Representation without representation

reply to post by whatukno


I'll agree and even star you for that one. I know that it was said that members haven't had a chance to read it, whether it was all or a few your guess is as good as mine. I knew Pelosi was referring to the American people when she said that but after hearing that I figured she meant the House as well as the people.

Although it wouldn't surprise me in the least if none of them have read it.

reply to post by whatukno


I think that more than a few have not bothered to not only not read this bill, but quite a few other things as well.

As for your assertion that the House or Senate can change the rules of how to conduct a vote, yes. But only to a degree. This link might help clarify that quite a bit.

Some key points from that link:

In the exercise of their constitutional power to determine their rules of proceedings, the Houses of Congress may not “ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations all matters of method are open to the determination of the House . . . The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the House, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.”Where a rule affects private rights, the construction thereof becomes a judicial question.

So a game of Guitar Hero in a double elimination bracket to determine who gets the final say of whether HealthCare Reform (whichever of the multiple versions that has floated around the past year) is passed by both the House and Senate and presented to the President for final signing into law is right out. But it could be used for a non-binding resolution to congratulate the winner of the NCAA tournament.

Congress has authority to make it an offense against the United States for a Member, during his continuance in office, to receive compensation for services before a government department in relation to proceedings in which the United States is interested. Such a statute does not interfere with the legitimate authority of the Senate or House over its own Members

Now this is a big one. If the GOP, under the leadership of John Boehner, wanted to go after members that received some backroom deals for their vote like Rep. Matheson from my largely ignored thread for example.

Or maybe that little award Pelosi received from the Pope a while back. Something about visiting countries in the Middle East and meeting with heads of state there. I mean after all, the Speaker of the House is second in line, and only the President can enter and sign into treaties. That would be some serious ethics violations and some wholly unconstitutional actions.

So even the "deem and pass" does not stand up as being particularly constitutional procedure on this bill. And a blind vote (no record of the Yeas and Nays) as the OP suggested is right out of the question.

But one thing that is rather interesting, from my link of Matheson, is that Health Care Reform originated in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Look at number 2 "Health and health facilities (except health care supported by payroll deductions)."

That's right, the Bill originated in a committee that has no jurisdiction over health care supported by payroll deductions. Are you serious? indeed, Speaker Pelosi.


Edit for typos

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Ahabstar]

reply to post by Ahabstar

And a blind vote (no record of the Yeas and Nays) as the OP suggested is right out of the question.

This is simply not true.

The OP should either provide a valid source for this claim or edit the OP. I have looked...I can't find a single source...not even a partisan source that claims this. If it is out there...I can't find it. So it is spreading mis-information and encouraging ignorance by leaving it in the OP.

How many times now have I or others have said that this isn't trure in this post??? Yet, here on the page 5 you still are saying that you will have no idea how the representatives vote.

Does no one care to research things on their own instead of just taking the word of the OP???

reply to post by Ahabstar


Thank you for bringing to this discussion real data to work with. This not only helps everyone understand the issue better, but it dispells ignorance of the subject matter.

While your guitar hero point does indeed fly in the face of the constitution, The Nuclear Option is not unprecedented. It has been done in the past by republicans to further their agenda, now that the tables have turned, it is hardly fair to besmirch the same tactic.





[edit on 3/18/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Technically every vote could done without a tally of any of the votes. But someone almost always asks fro the votes to be entered into the journal. So long as 1/5 of the House agrees for the tally to be taken and the record entered, then there will be a voting record of each member.

Just one of the dangers of "throw them all out" campaigns is that were it to become successful, then many things could be done by the remaining incumbents (who would no doubt work together) to take advantage of these little loopholes such a record (or no record) of votes on any particular issue.

Allowing the use of Deem and Pass (aka self executing rule, aka the Slaughter rule) on Health Care reform, which very much affects the People directly and intervenes (or intertwines or just outright circumvents--depending on your point of view) Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the People. Specifically, everything except the 2nd and 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is touched on by this bill should it become Law.

Anyone comfortable by such a piece of legislation being pushed through with reckless abandon really needs to examine themselves and what their true motivations are. Because once the precedence is set, a real danger exists to the freedom and security of everyone from future bills.

Would you like the next annual budget bill (a fairly standard bill) have a rider of say overturning the 2nd Amendment or the introduction of First Night privileges for any office holder if the bride is a blonde or redhead to be passed by similar procedures?

Personally, I trust these politicians about as much as I think I could get away with punching the living tar out of them in front of a room full of lawyers and police officers at a camcorder convention and not receive any assault charges. Giving them extra tools to step on the People is a very bad idea.

Originally posted by Ahabstar

But one thing that is rather interesting, from my link of Matheson, is that Health Care Reform originated in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Look at number 2 "Health and health facilities (except health care supported by payroll deductions)."

That's right, the Bill originated in a committee that has no jurisdiction over health care supported by payroll deductions. Are you serious? indeed, Speaker Pelosi.

But I do think that it is very important to point this part out. Just in case anyone missed it in the previous post. The seething rage is over a bill introduced by a committee that has no jurisdiction on the subject covered by the bill.

It would be like nominating Carry Nation to be the bartender for a frat house kegger.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I also know you need to take what you can when you have the chance...this is a general rule of the real world.

"Take what you can, when you can....."

Frankly, I feel that philosophy is exactly what's wrong with the world.

Perhaps you should explore the "work for what you want" versus just taking what you can get.




[edit on 18-3-2010 by lpowell0627]

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

And a blind vote (no record of the Yeas and Nays) as the OP suggested is right out of the question.

This is simply not true.

The OP should either provide a valid source for this claim or edit the OP.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language, which countermands several controversial provisions.

Here's what's going on. The House is stuck having to basically pass the Senate health care bill, because the bill cannot be reconciled in conference committee. Why? Because it will be filibustered. However, House members are averse to doing anything that looks like they approve of the various side-deals that were made in the Senate -- like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." The House intends to remove those unpopular features in budget reconciliation, but if they pursue budget reconciliation on a standard legislative timeline -- where they pass the Senate bill outright first and then go back to pass a reconciliation package of fixes -- they'd still appear to be endorsing the sketchy side deals, and then the GOP would jump up and down on their heads.

Enter "deem and pass." Under this process, the House will simply skip to approving the reconciliation fixes, and "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. By doing it this way, the Democrats get the Senate bill passed while simultaneously coming out against the unpopular features of the same.

YES. All of this is basically motivated by concerns over perceptions and other such cosmetic bull#. This is all about the House Democrats being scared out of their minds that they'll have to spend even an hour explaining, "No, we do not approve of the Cornhusker Kickback."

Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by lpowell0627

Frankly, I feel that philosophy is exactly what's wrong with the world.

Perhaps you should explore the "work for what you want" versus just taking what you can get.

"Take" in the context I am using doesn't mean "steal".

I'm also a big fan of "work for what you want"....but I still believe in "take what you can when you can".

For instance...there are people out of jobs right now because they don't feel some jobs are prestigous enough for them. I'm sure there are some on welfare that could get a job...but think working at McDonalds is beneath them. In these situations...I think "take what you can get when you can get it" is a perfectly good philosophy.

In my personal work life...I have stuck by the "take what I can get when I can get it" releating to business decisions. It has worked out well for me...have I taken one deal only to find out that taking that deal required me to pass on another better deal down the road??? Absolutely...but do I regret it...not one bit. You aren't guranteed anything...so you take what you can get when you have the chance. Otherwise you are gambling...and I don't gamble with my life or my work.

Would you agree?

reply to post by junglejake


Seriously JungleJake "Super Moderator" ....A link to go with the OP please?

Where have you read it will be a "Blind Vote"??

I am accustomed to unsourced sensationalism from the average poster, but honestly it is a little dissapointing comming from a Mod.

FYI - The term "blind vote" DOES NOT mean that individual voting records will not be made public.

It typically is used when a large bill is not made available to representitives until immediately before a vote.

This is not the case here...Both the house and senate bills have been available online for months and the proposed amended (reconciliation) bill was posted a couple of weeks ago.

Here I will help you out...here are the amendments to the Senate bill...

www.rules.house.gov...

Here is the full reconciliation bill:

budget.house.gov...


So please explain and support your OP claim about a "blind vote".

[edit on 18-3-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'll say it again, you are wrong on several points but I don't have enough time or space to argue every one.

One thing I will agree with you on (likely the only thing) is that unless you were there to write the Constitution or know someone who personally was there, it's all "interpretation", BUT there is enough literature available to get a great idea of what the Founding Fathers had in mind as well as the legalities around the Constitution. (The Federalist Papers, Jefferson's Manual on House of Reps., Separation of Church and State, 5000 year leap, etc.)

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???

To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be "deemed" to be enactment of another.

If you're so sure that this IS legal, why don't you show proof contrary to the above? What is your argument for the 37 states that are already enacting legislation to block this as well as preparing lawsuits to sue the government? So far, you are playing on the "silence" factor that just because it doesn't say it, makes it ok, which if you go by the tenth amendment that IS in the Constitution, it says that if it DOESN'T CLEARLY STATE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE STATE OR THE PEOPLE.

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.

Are you serious?? Do you have any idea the damage that will be done in the interim? You're saying it is ok to enact an illegal law as long as it "eventually" gets overturned... WOW.

It's hard take you seriously as a fellow American since you don't take MY freedoms and liberties or OUR Constitution seriously. Like our politicians, you take from it what benefits you and shortcut working for it if you can, you said that yourself -

"I'm also a big fan of "work for what you want"....but I still believe in "take what you can when you can".

The price you're willing to pay for this government and this plan is NOT the price me or anyone that I know is willing to pay.

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.

I didn't hear any PEOPLE asking for that money, in fact, once offered, the PEOPLE asked to give it back! Where are you getting your facts from? And to correct you, they can work for their constituents but changing your vote for a law to gain benefits ONLY FOR YOUR STATE IS BRIBERY.

There are plainly two different schools of thought, and you sir, belong to a smaller school than I. Reading your posts may lead people to believe you are to personally gain something through this legislation, but that's just speculation.

More to come.

~Namaste

Meaning of "high" crimes

reply to post by maybereal11


It looks like I might be mistaken about the health care aspect. I had heard something about Pelosi seeking to pass the Health Care bill with what I termed a blind vote -- meaning voting records would not be made public knowledge. So obviously I goofed when I said Senate. I overheard the same thing on television, and just didn't make the connection that Pelosi is the speaker of the house. I was thinking the Senate still had the Health Care bill and therefor, it must be talking about that vote.

My bad!

I do think the question is one we still need to consider, though. Currently, the only things the house and senate can vote on without the public being privy to their votes is items classified due to national security.

However, it really seems, if you follow the discussions many politicians are having, that health care reform is more important than anything else, and we stupid Americans can't be trusted to make the decision as to what's best for us. When Obama said we could tell congress in November what we thought of health care, a lot of moderate congressfolk backed away from the bill. However, if their vote could be hidden from public view and we only see numbers instead, they could vote on party lines and still possibly keep their job. Sounds perfect for the majority that wants to pass an unpopular bill.

What is in this bill that makes it so darn important to pass right now? Please explain. The economy is in the toilet. People are out of work. We have two wars being waged. Yet, our entire elected federal politicians and all the media are focusing on modifying our healthcare system. Huh? I am not buying this. What is being done right now behind closed doors? Something smells really bad to me.

Could this be a false flag?

reply to post by Ahabstar


Now I didin't ignore that part of your post. I was just waiting to see if you caught on to why the energy and COMMERCE committee might have something to do with the changes in the health care insurance industry.

Ever wonder why the health care insurance industry is so against this bill? Over the last year they have spent a lot of money to make sure that the American public thinks this is a bad idea.

It's because part of this bill requires the health care insurance industry to insure people despite any pre existing condition. It also stops them from dropping you because of a long term illness.

Part of the reason that it was started in the energy and COMMERCE committee is because this bill regulates commerce.

Article I Section 8...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

www.archives.gov...

Just wanted to show that yes it is constitutional for Congress to regulate commerce.

reply to post by whatukno


Doing it again wuk.

Wow, federal government is allowed to regulate commerce now?

Isn't it intrastate commerce?

No? Please show me where than it states the fed gov can regulate commerce within a state.

You know they have the right to regulate intrastate commerce, NOT commerce within a state.

Boy, you should do well running as a politician, you manipulate by obfuscation and by failure to disclose.

You should fit RIGHT in.

Even if we had a representative government, things would still suck.

Voting is overrated if you don't have the ability to opt out from rule.

You're still governed by somebody.

reply to post by endisnighe


There are actually several cases of the Feds ruling in interstate commerce. The New Deal did this immensely. but more recently was the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990, where it is a federal offense to possess a firearm within a school zone. As schools can produce economic revenue for a state, as well as in the long term (educated folks make more money), there was some controversy over this being in violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

It was explained away with this:

Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

Still, some feel this demonstrates the Federal government to overstep its constitutional grounds in a grab for more power towards a central government and leeching it away from individual states.

reply to post by whatukno


Yes Congress can regulate commerce in so much that they can tell the states (or other nations or Indian tribes--which are sovereign nations within our country to a degree) as to what products are acceptable to be bought and sold within the country. How the duties will be paid and at what amount.

For example, Congress can ban all cheese and wine manufactured in France from entering the country. Congress can make a law stating that states can not forbid insurance companies from selling policies in their state. They can remove state laws of bond requirements for insurance companies to do business in that state. (Which is how states prevent or allow insurance companies to operate in the state. By placing a sum of money held as a bond with the state treasurer)

What Congress cannot do is regulate that a person has to purchase a product. In this case insurance. The the Energy and Commerce Committee that introduced the bill to the House was unable to regulate payroll deducted insurance policies in the first place. It is outside the scope of the committee's power. Which means that they can not dictate to a state to drop their laws on bond requirements for payroll deducted policies.

If Congress would like to have this power, rather than have a committee draft a bill, which it has no jurisdiction to regulate in the first place, then go through the Amendment process so they can Constitutionally have that power. Why is this not being done the proper way? Because every member of Congress knows that there is no chance in the world that the states would ratify such a proposed amendment.

Please read Article 1, Section 8. Nowhere does it mention Congress having the authority to force the people to purchase anything. Not a car, not a house, not even a Big Mac and most certainly not insurance...neither medical nor automobile. We can argue that maybe medical insurance belongs under the general welfare clause or even interstate commerce (the clause you quoted) but look at the 10th 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.

Until it is clearly defined that insurance policies, companies and individual purchasing decisions fall fully under one of those two responsibilities (or even another one that is even less obvious--such as so strong of a public demand for a UHC systems that there would be an insurrection or revolt if one was not created), then the bill itself is clearly violating the 10th Amendment.

Personally, I am beginning to think that the whole push by any means necessary for the HCR Bill is to see if it will make enough Americans put the guns on the table to stop it so to speak. Much like a child does things to test the limits of what their parents will allow.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Ahabstar]

reply to post by junglejake


Yes, but states are pushing back pretty hard on the fed's interpretation on this clause.

Hell, even California is doing it, in regards to the marijuana laws.

The truth is, that our country is no longer governed by law. Only mandates from an unlawful federal government.

A lot of people and courts are stating cases to back their positions that are directly unConstitutional. Just because a case or a legislated statute is currently law, does not mean it is Constitutional.

I feel sooner or later some state is going to say enough. This admin sure is pushing the powers of the fed to the extreme.

As soon as the first state pushes back that leads to the fed trying to stop them, you will see people like me move to that state and back them. We have sherrif's telling the feds that they may not enter their counties without permission. We have states stating that if a fed agent tries to enforce federal gun laws in their state they can be arrested, charged and fined for this.

I would compare the state we are in now to be the equivalent of about 1856. The majority of people are sick and tired of this government. 80% feel the Congress is overstepping it's bounds in many ways.

The line is getting close and these idiots keep pushing. Cap and Tax would have been a step over the line, that was pulled back, but then they sneak it in through an agency by mandating that now, CO2 is a regulated poisonous gas.

It is getting to be a tragic comedy. I feel they are doing all of this crap to push someone into doing something stupid.

Oh well, no big deal, we had a good run. Sometimes Jefferson would seem to be prophetic with the tree thing.

reply to post by endisnighe


I've been talking with someone who's been talking with some higher ups in the military (sorry, no links on this one -- take it as legitimate or spin) who have actually been discussing what would happen if a state were to secede. More than likely, the feds would call on the military to step in and suppress what they would call a rebellion. Yet, every general has said they don't know a single soldier who would fire on an American.

Which means, generals probably would not follow those orders, and that this is such a real possibility that the military has been planning for it. Yikes.