Representation without representation

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Frankly congress is not circumventing the constitution. You may think so, but just because you believe something is happening does not mean it's true.

Course when you make accusations against our government and don't provide adequate proof of said accusations, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I am completely sick of people who sit comfortably in their homes and make idle threats against the government who has been constitutionally elected by the people. While I am all for freedom of speech, and support someone to say such things, it is equally my right to denounce such stupidity for what it is.

Our last voting attempt to clean out congress imo turned out for the worst. We wanted change and voted for a president that promised that change and turns out it was just more lies. Voting doesn't work anymore and hasn't for quite some time. What option is left?

Vote for better people. Vote for people that haven't been in congress before. Maybe it's the candidates that are the problem and not the process.

This ENTIRE thing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in so many ways... we should all impeach every person involved in this blatant bribery... but let's get some facts straight...

The POTUS (BO): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Brack Obama: "the Constitution mostly says what the states can't do to you ... what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

Both said by the same person. That makes him a liar in my book, so I don't know where or how you were raised, but I'm guessing most Americans side with this idea regardless of what the health care situation is.

The above oath binds him in all matters for his entire presidency. No other oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy. I guess that makes us an enemy?

Speaking of health care, the next point is that the Founding Fathers ABSOLUTELY made it clear that taking from the "haves" to give to "have nots" involuntarily or through government was FORBIDDEN as this was the socialist aristocracy they originally came here to seek change from. What they are doing is completely un-Constitutional since it has nothing to do with our unalienable rights.

Now, someone has carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons. Hmmm.... let's also look at one more thing...

Legal definition in US Code for bribery -
Bribery is the offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. Bribes can take the form of gifts or payments of money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the person accepting can be charged with bribery.

Now let's see... do I really need to point out the obvious on this? It is not just "politics as usual", it is flat out BRIBERY. Most recently:

1.) MARY LANDRIEU AND LOUISIANA: $100 million
2.) BEN NELSON AND NEBRASKA: $100 million
3.) CHRIS DODD AND CONNECTICUT: $100 million
4.) NANCY PELOSI AND CALIFORNIA: $300 million

and the list goes on, the most recent being Kucinich, who I'm sure we'll find out the details of that deal soon enough. It's disgusting and humiliating to this country, and people need to come together as though this is the end of America. Our liberties have never been so rapidly dissolved. It's time to take a stand:

THE TENTH AMENDMENT

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It answers BO's question above and clearly says (in case you don't understand) if it doesn't explicitly say it in the Constitution or amendments to it, it's up to the States or the PEOPLE. The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. Your governor(s) have POWER to force change on the federal government and so do you as citizens! I have proof.

Oh, and OutKast Searcher IS wrong.

~Namaste

reply to post by OrphenFire

Originally posted by OrphenFire
It's hard to respond to your method of argument, that of calm opposition. It's easy to dismiss a raving temper thrower, though…The thing is though, our government is not very transparent, so examples are hard to come by…The government can't afford to be transparent while it is as corrupt as it is. We all see that something just isn't right… Specific, transparent examples of the corruption in our government is impossible to prove. If it weren't, we would see a bunch of politicians going "bye-bye". See what I mean?

Brilliant analysis. Well done.

If we remember our history, Hitler never came out in public, frothing at the mouth, and said: “I’m gonna kill every Jew I can find!!”. Stalin never made a radio announcement that openly stated that he intended to starve several million Ukrainians to death. Mao never went on T.V. and openly admitted that his policies would result in the deaths of tens of millions. Just like a burglar doesn’t send you a post-card announcing that they will rob your house this forthcoming Friday; wrongdoers never announce themselves. Evil must have deceit and the cloak of darkness to operate. It is the nature of things.

As you said, transparency is now hard to find. That bodes ill to the U.S., for opacity is always the cloak of tyranny. Evil operates best under cover of darkness. Truth and sunlight are its enemy. It sounds clichéd but the truth still holds: those that operate in shadow cannot be trusted to do good. If they were doing justice then they could operate freely and with total transparency. They would answer questioning and explain all their purposes and methods. The fact that they are not doing so shows that something is amiss.

And as you stated, because we cannot see what they do in the darkness does not mean that we should not call them into question and ask for light to be cast. We should feel uneasy because of the very nature of their actions. Just as one would feel uneasy about some dark figure lurking around their house at night.


[edit on 17-3-2010 by passenger]

reply to post by whatukno

Vote for better people. Vote for people that haven't been in congress before. Maybe it's the candidates that are the problem and not the process.

Now you are starting to sound as optimistic and delusional as anarchists like myself often sound...

I frankly do not understand this continuous unwavering support for government and the electoral process...

Sure, voting for representatives works fine on a small scale, but voting for 435 people to represent 300 million citizens is just ridiculous. Not to mention the lobbyists and their checkbooks flying around DC like a bunch of vultures...



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Conspiracy Pianist]

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Oh, and OutKast Searcher IS wrong.

I had to open up with this one Wrong on what point? I've said a lot of things. Wrong on everything???

Ok..on to the rest.

This ENTIRE thing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in so many ways

Ok...in which ways? It's not sufficient to make a claim without providing proof of your claim. In which ways is it unconstitutional and how is it unconstitutional???

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Brack Obama: "the Constitution mostly says what the states can't do to you ... what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

The constitution is constantly being interpreted...that is why we have the SCOTUS. So that is how Obama interprets it...it isn't illegal...it doesn't make him a liar. If it is the wrong interpretation...and a law is passed based on that interpretation...it can be challenged in the courts and overturned if found to be unconstitutional. But that doesn't mean anyone has done anything illegal.

The two above statements aren't contradictory...it in no way makes him a liar.

Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy. I guess that makes us an enemy?

Source for this "law"???

Speaking of health care, the next point is that the Founding Fathers ABSOLUTELY made it clear that taking from the "haves" to give to "have nots" involuntarily or through government was FORBIDDEN as this was the socialist aristocracy they originally came here to seek change from. What they are doing is completely un-Constitutional since it has nothing to do with our unalienable rights.

England was a absolute monarchy...I dont' believe it was a socialist society.

And show me where it is made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that it is FORBIDDEN to pass something like the health care bill. You made the claim...and if it is that clear and cut and dry...simply show me exactly where it specifically forbids this type of action.

No where in the constitution does it say that the government can only pass laws if they relate to our unalienable rights. Not sure where you got this idea from...but if this is the case the most laws should be repealed.

Now, someone has carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors"

And that someone is???? Source?

Bribery is the offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. Bribes can take the form of gifts or payments of money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the person accepting can be charged with bribery.

Now let's see... do I really need to point out the obvious on this? It is not just "politics as usual", it is flat out BRIBERY. Most recently:

1.) MARY LANDRIEU AND LOUISIANA: $100 million
2.) BEN NELSON AND NEBRASKA: $100 million
3.) CHRIS DODD AND CONNECTICUT: $100 million
4.) NANCY PELOSI AND CALIFORNIA: $300 million

So now elected representatives can't work to get benefits for their constituents??? Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Chris Dodd, and Nancy Pelosi didn't PERSONALLY recieve any gift or money. They fought to get projects, money, or programs for the people they represent.

Is it illegal...no...not one bit. It is not a bribe... if they weren't personally paid off. I wish they didn't cut special deals in this health care bill...but it isn't illegal.

If it is illegal and you want to impeach people on this...why just right now??? This has been happening forever...so why now?

It answers BO's question above and clearly says (in case you don't understand) if it doesn't explicitly say it in the Constitution or amendments to it, it's up to the States or the PEOPLE. The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. Your governor(s) have POWER to force change on the federal government and so do you as citizens! I have proof.

And they are using the commerce clause as justification to pass this bill. They are using other clauses too...do you think they didn't do their research???

Besides...as I have said before...the mandate will be enforced by the states...because if not then the federal government will cut their funding. So in reality...it will be done by the powers of the state.

If it is unconstitutional...it will be challenged in the courts and be overturned. I have no problem at all if that happens. If the courts say it is unconstitutional...then it is unconstitutional. But until then...it is up to the interpretation of the congressmen.

Oh, and OutKast Searcher IS wrong.

I'll end with this too because I find it so funny. I might put it in my sig.

reply to post by Conspiracy Pianist

I frankly do not understand this continuous unwavering support for government and the electoral process...

Because I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the ideals it holds, and honestly there is not a law passed that can't be repealed.

Sure, voting for representative works fine on a small scale, but voting for 435 people to represent 300 million citizens is just ridiculous.

It has worked so far. It does seem to me better than turning the United States into Afghanistan, with small communities ruled over by warlords.

reply to post by whatukno

It has worked so far.

It works alright, for those who benefit from it... which is a minority.

It does seem to me better than turning the United States into Afghanistan, small communities ruled over by warlords.

The situation in Afghanistan hasn't developed independently and/or isolated from US interference.

The government simply does what it needs to do to keep first and foremost the corporations happy, and secondly, if possible, the voters, the People.

Sure, they'll throw us a bone every now and then to make sure we stay docile while they conduct backdoor meetings with special interests, but main idea id centralization of wealth and power, and our votes are becoming increasingly worthless to combat that.

This topic is just another example of how they bypass whatever protocol they want by exclaiming urgency or disaster.

Originally posted by junglejake
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

Some would say the day Lincoln silenced the press and arrested detractors was the day we lost our freedom.

What you speak of was yesterday. This is today. We can't change what Bush did. We can (possibly) change what happens today.

They could always drop it from School Text Books, and pretend it never
happended like the Texas Board of Education for example.

So you can change the Past.

reply to post by OrphenFire

My civil approach is not to appease you or anyone else, it is simply for the sake of remaining civil

Same goes for me...no need to insert anger into an already tense subject.

Which is why I think you upset so many people.

That is really not my intent.

Since you simply ask for examples, and it appears as if you have 100% trust in our government, it throws a lot of people off, including me.

On this topic...I am just responding to claims being made by others. I'm not a big fan of unsupported claims...so I will just ask for proof. I don't intend to throw anyone off...but I do demand proof for a claim being made.

I don't have 100% trust in our government...far from it. But I will work within the system that is provided to me to try to change things I don't agree with. Working within what the constitution allows me to do...if we go outside those bounds, then we are no better than those we are saying are not following the constitution in the first place.

Is it easy? No. Is it fast? No. But is it the correct way to go about things...Yes.

The thing is though, our government is not very transparent, so examples are hard to come by.

Agreed...but we still have to work within the system to either fix that or expose that.

That's why everyone is so fed up with government. We all see that something just isn't right. I really don't feel like pasting a bunch of links to all of the well-researched threads here on ATS that show evidence of corruption and evil in our government

I'm not asking for proof of overall corruption...I know that exists. I won't ask for a grand conspiracy either. I simply ask for proof to specific claims made by people. I can make crazy claims all day that may sound somewhat plausible...but without proof it means nothing. Without proof it is just a random conspiracy. We are suppose to deny ignorance...not encourage it

Specific, transparent examples of the corruption in our government is impossible to prove.

Again..I'm not asking for examples of corruption. But if someone says "this is a blind vote" or "we won't know how people voted on this"...these claims are simply not true. But it doesn't seem enough for me to give sources and proof that these aren't true...so I ask them to give me proof that their claim is true. And yes...I want them to go research it and find out that they are wrong themselves...that is much more powerful than just me telling them they are wrong.

I'm not against anyone here...I'm just supporting my position...and I welcome others to support thiers...and we can have a civil and fact based discussion about it.


I like you

It's refreshing to discus this in a civil way with someone.

Thank you.

reply to post by Conspiracy Pianist

The situation in Afghanistan hasn't developed independently and/or isolated from US interference.

I was talking about Afghanistan pre invasion. But you knew that already. Do you think that the Taliban was actually in charge?

But that is the situation that anarchists envision, maybe they have more of a pie eyed dream of it than that, but Pre invasion Afghanistan (had to put that in there so you don't purposely feign ignorance) is exactly what would happen.

Course the reality is we as the public can elect better people if we want to. The question is, do the people actually want to?

Originally posted by whatukno

Frankly congress is not circumventing the constitution. You may think so, but just because you believe something is happening does not mean it's true.

Considering the Slaughter rule( if they decide to use it) isn't part of the constitution and in order for a bill to become law it has to actually be PASSED (with the exact same text according to SCOTUS) by both houses before being sent to the President. The way the SR works is the house will vote on the amending bill and not the actual HC bill from the Senate with a single vote and then the Senate votes on the amending bill. Which means that the bill in it's exact form never legally passes both houses. The SR allows the House to vote on this bill without appearing to do so which keeps us from knowing how our state rep voted. This is why we have the constitution! So don't sit there and tell me they aren't trying to circumvent it. Just because you come on a forum and try to tell us all that we're wrong and you're right doesn't make you right the same as it doesn't make me right.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Article I, Section 7 which is what they're trying to get around since they don't have the votes to pass it the right way and so we don't know who voted yea and who voted nay. And the fact that Pelosi said to pass it to find out what's in it then for us to TRUST THEM to fix it says a great deal.

Course when you make accusations against our government and don't provide adequate proof of said accusations, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Provide adequate proof to who? You?

I am completely sick of people who sit comfortably in their homes and make idle threats against the government who has been constitutionally elected by the people. While I am all for freedom of speech, and support someone to say such things, it is equally my right to denounce such stupidity for what it is.

As I've made no threats I'll assume you're not referring to me.

Vote for better people. Vote for people that haven't been in congress before.

Um..I believe we did just that for the most part in the last congressional election did we not? When we do it again this election and it doesn't work out again, what then? Gonna tell us to just grow up and read the constitution again?

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Well if you had read a previous post of mine, you would have seen this little constitutional Gem...

Article I Section 5...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

So the "Slaugher Rule" Which in reality is just the "Nuclear Option" which has been used before, is constitutional.

Now as for Article I Section 7 which you pointed out makes this completely unconstitutional and therefore gives sr_robert1 the the right in his mind to "straight up plan on doing horrible things to certain people" is:

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.

www.archives.gov...

So where in there does it say that the nuclear option is unconstitutional?

When we do it again this election and it doesn't work out again, what then? Gonna tell us to just grow up and read the constitution again?

You keep doing it, every election till they get the point. Each and every time they do something that is against your wishes, you vote them out. You get someone elected that WILL do what you want them to do. And you keep that process up till you have the country you want. It has always been like that, just some of you are just now waking up and taking notice.

reply to post by whatukno

I was talking about Afghanistan pre invasion. But you knew that already.

I was talking about Afghanistan pre invasion too. Do you actually think the CIA had nothing to do with the Afghan Muhajideen?

But that is the situation that anarchists envision, maybe they have more of a pie eyed dream of it than that, but Pre invasion Afghanistan (had to put that in there so you don't purposely feign ignorance) is exactly what would happen.

Oh, pheww, ok...
Well, now that that's cleared up (in one sentence), where do I start to re-educate myself?

Course the reality is we as the public can elect better people if we want to.

Sure, and the reality is also that the People stand so divided on so many topics that no progress is ever made unless it is progress for the wealthy and powerful.

The People thought they were voting for a good person, whom is POTUS now.

One look at expenditure and foreign relations should tell you not much has changed for the better, for the majority of US citizens...

To steer this back to the topic at hand, I think whether there's an anonymous 'secret' vote or not, the masses will not be adequately represented, as history has proven time and time again. We can vote all we like, but it doesn't change the nature of the system our chosen representatives will have to battle in.

reply to post by whatukno


I read your 1,5 post and I'm well aware of it. Determine the rules of it's proceedings without circumventing the constitution, not as they see fit just to get something passed that they neither have the votes for nor that the people want. Yes, self executing rules have been used before but not for something like this, The SER was originally meant to dispose of Senate amendments to House passed bills, never for something like this and to use it for this is to go against the constitution and the checks and balances set by it. So, they have to resort to this because it wouldn't pass otherwise.

The Supreme court ruled in 1998 I believe, that a bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in it's entirety and with the same text before being sent to the President. By the House voting on the amending bill and not the Senate's HC bill itself it can't be legally made into a law as it circumvents A1,S7 by not having both houses vote on and pass the exact same bill.


I never said it gives anyone the right to act out violently. If anyone feels they need to resort to violence that's on them not me. For the sake of all of our children I would much rather find a less bloody way of dealing with it.

You keep doing it, every election till they get the point. Each and every time they do something that is against your wishes, you vote them out. You get someone elected that WILL do what you want them to do. And you keep that process up till you have the country you want. It has always been like that, just some of you are just now waking up and taking notice.

While I can agree with this there's just one problem, no matter how many times we clean both Houses the lobbyist and special interests are still there. Until we can get rid of them our votes count for nothing.


To me the constitution is similar to the bible as it gets interpreted how it needs to be by those that need it to say what they what it to say. The two of us can keep going back and forth about our constitutional knowledge and never reach an agreement as we are both seeing it as we want to see it. That doesn't mean either of us are wrong, but it doesn't mean either of us are right. The only ones that know the true meaning are those that wrote it and unfortunately they are no longer with us.

As a side thought..A "nuclear option" should never be used to pass a bill when you can't get enough votes or the backing of the people. In my opinion anyway. I probably wouldn't make a very good politician as I would actually work for the people and against the lobbyist and corporations.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux

Considering the Slaughter rule( if they decide to use it) isn't part of the constitution

It is a valid house procedural rule that has been used repeatedly from both sides. If it isn't constitutional...then it would of been challenged and deemed unconstitutional. Even republicans say this is a valid procedure...but they just don't like it.

for a bill to become law it has to actually be PASSED (with the exact same text according to SCOTUS) by both houses before being sent to the President.

And it will be. The self-executing rule is a way for the house to say that they "deem" that the bill is "passed" as long as the changes outlined in the rule are incorporated into the reconciliation bill. Then the senate takes the senate bill...writes a reconciliation bill and incorporates the changes outlined in the rule. IF they write the reconciliation bill correctly that adhere's directly to the self-executing rules outlined changes...then it is already deemed passed by the house. Then all that is left is for the Senate to vote on it to approve the changes, and since it is a reconciliation bill...they only need a majority...not 60 votes.

So for example...If the senate bill contains A, B, and C. And the self-executing rule says we want to remove C and add in X and Y. Then the reconciliation bill is written that includes A, B, X, and Y...then the house deems it passed. HOWEVER...if they write the reconciliation bill and screw it up...and end up have A, B, C, X, Y, and Z in there...then it isn't deemed passed and the rule doesn't apply. In this situation it would have to be voted on again in both the house and the senate. If it would still pass using the self-executing rule and the text doesn't match what is in the rule...then it can be overturned by the SCOTUS. It's not easy to understand..but it makes sense once you understand it.

The way the SR works is the house will vote on the amending bill and not the actual HC bill from the Senate with a single vote and then the Senate votes on the amending bill. Which means that the bill in it's exact form never legally passes both houses.

See my above example. The house does vote on the senate bill...but only deems it passed (hence deem and pass) contigent on changes being made to it. So yes...both the house and senate would have voted on and approved the same exact text...as long as the write the rule and the reconciliation bill properly.

Since there is no final self-executing rule or a final reconciliation bill...there is no basis to declare it unconstitutional yet. You have to wait to see the exact text of both the rule and the final reconciliation bill.

The SR allows the House to vote on this bill without appearing to do so which keeps us from knowing how our state rep voted.

That is not true...you will be able to see who voted for or against approving the rule. If they approve the rule...they approve the healthcare bill. It really isn't that hard to figure out who supports it and who doesn't.

It was intended that the general populace partake in the political system. Tell me, how has that worked out?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'm playing the raise my eyebrows to keep my eyes open game so explain to me how they can know it's all the same if Pelosi herself says it needs to be passed in order to see what's in it? How can they know they're "deeming" the same bill if they don't even know what's in it?

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


She means the American People. As most Americans don't have any idea what is in the bill. Of course you took the sound bite as the whole story which is part and parcel to the problem in America.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux

 

She means the American People. As most Americans don't have any idea what is in the bill. Of course you took the sound bite as the whole story which is part and parcel to the problem in America.

I didn't take a sound bite as the whole story but hey thanks for making assumptions about me.

I've heard and read news outlets stating that the House members haven't read it, and that they can't get it passed by the time they want if the House takes the time to read it. So were those news outlets wrong or did the House suddenly find time to read it?

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


It's been out for how long now? Not our problem if they haven't bothered to do their jobs. That is their problem. They have had plenty of time to read the entire bill.

If some GOP lawmaker actually got elected and is illiterate, well, you should probably replace them. The only excuse I know of that someone in our government hasn't bothered to read this bill is that they cannot read.

So that is no excuse whatsoever.