Another Of The GOP's Unconstitutional Tactics... The "Government Shutdown Prevention Act"

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by whatukno

 

*sigh*

As with any law, the provisions of H.R. 1255 would only take effect if the bill were approved by the Senate and signed by the president.

Yeah, OK...we get that part. Do you care to comment on the fact that this is just another piece of legislation that was a complete waste of time, money and other resources; knowing good and damn well that neither the Senate nor the President will sign off on this? Or is that OK with you?

reply to post by beezzer


So it's OK with you if the GOP TRIES to violate the Constitution, as long as there's no chance it will go through? You're defending them TRYING to violate the Constitution? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

reply to post by beezzer


Bull crap, the whole idea of this measure would be to circumvent the Senate and the President. And thus raping the Constitution of the United States.

It's Unconstitutional, and thus proves that the TEA Party and the GOP hate the Constitution of the United States and hate this country and wish for a fascist oligarchy.

hahaha...The "Government Shutdown Prevention Act"..hahaha...hell, these people want to do this-- "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." courtesy of Mr. Norquist. You betcha they want to shut down the govt!

And now the House is going after that communist, marxist, socialist, atheistic, terrorist, traiterous organization....AARP!! Good Lord, 20 years ago I laughed at a t-shirt with the lettering, Women's Sewing Circle and Terrorist Organization printed on the front. That joke seems to be now a reality in the minds of these nutters! See ya in the granny slammer!

H.R. 1255 would stipulate that if the House has not received a message from the Senate prior to April 6, 2011, stating that the Senate has passed a measure providing for appropriations to fund the government for the remainder of FY 2011,

That means, if the government hasn't gotten off its fat a$$ to finally get a budget together

the provisions of H.R. 1 as passed by the House on February 19, 2011,

The most current budget avaliable

would be enacted into law and government operations would be automatically funded under H.R. 1 through FY 2011.

Bills would be paid

As with any law, the provisions of H.R. 1255 would only take effect if the bill were approved by the Senate and signed by the president

But only if the senate and POTUS agreeded to it.

____________________________________________________________


Now could someone PLEASE tell me where in the Constitution it says we can't do this???

reply to post by beezzer

Now could someone PLEASE tell me where in the Constitution it says we can't do this???

Article I Section 7

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.

I guess to the TEA Party that must all be a typo.

reply to post by whatukno


What exactly ae they in violation of? POTUS has to sign off, the senate still has to sign off, what has got you all in such a tizzy?

What are they doing but trying to pass a budget? The only thing about this bill is republicans are saying, if you don't get something on the table, we'll go with the most recent attempt at the budget.

By the way, didn't know you guys were such Constitutionalists.

It's sweet.

reply to post by beezzer


For the record I have always been a Constitutionalist, however, this bill is unconstitutional.

Even if it passed both the House and the Senate and signed by the President, it's unconstitutional.

Cantor should resign from the house for his actions. If I were a TEA Party member and completely illiterate of the United States Constitution I would declare his actions Treasonous, (even though they aren't). You know, like how TEA Party people seem to think that the health care law is somehow treasonous?

If the Congress passes a bill with a super majority, the bill essentially automatically becomes law because a super majority vote is veto proof from the President. The idea is correct, but I think Eric Cantor over estimated the number of votes.

I think the real problem is that the budget, if passed with this new evil/vampire/devil/sin/zombie/republican/nirubu bill would cut 60 billion from spending.

On the democrat side, their cuts come to $7.38 cents.

dooooooooooooooooooooom
oh doooooooooooooooooom

I don't see this as a power grab by the House so much as a push for operational funding by removing the riders and other such stall tactics that have been used since HR 1 was passed by the House for consideration.

Funny how very few people argued the Constitutionality of the HCR, which actually became a Law signed by the President despite the version that was passed was written by a committee that by their own jurisdiction prevents them from dealing with payroll deducted health insurance and there is no provision to the Constitution that allows for the purchase of anything in order to remain a law abiding citizen.

I guess this goes to prove that it is okay when our side does something completely illegal yet if the other side does something remotely questionable then it is time for action. I don't know, maybe it is just me but if things are so bad where are the firearms? After all this country was founded on the armed resistance to a 1.5% tax on tea. One would think that actions such as these are certainly worse. But maybe they teach people that the the whole reason for the Revolution was so we could screw ourselves versus having a different country do it?

But if ending the pointless bickering, partisan divisions and pointless riders to a budget by stating that going with the original bill proposed is paramount to coup then who am I to point out their errors. Besides with such precedence I am sure some other legislation can be railroaded by your side in some fashion like handing out money whether the recipient needs it our not.

reply to post by robwerden


FYI, the passage of a bill with a super majority in congress does not automatically make it law, I don't know where you got that little piece of information but it's incorrect. The bill would still be required to be signed into law by the president and if he decided to veto the bill, it must then return to congress and capture a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress in order to override the veto, which is 67 votes in the Senate and 287 votes in the House.

reply to post by Ahabstar


The constitutionality of the Health Care Reform law has yet to be determined, so at best I think you're jumping the gun on that subject.

With regards to the armed revolution that led to the founding of this nation, you may want to re-read your history. Have you ever heard the slogan, "No Taxation Without Representation?" Well it came from the revolution you're speaking of and it's describing the reason for the revolt. It wasn't so much the 1.5% tax that they were rebelling against but rather, it was the fact that they were being taxed by a government of which they had no representative voice.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're defending them TRYING to violate the Constitution?

The right went after Saul Alinsky, then they co-opted him. Now, violating the Constitution is "by any means necessary"....

I was not the one to invent lies: they were created in a society divided by class and each of us inherited lies when we were born. It is not by refusing to lie that we will abolish lies: it is by eradicating class by any means necessary.

a quote from Dirty Hands by Sartre

We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

a quote from Malcolm X

They really, really, really like these guys.

Well, maybe I went too far. Maybe it's just too many new elected members in Congress just not understanding how Congress works. Or maybe it's more being high on Koch. When the Koch bros, through their Citizens for Congressional Reform spin-off, US Term Limit, tried to establish fed congress term limits, to oust Democrats, that was found to be unconstitutional. By any means necessary.

This is a "must see" addition to thread Congressman Anthony Weiner regarding House rules and bill passage:

C SPAN EXCERPT

Classic!

reply to post by kinda kurious


Yeah I saw Rep. Weiner's response to the GOP the other night and you're right, It is classic. Anthony Weiner would get my vote without question, as would Alan Grayson if he were to decide to run for office again.

Thanks for adding the video to my thread as I had completely forgotten about it until you posted it here. Like I said previously, the current GOP majority in the House reminds me of a bunch of 6th graders who could probably learn a lot about the job they were elected to perform by reading that little book sold in the congressional gift shop.

reply to post by Flatfish


Maybe the sarcasm escaped you a bit. But is it reasonable to assume that a person versed enough to know the amount of the tax rate might happen to know the multiple causes and implications for the Revolutionary War.

As for the Constitutionality of the HCR, a literate 14 year old could be handed a copy of the Counstitution and asked if the Federal government has the enumerated power to require the people to purchase a tangible item such as a gun, car or insurance policy in order to remain a law abiding citizen. The answer of course is no. It is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government, therefore it is Unconstitutional.

One would thing that Constitutional Scholar and former head of the Harvard Law Review could grasp such a fundamental concept. Especially while under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Personally what would be up to debate is whether Obama committed an impeachable high crime by signing the bill into law. Of course the more extreme could say that such a grab of power by the super majority in complete disregard for the Constitution by the President, Speaker of the House and The Senate Majority Leader collaborated enough to be considered a conspiracy to commit treason. Never mind all the members of Congress that voted for the bill actually and willing violate Article 6 and violated their oaths of office as well.

But like I said earlier, or was it just for the right to screw ourselves versus allowing another country do it?

so ya I don't know why anyone is suprised by this

it's not as if republicans and democrats are different

I can't believe there are still people who don't understand this ...

If you are only given two bad choices every time than there is no real choice is there? Too many people get there information from propaganda media.

It is the same with any media outlet, they only push what makes them money. Find someone who has no financial interest and maybe you will find some truth. All the talking heads are the same and never mention the real issues. You will never hear Glenn Beck say that every law is a gun, the same way you won't hear it from MessNBC

reply to post by berilium


So that's your justification for it? Both sides are the same, so it's ok?

Originally posted by beezzer
You ladies done soiling yourselves?

Here's the summary of the bill
Link
www.gop.gov...

H.R. 1255 would stipulate that if the House has not received a message from the Senate prior to April 6, 2011, stating that the Senate has passed a measure providing for appropriations to fund the government for the remainder of FY 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1 as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, would be enacted into law and government operations would be automatically funded under H.R. 1 through FY 2011. As with any law, the provisions of H.R. 1255 would only take effect if the bill were approved by the Senate and signed by the president.

Yes, the above is a summary, but you should include the actual provision in which Whatukno is calling in the unconstitutionality of the bill.

Specifically, [emphasis is mine]

SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.
(a) Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011- If the House has not received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.

A breakdown into normal speak us normal human beings convey ideas in would be:

If we in the House of Representatives have not heard from you over there in the Senate by April 6th, telling us that you passed your own version of a budget for the rest of 2011 fiscal year, the bill we passed (but you haven't voted upon) WILL become law.

That is blatantly unconstitutional. Regardless if even the senate and the President were to pass and sign this bill. The House of Representatives cannot enact law alone, just as the Senate cannot enact law alone. Just as and thank god, the president cannot enact law alone (sorta...EOs are damn close and the power of regulatory powers might as well be law making.)

This is a poorly calculated tactical failure on the Republican's part. They should just let the government go without a budget. They have done their part. They have passed a budget. It is the Senate, majority of Democrats, that have not. But they are afraid it will be Groundhog Day a la 1995.

The above bill and even as it makes it way to the Senate is circular logic. One, the provision stating H.R. 1 will become law can only go into effect if the Senate and the President vote, pass and sign H.R 1255. But if H. R. 1255 doesn't pass or even get voted on, the House is making claim they will just enact into law H.R. 1.

Beeze....I normally would be on your side, but this is just stupid and a waste of strategic posturing. Major fail on the Republican part. They could have pushed the message that the failure to pass a budget falls on the Senate in a much more effective way.