Will the speaker of the House overthrow the Constitution ?

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I am curious David.

Which part of the Constitution do you think the bill that the House will vote on Sunday will violate?

Article I Section 7,
Article 4 Section 4 republican form of government, and
5th Amendment due process of law.

4 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

It's been used by both sides and as I understand it, it's mostly used to speed up passage
of amendments to bills that have already been passed.

It has never been used to pass a bill that doesn't have the votes to pass on it's own,
though, and that's probably where all the contention over using it on the health care
reform bill is coming from.

It is not clear to me whether Nancy Pelosi is going to hold a vote on enacting such a rule,
which will then effectively be a vote on the Senate bill,
OR
simply declare, without more, that the vote has ALREADY BEEN TAKEN some time in the past

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I think the Democrats will only use deem-and-pass on HCR as a last resort (if they haven't been able to buy/bribe the last few holdouts).

Supposedly, there will be an up or down vote tomorrow morning and I don't think they'd attempt that without knowing they have enough votes to pass it.

Bart Stupak will probably cave, giving them some votes to spare, so that a few of the more vulnerable Blue Dogs can be allowed to vote 'no'.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

I think the Democrats will only use deem-and-pass on HCR as a last resort
(if they haven't been able to buy/bribe the last few holdouts).

ABSOLUTELY!!! Thay 'd only use that as a desperation measure.
If thay can get the votes to actually PASS it, there is no chance that thay will do this.

Quote:

Supposedly, there will be an up or down vote tomorrow morning and I don't think they'd
attempt that without knowing they have enough votes to pass it.

Agreed; thay 'd not.

Quote:

Bart Stupak will probably cave, giving them some votes to
spare, so that a few of the more vulnerable Blue Dogs can be allowed to vote 'no'.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Article 4 Section 4 republican form of government

well there you go, it's not a republican government it's a democratic government in power, the republicans will have to wait until at least 2012 to get their chance

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Article 4 Section 4 republican form of government

well there you go, it's not a republican government it's a democratic government in power,
the republicans will have to wait until at least 2012 to get their chance

Maybe that 's a joke?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

ebrown p wrote:
I am curious David.

Which part of the Constitution do you think the bill that the House will vote on Sunday will violate?
Article I Section 7,
Article 4 Section 4 republican form of government, and
5th Amendment due process of law.

Gee, does that mean your statement violates art 3 section 2?

Listing the sections without explaining WHY you can possibly think it violates the constitution doesn't help your argument David. Rather it points to you not having one.

I am unclear how we are denied a republican form of government if David doesn't like the way our elected representatives vote. Can you explain that to us David? I think djjjd was correct. You just disagree with us having a Democratic majority.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

It's been used by both sides and as I understand it, it's mostly used to speed up passage of amendments to bills that have already been passed.

It has never been used to pass a bill that doesn't have the votes to pass on it's own, though, and that's probably where all the contention over using it on the health care reform bill is coming from.

Well, let's be honest here; the 'contention' over the bill is coming from Republican angst over the fact that it's going to pass. It is a political defeat for them if it does, because they have bet the farm on blocking it and everything else Obama does this year. It's also problematic for their ideological position, because elements of the legislation will be extremely popular with the populace and eventually - just as with Medicare - your party will end up defending it, the same way that Conservative parties all over the world now defend their health care systems.

Passing some form of Universal Health care represents not only a defeat of the Republicans in office but of the philosophy of Conservatism itself.

This is where the ridiculous charges and statements are stemming from - the bile in the stomachs of those who proved to be such poor stewards of our economy and nation, that they got voted out en masse. The Republican party has put off the self-examination that is necessary to recover from their recent losses, and were hoping to brazen their way through this period by being the ultimate denialists - voting no on everything, no matter what it is, period. If this strategy fails, Republicans are going to have very little left to work with.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Article I Section 7,
Article 4 Section 4 republican form of government, and
5th Amendment due process of law.

Do you want to explain how the vote which is planned for the House of Representative, which will be won or lost with 216 votes (a majority of members) violates any one of these?

The only thing this rule by a majority of votes violates is the IOKIYAR principle.

0 Replies

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) just said on C-Span that he opposes the proposed health care bill and will vote against it tomorrow.

Republican obstructionism!!! LOL

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Quote:

Republican obstructionism!!! LOL

The reason it is Republican obstructionism is because they are voting in lockstep against healthcare (not a single Republican dares to vote for it in spite of the fact that American opinion is pretty evenly divided).

The fact that a couple of Democrats aren't in mindless lockstep with their party doesn't mean that the Republicans are. If you pointed out a single Republican who wasn't obstructing the bill, it would be a much better argument against Republican obstructionism.

And, it isn't just healthcare. Republicans are now filibustering legislation that they sponsored under the Bush administration. They clearly want to shut down the government as a political ploy to attack Obama (with no regard to what is really good for the country).

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) just said on C-Span that he opposes the proposed health care bill and will vote against it tomorrow.

Republican obstructionism!!! LOL

Ebrown is correct. You ought to take a more in-depth look at things.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It is time to ram it down their throats.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

It is time to ram it down their throats.

It most certainly is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Super majorities in both houses for a year and this 'wonderful' bill still hasn't been passed LOL.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Quote:

Super majorities in both houses for a year and this 'wonderful' bill still hasn't been passed LOL.

You missed the punch line there Irishk.

The Democrats are going to pass the health care bill only after losing their super majority in the Senate... LOL.

0 Replies

@parados,

ebrown p wrote:

I am curious David.

Which part of the Constitution do you think the bill that the House will vote on Sunday will violate?

David wrote:

Article I Section 7,
Article 4 Section 4 republican form of government, and
5th Amendment due process of law.

parados wrote:

Gee, does that mean your statement violates art 3 section 2?

WHICH subsection?
How does my statement violate the judicial article?

parados wrote:

Listing the sections without explaining WHY you can possibly think
it violates the constitution doesn't help your argument David.
Rather it points to you not having one.

I was asked by another member, which sections of the Constitution
passing Obama 's bill without a vote, woud violate.
I answered that question.

parados wrote:

I am unclear how we are denied a republican form of government if David
doesn't like the way our elected representatives vote.
Can you explain that to us David?

U twisted the question in front of us.
If thay VOTED to adopt Obama 's bill, THEN I 'd not like
"the way our elected representatives vote."
If Nancy simply declared that it has been adopted, without a vote,
obviously because the Demos don 't have the votes to do it,
then I 'd object that we were denied a republican form of government,
in that if Nancy becomes an autocrat or a monarch
in her unilateral and arbitrary and fraudulently deceptive declaration,
then there was no democratic vote
among the representatives of the citizens.
America is a democratic republic.
I hope that is clear enuf; if not: lemme know.

parados wrote:

I think djjjd was correct.
You just disagree with us having a Democratic majority.

I object to their not VOTING, if indeed, that proves to be the case.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

If Nancy simply declared that it has been adopted, without a vote,

I think I understand your problem David. You don't understand what the procedure in question involves.

The "Deem and Pass" procedure is not dictated by the Speaker of the House (or any other one person) as you imply. It involves a vote that needs a majority of Representatives to pass.

The procedure is to put the passage of one bill inside of another bill-- and passing them together. But the key that it is a "democratic" procedure in that it can't be done unless a majority of Representatives votes for it.

This is why the Republicans (under Speaker Gingrich) did this quite often without anyone (as far as I know) complaining about constitutionality.

But no matter... the news today is that the bill will be able to pass without this procedure... which will undoubtedly make you and me both very very happy.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

ERRATUM:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

ebrown p wrote:
I am curious David.

Which part of the Constitution do you think the bill that the House will vote on Sunday will violate?
Article I Section 7,
Article 4 Section 4 republican form of government, and
5th Amendment due process of law.

I read the question incorrectly.

I misunderstood this question.
Accordingly I amend my answer as follows:
if indeed, a vote is taken on this bill and on all bills
as to whether it is adopted or rejected,
I have no dispute as to whether it is adopted according to proper procedure.

On the other hand,
if there is no vote, merely a declaration from Nancy
substituting for a vote, claiming that the Senate health bill
was passed by the House, when in fact there was no vote,
then to that, I assert the objections that I indicated.

David

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

If Nancy simply declared that it has been adopted, without a vote,

I think I understand your problem David. You don't understand what the procedure in question involves.

The "Deem and Pass" procedure is not dictated by the Speaker of the House (or any other one person) as you imply.
It involves a vote that needs a majority of Representatives to pass.

The procedure is to put the passage of one bill inside of another bill-- and passing them together. But the key that it is a "democratic" procedure in that it can't be done unless a majority of Representatives votes for it.

This is why the Republicans (under Speaker Gingrich) did this quite often without anyone (as far as I know) complaining about constitutionality.

But no matter... the news today is that the bill will be able to pass without this procedure...
which will undoubtedly make you and me both very very happy.

OK: the question in my mind
is simply whether or not the bill is put before the membership of the House
who can then vote on it with full knowledge of what is in that bill.

Either thay can or thay can 't.

Yes or No ??

That makes the difference between whether or not it is adopted by a constitutional procedure.

1 Reply

Will the speaker of the House overthrow the Constitution ?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know