotten to them.

See, this was definately a slippery slope that was slidden down....sure the Senate can amend an appropriation bill from the house of reps, they can tweak it and add or subtract from what the House has suggested on their appropriations....

But this was $700 BILLION DOLLARS added to an original, debated and voted on Appropriations Bill that might have TOTALED in value as $200 billion.

If adding an amendment that nearly 4 FOLDED the appropriations that the House recommended is NOT an ABUSE of power and an abuse of the constitution, I don't know what is.....!!!

In the end it does not matter at all. Why? Because the House HAD to make their own bill or nothing would have happened. The Senate is free to make suggestions to the House just as the President is. They did not create a new bill they added, as is their right, to an existing bill. Why is that ok?

Because it then has to go BACK to the House and be passed again before anything can happen. If any part of Congress changes a bill in ANY way, the other part has to hear the new bill and either agree to it or make further changes. That is why the two chambers have meetings to work out how they will resolve differences on bills they both have changed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well the Constitution states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House. So if they originate in the Senate, as the bailout bill did, then they are in fact unconstitutional.

Except it did not orignate there, it was added to an already existing appropriations bill. THAT is a legal power of the Senate. The bill then has to go back to the house and the House and Senate meet to work out the differences, I believe in this case the House removed the Bail out from the previous bill and created a new bill. They were free to disagree completely, remove the lenguage and money and do nothing on the bail out and send it back to the Senate.

The Senate created nothing. They did not originate an appropriation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except it did not orignate there, it was added to an already existing appropriations bill. THAT is a legal power of the Senate. The bill then has to go back to the house and the House and Senate meet to work out the differences, I believe in this case the House removed the Bail out from the previous bill and created a new bill. They were free to disagree completely, remove the lenguage and money and do nothing on the bail out and send it back to the Senate.

The Senate created nothing. They did not originate an appropriation.

They did originate an appropriation, they just purposefully bypassed the Constitution by adding it to another bill that the House had already passed.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, because everything you said is true. However, putting two bills together to bypass the Constitution is unconstitutional in my opinion. If you have to find a loophole to bypass the Constitution then what you're doing is still unconstitutional.

 

[michiganFats]

Here's my advice for the conservatives:
1) If you want to be the alternative, you actually have to offer an alternative.
2) Stop reading other people's e-mails. If they wanted you to know something, they would share it with you. The fact that you are not on their friends list should tell you something.
3) Stop worrying about who is taking what up which orifice. It's a creepy fascination and quite frankly, it makes you seem just a wee bit gay.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They did originate an appropriation, they just purposefully bypassed the Constitution by adding it to another bill that the House had already passed.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, because everything you said is true. However, putting two bills together to bypass the Constitution is unconstitutional in my opinion. If you have to find a loophole to bypass the Constitution then what you're doing is still unconstitutional.

The Senate has the right and power to change already existing or delivered appropriation bills. The Constitution is clear on that. Once they do the House has to agree or they have to come to an understanding or the bill does not pass. Nothing unconstitutional at all.