OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 09:20 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Why did the left ridicule the reading of the US Constitution to begin this congress?

Because it had no meaning to those reading it.

Where in the Constitution does it say the House can write a bill that becomes law if the Senate fails to act on it?
Yet those same people that read the Constitution passed something that said exactly that.
WHAT was that ??
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 09:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
HR1255

Quote:
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.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 09:34 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

HR1255

Quote:
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.

Facially, if thay did that, u r correct.
I 'm perplexed. Surely thay KNOW that.

I wonder what their rationale is ?
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 06:52 pm
@parados,
How do you know it had no meaning to those reading it? Are you able to psychoanalyze every member of the House? Explain that to us.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 07:05 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Quote:
How do you know it had no meaning to those reading it? Are you able to psychoanalyze every member of the House? Explain that to us.


This is a picture of the Right side of the House of Representatives while the Constitution was being read. Notice, they didn't even sit through it.

http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/constreadingc_010611.jpg

... or maybe they were afraid of it.

Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 07:59 pm
@maxdancona,
That means nothing. The idea was to have it read which every member partook. Your side read it also after they found out the American people liked the idea. Hypocrites.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 07:59 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
... or maybe they were afraid of it.


More then likely they was bored with the simple minded children games being play out.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 06:43 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
... or maybe they were afraid of it.


More then likely they was bored with the simple minded children games being play out.
Reading the US Constitution is not a simple minded children's game.
U shoud know that.





David
parados
  Selected Answer
 
  4  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 07:14 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
If it had meaning then explain to us how over 200 members could vote for a bill that said it was automatically law if the Senate failed to vote on a bill.

You do understand how a bill becomes law under the Constitution, don't you? Or are you another of those that the Constitution has no meaning for?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 07:47 am
@parados,
Did thay offer a rationale, Parados ?
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 07:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Read the bill and see what you think David. I don't see any constitutional basis. Of course their rationale is probably pretty obvious. It was political and had nothing to do with the Constitutionality of it.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 07:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Reading the US Constitution is not a simple minded children's game.
U shoud know that.


In that content it is nothing but a simple minded child game and stage show.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 08:11 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Reading the US Constitution is not a simple minded children's game.
U shoud know that.
BillRM wrote:
In that content it is nothing but a simple minded child game and stage show.
That assertion is false.
It illustrated the limits of Congressional power.

Personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
to the domestic jurisdiction of government.

The more badly crippled is government qua domestic jd,
the more FREE are the citizens who created the damned thing.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 08:30 am
@parados,
The rules of the Senate are voted upon. That's how it's done.

Why don't you explain to us how the House and Senate could pass a Health Care Bill without one republican vote after telling us that the bill would be bipartisan?
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 08:45 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
to the domestic jurisdiction of government.


Tell that to the GOP with their wish to control the wombs of all women.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 09:12 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Quote:
The rules of the Senate are voted upon. That's how it's done.

The rules of the Senate have nothing to do with whether the House can declare a bill is law without the Senate voting on it. This is about the US Constitution which states the following
Quote:
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

There isn't any constitutional leeway for the House to declare it law without it being passed in the Senate.

Quote:
Why don't you explain to us how the House and Senate could pass a Health Care Bill without one republican vote after telling us that the bill would be bipartisan?

There is no constitutional requirement that any legislation be bipartisan. Just in case anyone was doubting you were a complete idiot when it comes to the US Constitution, I think you managed to take away their doubt on that one.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 09:20 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Liberals claim to follow the constitution on everything? Is that true? Nope. We all remember when the left ridiculed and mocked the reading of the Constitution when congress resumed this January.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/31/whos-afraid-of-americas-consti

Liberals have a right to object to the reading of the constitution... Anyone can read... My reading the Holy Qu'ran does not make me a Muslim, and clearly, reading the Bible does not make Christians... What both liberal and reactionaries forget, is that the constitution does not form a nation, but a government... If a nation is to be made of this diverse people, it will be in the achievement of the goals for which the constitution was written, and the constitution as written and interpreted is an impediment to this people becoming a nation... As long as the constitution is seen by one group as a protection of their rights, and the denial of rights they do no need or desire we will not be one nation under God or Heaven, for that matter... We will be no nation without a defense of universal rights for each person to do as they please so long as they interfere with no other in in the conduct of their business... The government has only the protection of all as a legitimate goal... It stands now as protection of one in the injury of others, and for this reason it must fall, and will...
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
to the domestic jurisdiction of government.


You should consider a career as a sci-fi writer.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 06:40 pm
@parados,
And you're a complete fool. I never claimed only one legislative branch could pass a law. Your boy president is a third rate constitutional interim professor. Was he your teacher?
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 06:42 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Quote:
The rules of the Senate are voted upon. That's how it's done.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who Is Afraid Of US Constitution?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 11:46:53
▲ ▼