| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Slaughter Solution | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2010, 08:41 AM (206 Views) | |
| Beacon Chris | Mar 13 2010, 08:41 AM Post #1 |
|
Junior Carp
|
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/12/house-democrats-appear-set-to-pass-senate-bill-without-voting-on-it/ |
| How you durrin? | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Mar 13 2010, 08:51 AM Post #2 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Surely they do not honestly believe that will hold up on the campaign trail. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Beacon Chris | Mar 13 2010, 09:00 AM Post #3 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Honestly, Mik, why don't we just rip up the constitution right now. How can you pass a bill without voting on it. The Constitution's very clear. As far as the campaign trail, it's secondary to me. I don't like the precedent this sets for future congresses be they Republican, Democrat or otherwise. |
| How you durrin? | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 13 2010, 09:10 AM Post #4 |
|
Finally
|
What's ethical isn't necessarily what's legal, and vice versa. The Constitution says: 1) Each house shall make its own rules 2) A bill, to become law, has to be passed by both houses and then signed by the president. Now, if the rules are changed, so that they can "deem" it passed (rather than voting on it), it violates nothing - constitutionally, that is. That's what the thinking is. After all, they passed a bill last November. It's just not the same bill that the Senate passed.
The "recording of votes" is, it would seem, in reference to overriding a Presidential veto, not on the actual bill itself - unless the "all such cases" refers to the passing of the bill originally. I'd need a Constitutional scholar to help me with that one. Anyone got one handy? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Mar 13 2010, 09:12 AM Post #5 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
In my world view it would be entirely constitutional to hang them all on the Capitol steps. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Beacon Chris | Mar 13 2010, 10:29 AM Post #6 |
|
Junior Carp
|
So, in other words, they don't have the votes to pass it, so they will "deem" it passed? No, not constitutional by a long shot. |
| How you durrin? | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 13 2010, 03:30 PM Post #7 |
|
Finally
|
An interesting counter argument (goes in the "Be careful of what you wish for" file):
Other comments: http://volokh.com/2010/03/13/is-the-slaughter-solution-constitutional/
|
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






11:13 AM Jul 11