The Gubment shi**ing on the Constitution....again
03-18-2010, 11:07 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 884
Total Cats: 0
The Gubment shi**ing on the Constitution....again
Chuck Schumer: We'd like to create rules that can't be changed by 2/3rds Majority
YouTube - Chuck Schumer: We'd like to create rules that can't be changed by 2/3rds Majority
So, the Progressives basically say screw the Constitution, we'll do what we want to whomever we want, whenever we want, and we're not going to bring the KY when we do you in the pooper.
YouTube - Chuck Schumer: We'd like to create rules that can't be changed by 2/3rds Majority
So, the Progressives basically say screw the Constitution, we'll do what we want to whomever we want, whenever we want, and we're not going to bring the KY when we do you in the pooper.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 11:10 AM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 884
Total Cats: 0
No **** in the eye, just keeping the fire going so people remember WTF is going on for the next election cycle.
Both sides are already painting Paul Ryan a loose screw, probably one of the few people in Congress with a clue and a valid idea. Proves Rep or Dem doesn't matter anymore, just the haves trying to dominate the have nots.
Both sides are already painting Paul Ryan a loose screw, probably one of the few people in Congress with a clue and a valid idea. Proves Rep or Dem doesn't matter anymore, just the haves trying to dominate the have nots.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 11:26 AM
#5
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Here's what is going on. he's talking about filibuster rules. and in case you weren't aware, the requirement for changing a senate standing rule is simple majority.
Glenn Beck just spun it his own way.
It's simply a response to the obstructionism on the right.
Glenn Beck just spun it his own way.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/44010-1.html
Senate Rules and Administration Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is planning a series of hearings on changes to the chamber’s filibuster rules in response to Democratic concerns over GOP obstruction.
Schumer will announce the hearings during a meeting between Democratic leaders and the Conference’s 22 freshman and sophomore Members on Wednesday, according to a Senate Democratic aide.
Although specifics are still being worked out, Schumer is planning to hold at least three hearings, the first of which would occur the week of March 22. That hearing, according to the aide, would be on the basic history of the filibuster and would include testimony from Senate historians. Later hearings would include testimony from sitting Senators who have proposed changes to the rules, including Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).
Schumer decided to hold the hearings after witnessing increasing frustration from his colleagues over GOP filibusters of their agenda this Congress. “Tom Udall and [Sen.] Carl Levin [D-Mich.] have discussed with Schumer a desire to hold hearings on the various filibuster reform proposals that have been introduced by Democratic Members,” an aide acknowledged.
Despite the hearings, Democrats would have a tough time enacting changes to the chamber’s rules as they would require a supermajority vote.
Senate Rules and Administration Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is planning a series of hearings on changes to the chamber’s filibuster rules in response to Democratic concerns over GOP obstruction.
Schumer will announce the hearings during a meeting between Democratic leaders and the Conference’s 22 freshman and sophomore Members on Wednesday, according to a Senate Democratic aide.
Although specifics are still being worked out, Schumer is planning to hold at least three hearings, the first of which would occur the week of March 22. That hearing, according to the aide, would be on the basic history of the filibuster and would include testimony from Senate historians. Later hearings would include testimony from sitting Senators who have proposed changes to the rules, including Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).
Schumer decided to hold the hearings after witnessing increasing frustration from his colleagues over GOP filibusters of their agenda this Congress. “Tom Udall and [Sen.] Carl Levin [D-Mich.] have discussed with Schumer a desire to hold hearings on the various filibuster reform proposals that have been introduced by Democratic Members,” an aide acknowledged.
Despite the hearings, Democrats would have a tough time enacting changes to the chamber’s rules as they would require a supermajority vote.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 12:03 PM
#9
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
oh you mean where it says Congress can only do what they are specifically told they can do, otherwise it's up to the states?
I thought limited government was a term that you can you loosely.
I thought limited government was a term that you can you loosely.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 12:31 PM
#13
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,647
Total Cats: 3,009
Once government gets a hand in your pocket, they've got you by the *****.
There are a few terms that were once held up as hallmark American traits that have recently escaped from our school curriculum and popular lexicon: self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 12:36 PM
#14
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,647
Total Cats: 3,009
Healthcare is not a legitimate function of government under our Constitution. And that is the grounds under which many of the Americans that oppose it wish to have it opposed by their representatives in Congress. The filibuster is one of many ways a bill may be opposed.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 01:57 PM
#15
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Healthcare is not a legitimate function of government under our Constitution. And that is the grounds under which many of the Americans that oppose it wish to have it opposed by their representatives in Congress. The filibuster is one of many ways a bill may be opposed.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
and many Americans believe health(care) is an inalienable human right--ie not up for debate or legislation. not to mention "life" is mentioned in the bill of rights.
on top of all this, we have this weird relationsihp between employment and healthcare. why should someone have to have a certain kind of job to have reasonable healthcare? why not any job? why not no job? kids and old people tend not to have jobs but they deserve healthcare, don't they?
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 02:06 PM
#16
and many Americans believe health(care) is an inalienable human right--ie not up for debate or legislation. not to mention "life" is mentioned in the bill of rights.
on top of all this, we have this weird relationsihp between employment and healthcare. why should someone have to have a certain kind of job to have reasonable healthcare? why not any job? why not no job? kids and old people tend not to have jobs but they deserve healthcare, don't they?
on top of all this, we have this weird relationsihp between employment and healthcare. why should someone have to have a certain kind of job to have reasonable healthcare? why not any job? why not no job? kids and old people tend not to have jobs but they deserve healthcare, don't they?
We may as legislate that home ownership is an "inalienable right", and start forcing contractors to build homes at prices determined to be "fair" by the government, regardless of the cost of building the homes or the economic interests of the contractor. It would make as much sense.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 02:10 PM
#17
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
So the Corn-husker kickback is uniform?
We've gone 234 years so far without forcing private for-profit companies who their customers will be and how much they will pay for service, forcing citizens to purchase something against their will, and providing a service not named in the Constitution all in the name of "general welfare."
What will happen if these private companies decide they no longer want to be in BUSINESS?
THEY ARE SO EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLL **** THE BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES, it's their faults for being greedy in the first place.
We've gone 234 years so far without forcing private for-profit companies who their customers will be and how much they will pay for service, forcing citizens to purchase something against their will, and providing a service not named in the Constitution all in the name of "general welfare."
What will happen if these private companies decide they no longer want to be in BUSINESS?
THEY ARE SO EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLL **** THE BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES, it's their faults for being greedy in the first place.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 02:25 PM
#18
Regardless of where you stand on the heath care debate trying to pass a bill that will have enormous consequences thru procedural bull crap is simply wrong (not that the gov't has not been doing this crap for a long time). If this is so "right" and "needed" then they should do it thru proper measures. Again, I'm sure you can find many examples from both sides of the aisle doing similar things, but I doubt on such landmark reform.
Here's the problem with defining health care as an inalienable right: Who determines what is "health care"? Do we have to pay for the treatment of a super-rare disorder to sustain the life of one innocent child at enormous cost because he has an inalienable right to care? Do I have to cover the liver transplant for the alcoholic? My point being, whether or not we stay where we are or go to a nationalized health care system or anything in between, health care will always be rationed whether we call it that or not. Every health care system rations care in one way or another. So who makes these decisions? The government who is controlled by special interest groups? Or do we do it like the UK and have a panel of experts that uses a guiding formula of cost of treatment vs. years of life extended (no, not a death panel at all, and in some ways as cold as it sound the fairest system). Bottom line, someone will need to make these hard choices and draw lines in the sand.
Here's the problem with defining health care as an inalienable right: Who determines what is "health care"? Do we have to pay for the treatment of a super-rare disorder to sustain the life of one innocent child at enormous cost because he has an inalienable right to care? Do I have to cover the liver transplant for the alcoholic? My point being, whether or not we stay where we are or go to a nationalized health care system or anything in between, health care will always be rationed whether we call it that or not. Every health care system rations care in one way or another. So who makes these decisions? The government who is controlled by special interest groups? Or do we do it like the UK and have a panel of experts that uses a guiding formula of cost of treatment vs. years of life extended (no, not a death panel at all, and in some ways as cold as it sound the fairest system). Bottom line, someone will need to make these hard choices and draw lines in the sand.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 02:29 PM
#19
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Regardless of where you stand on the heath care debate trying to pass a bill that will have enormous consequences thru procedural bull crap is simply wrong (not that the gov't has not been doing this crap for a long time).
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 03:26 PM
#20
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
We may as legislate that home ownership is an "inalienable right", and start forcing contractors to build homes at prices determined to be "fair" by the government, regardless of the cost of building the homes or the economic interests of the contractor. It would make as much sense.
i guess it's a matter of perspective... should 41% of them hold the power or 59%?
Reply
0
0
