FALSE STATEMENT - let me turn that around for you....they (supporters of this bill) don't care about the constitution. That's sad to me. You see how ridiculous that is.

Democrats are using a questionable legislative process to pass this bill. Mandating that everyone buy insurance as well may be unconstitutiional. If the bill was a GOOD BILL, a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT along with a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS wouldn' have ALL THIS EFFORT AND CIRCUMVERSION OF PROCESS FOR IT TO PASS.

Too many members of Congress think passing a constitutionally dubious bill is politically safe because responsibility will fall on the courts to give a final yea or nay. The Democrats' government health care takeover is different. Every potential constitutional violation involved with Obamacare presents a grave political threat to every wavering congressman who votes for it. The only way to avoid being haunted for years is to kill Obamacare now.

Democratic leaders pushing the "Slaughter Rule" to "deem" the bill passed without an actual vote are relying on a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Public Citizen v. Clerk. In that case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, argued that procedural errors within the House should lead the courts to invalidate a law. The appeals court disagreed, writing that courts should not be "directing legislative authentication procedures."

Now it is Speaker Pelosi and Mrs. Slaughter who are claiming their own procedural maneuvers can't be challenged. They fail to note the distinction that the Public Citizen case involved mere technical discrepancies in an enrolled bill, whereas the Slaughter Rule would change the very nature of the constitutionally mandated requirements for how a bill becomes law. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, "Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text."

If the courts pronounce the Slaughter Rule unconstitutional, members who voted for it not only will have borne the wrath of angry opponents but will get no credit from the few Americans who did support the bill but then would see no benefits.

On substance alone, Obamacare will be subject to constitutional challenges on at least three fronts, including the unprecedented "mandate" that every individual buy health insurance or face fines or jail time. The way Obamacare is designed, with enough interlocking parts to make even Einstein dizzy, the whole edifice crumbles if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Politicians who survive this fall's elections would be forced to return to the subject and take even more tough votes cleaning up the mess.

There's no political upside to caving in to Mrs. Pelosi's pressure to pass flawed legislation. Better to listen to the American public- and the text and spirit of the Constitution - and step up to defeat the whole thing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/political-dangers-for-obamacare-supporters/

A woman asks her man for money to buy a sexy bra. He says, "Why do you need a sexy bra, you don't have anything to put in it." She says, "You wear pants, don't you?"

Once again Obama has put all the eggs for health care reform in one basket....he blames it on insurance premiums....he has attacked the insurers as making excessive profits when in actually the insurers rank way down the line in profits to comparable industries. If you took away all those profits....12.2 billion dollars it wouldn't reduce the trillions spent on health care by even 1 %. Mr Dummy....it the costs behind those premiums that will have to be addressed.

If it passes, it will be the greatest CIRCUMVERSION of the legislative processes ever for such important legislation.

How about some real Congressional reform...oh, wait that will come in November.

Democrats say no final decision has been made on the complex strategy. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to shield lawmakers from having to vote directly on a Senate-passed health care bill because it's unpopular with House Democrats.

Instead, under her favored approach, lawmakers would approve a rule for debate that would deem the Senate bill passed once a smaller package of fixes to the larger bill has also passed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Mr President...step in and remind them how much you savour "Ethics"
What a joke this president and democratic Congress this is.

EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD IN THE US WOULD NEED TO PAY $ 42,000 EACH TO ERASE THE NATIONAL DEBT.

Most of that is owed to foreigners.

We need a President that will turn this around...then we need a 50 year commitment to pay it off.

How?

It will take a constitutional amendemnt from the people to limit the SPENDING.....IT DOES NO GOOD TO RAISE TAXES ANYMORE - Congres will only spend the funds generated by the raise plus MORE $$$ .

Now the dems in the House are circulating something called the "Slaughter rule" so they actually won't have to vote for the bill that the Senate passed...so they can say they voted for the rule but not the bill.

This bill needs to DIE - take a good hard look at all the circumversion in the legislative process that is going on just to get it passed.

oh no...say it ain't so...

"The administration is caught in a funding bind in large part because it made a miscalculation when it raised the ceiling for Pell grants to $5,300 from $4,800 last year as part of the stimulus bill. Combined with a surge in new Pell grant recipients, the higher ceiling has sharply driven up costs for the program, which has run a $19 billion deficit since 2008. An administration official said that about 800,000 more students than predicted have received Pell grants since last fall."

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/12/is-student-aid-bill-pelosis-ac

now that's a combination of efficiency....government run health care and student aid...

that the health care bill wouldn't even pass own its own merit with 51 votes ....that's why student aid reform now will be attached to the health care bill...another political football as no democrats wants to be accussed of voting againt more student aid.

So Obama debated the republicans on C span and then went back to the "backroom deals".

As I understand it, the House has to pass the Senate version with all the previous back room deals in it plus student aid reform and then there is an agreement to amend the bill once it has passed????

Pitiful....

I kinda agree it might just be the floor mats in some cases....when I first got my jeep grand cherokee....the alinement and height of the brake and accelerator was difffent than my old car and I found myself at stoplights revving the engine even though I was pushing on the brake.
It didn't take long for me to realize that on this model I had to move my right foot further onto the brake as to not simultaneously touch the accelerator while applying the break...go figure///

The Alcholic Congress....now that's a proper tribute!

Members of Congress say they are concerned about the exploding budget deficit, though not so concerned, it seems, to stop all the spending that’s actually causing the deficit explosion—up to about 24.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

President Obama’s solution has been to appoint, by executive order—because the Senate wouldn’t pass it—a bipartisan group to explore what the government can do to reign in the spending.

It’s like an alcoholic convening a meeting of other heavy drinkers to discuss how the alcoholic can cut back on his drinking—and having the meeting at a bar at happy hour.

Of course, everyone knows the committee will recommend some minor spending cuts and some major tax increases. The tax increases would pass and the spending cuts would be postponed until later—because spendaholics don’t really want to cut spending, they just want to say that they do.

Now Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have stepped up to the plate with a better way. Call it an intervention.

They propose a constitutional amendment to cap government spending at 20 percent of GDP, which has been the historical average since World War II. The cap could be ignored during war, and a two-thirds vote of Congress could override it.

Why they chose a constitutional amendment as opposed to legislation isn’t clear, but probably because it is more permanent. Democrats pushed pay-as-you-go (or paygo) legislation only a month ago, requiring Congress to find offsets to pay for any new spending measures. And then promptly ignored their new paygo rule by spending $10 billion three weeks later without a “pay for” to offset the cost.

So even though a constitutional amendment would be very hard to pass, maybe it’s the only way to get Congress to live by the rules it imposes on itself.

Pence-Hensarling is about controlling government spending. It’s simple and effective, which is why Congress and this administration will likely do whatever they can to dodge it.

As they order another round for everyone—on the House.


Posted in Economic Growth Government Politics Tax || 0 Comments »
Author: Merrill Matthews Jr. || Location: Lewisville, Texas, USA

Force em...by limiting spending.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62268

get a letter saying your census form would arrive soon???

Another example of our government wasting OUR MONEY.....Just send me the FORM and if I don't return it, then follow up.

In a few months.....I'll be sure to ask you how that "crow" taste...

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said insurance industry workers "do not deserve to be vilified for political purposes. ... For every dollar spent on health care in America, less than one penny goes toward health plan profits. The focus needs to be on the other 99 cents."


I agree....where is the uproar about what hospitals charge????
...........where is the uproar about what doctors charge??????
...........where is the uproar about what medicine cost?

and so on???

insurers have nothing to do with the costs of the above.....why not blame hospitals, doctors, and drug companies too?

We couldn't have any real health care reform last year because the whole debate was about the public option and now the debate is that the insurers profits cause most if not all of the problems with health care....UNBELIEVABLE

Obama is using the insurers as a political football....wise up people!

On election day, when the results roll in, a lot of incumbent democrats and republicans are gonna feel like they've been hunting with Dick C = the numbers are not going to be good.The pain is a coming....

I say Good Riddance!!!

With an issue that is as volatile as this one....the justice department should have made sure such possible conflicts of representation be COMPLETELY AVOIDED.

Ah, I believe the last line is referring to the voters kicking them out of office.....