Posts Tagged United States Constitution
Didn’t one old woman SAY something on the order of: “we have to pass it, so we know what’s in it”? Well, old woman..
Gosh, now It’s a PENALTY! Tennis anyone?
..John Roberts STILL does not know, “what’s in it”. As evidenced by his healthcare to tax decision. Is not a TAX, “revenue”!?
Article 1 U.S. Constitution:
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; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question ofAdjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Oklahoma’s “Save Our State Amendment,” which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law.
via Washington Times
The debate over raising the federal debt ceiling has driven some liberals into a fit of despair. On Wednesday, Rep. James E. Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat, said if Congress forwards a debt-ceiling extension bill to the White House that isn’t to the president’s liking, he should veto it and raise the debt limit by executive order. “If that’s what lands on his desk, a short-term lifting of the ceiling, the debt ceiling,” Mr. Clyburn said, “he should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment to this issue.” The congressman was referring to a provision that the “validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.” The move, however, would be rule by executive fiat.
The part of Section 4 that quickly disposes of Mr. Clyburn’s argument is the phrase “authorized by law.” Any plain reading of the article shows it decrees the exact opposite of what Mr. Clyburn and other constitutional magicians are advocating. It doesn’t say authorized by executive order, ukase or diktat, but only authorized by law. As Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” That leaves no room for Mr. Obama to go it alone.
Just what is needed at one of, if not in fact, the nations toughest time, a Constitutional crisis.
BTW, if Republicans are as stupid as has been reported, they need to be replaced. Of course everyone in D.C. needs to go with them, by hook, crook, or tarred and feathered, straddling a pole..
This is not a president, this is a mean spirited little boy who thinks he is an adult.
IS IT TIME FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION? “It would take 34 states to approve such a convention, so it remains more of a theoretical exercise than a real threat to the Constitution. Yet at least 30 state legislatures, including Texas, Missouri and Virginia, are mulling over resolutions either calling for a national Article V convention or urging Congress to propose changes to the Constitution.” Well, if they have one, the forthcoming Tennessee Law Review symposium issue on constitutional convention substance and procedure will come in handy!
. . . so that you don’t have to be. Totally unrelated business brought me to Madison last night, and here’s my quickly edited six-minute highlight reel of the scene outside the capitol.Main article: Federalist Papers
To encourage ratification of the Constitution, Madison joined Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to write the Federalist Papers in 1787 and 1788. *Among other contributions, Madison wrote paper #10, in which he explained how a large country with many different interests and factions could support republican values better than a small country dominated by a few special interests*. His interpretation was largely ignored at the time, but in the twentieth century became a central part of the pluralist interpretation of American politics.
*I would take that to mean “unions” Mr. President?
Power Line: Read it again, John via Glenn Reynolds
I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session. The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.
But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.
Today, the day of the actual reading, the left was at it again. At least two Democratic representatives, including Jesse Jackson’s son, protested that the document read on the floor did not contain provisions of the Constitution that have been superseded by amendments. In particular, Jackson was unhappy that the provision counting slaves as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and apportionment was “didacted” as he put it.
But if the purpose of the reading was to remind people of the contents of our fundamental law and to symbolize Congress’ commitment to adhering to that law, then it makes no sense to read portions of document that no longer apply. The reading Jackson and others wanted would make sense only if this were a history lesson. But it was not. History lessons are for speeches by individual members, each of whom has his or her own view about which aspects of history to emphasize. What all members of Congress have in common is their oath to uphold the Constitution as it stands today.
The goals of Jackson and other leftists who supported him are plain enough – to make America look bad and, simultaneously, to create skepticism about the quality of the Constitution as a whole. How sound, the thinking goes, can the rest of the original document be if it originally contained a provision counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for some purposes?
Again, however, this sort of argument is the stuff of speeches, not of a reading of the document members of Congress are sworn to uphold. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for speeches by members of Congress that attack the Constitution.
That is why the reading exercise proved to be such a stroke of genius. It gave the country a revealing glimpse of how the left really views the Constitution. Would monthly readings be overdoing it?
“Muslims serve with distinction throughout the United States Military and AIFD sees Abdo’s traitorous public assertions as a slap in the face to all American Muslims especially those Muslims who fight in our armed forces for the liberty and freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution“