Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[zzzz]

I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!! Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????

 

[rightwinger]

I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!! Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????

How many times do I get to count Grover Cleveland?

 

[goldcatt]

I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!! Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????

I'm gonna say 50.

44 under the COTUS, I want to say 6 under the Articles of Confederation. The presidency was a real hot potato then.

Now you know I'll have to google and see if I got it right.

ETA: Nope, I didn't. But I'm not telling.

 

[zzzz]

Forty Three people have served as President of the United States. Yet Obama is the 44th President. Yes Rightwinger, you can only count Grover once because I asked how many people served, not how many Presidents.

But the point is could the politicos answer this correctly? If your running for that office should you not know your history? Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sarah and her gang are darn determined to repeat history. You betcha wink wink.

 

[Neotrotsky]

And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.

But the health care law cites specific Constitutional authority, right in the text (focuses mostly on the Commerce Clause). Under the new rule that means it must be okay, right?

.

House bills are, traditionally, put through different committees including ones to determine if the bills are constitutional.

For some reason, the Left pushed this bill without allowing for this type of committee input

I wonder why? Funny how that works

 

[Neotrotsky]

Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner

Highly doubtful. How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch? Directly against the constitution.

At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution

So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm

thanks for reminding me

 

[Neotrotsky]

Forty Three people have served as President of the United States. Yet Obama is the 44th President. Yes Rightwinger, you can only count Grover once because I asked how many people served, not how many Presidents.

But the point is could the politicos answer this correctly? If your running for that office should you not know your history? Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it?

Yes, we see that with the Left now

 

[rightwinger]

Highly doubtful. How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch? Directly against the constitution.

At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution

So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm

thanks for reminding me

Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves

 

[Barb]

The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution? Why have judges to interpret it?

#2, , And therein lies the rub. The constitutionality of the republicans setting themselves up as the judicial branch, when they're, um, not.

 

[Trajan]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

too true.

 

[Neotrotsky]

At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution

So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm

thanks for reminding me

Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves

Don't worry, Papa Obama has his other hand and toes

 

[rightwinger]

thanks for reminding me

Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves

Don't worry, Papa Obama has his other hand and toes

When you follow Bush....you need them

 

[M14 Shooter]

Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause
Won't be hard to justify

We all, at least all of we that know of these things, understand that the "General Welfare Clause" grants the power to tax and spend, but not the power to enact the legislation that defines that spending.
That's what the following 16 clauses of Article I Section 8 are for.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves

Don't worry, Papa Obama has his other hand and toes

When you follow Bush....you need them

and when your teleprompter breaks

 

[Big Fitz]

I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!! Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????

How many times do I get to count Grover Cleveland?

Only by weight. Same with Taft.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.

or that you have to buy something

That would be the dimwits version of the constitution.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!

what a stupid rule.

it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.

and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??

the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.

i'm pretty sure they didn't consider the issue of whether ledbetter's rights were violated by goodyear tires.

i like this from the article:

Both parties are operating under the same set of rules. When Republicans lose, though, they call Democrats unpatriotic and unconstitutional. It’s like the Republicans think that the Constitution will somehow save them from gay people, the poor, minorities and everything else that makes them uncomfortable,” the aide said.

Read more: New GOP Constitution rule irks House Democrats | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

like it's real difficult to say 'the general welfare clause' or the 'commerce clause'. lol.. 'tards.

You are right, the original constitution allowed slavery and not the woman vote. But they were changed the way they were supposed to be with amendments. The dimwits hate it when the constitution is followed, but too bad.

 

[AmericanFirst]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.

What happens when a dem controlled congress is asked to support an unconstitutional presidentially sponsored article of legislation? (see 2006-2008 for answer)

It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors. But good luck there, nobody is more responsible for constitutionality creep than the courts.

Bush was more constitutional than obamaturd and gore put together. Stop the socialist crying.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution? Why have judges to interpret it?

It is the only hope the Left has.....


They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People

obviously you meant to say "the right".

No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.