Yesterday, the legislative geniuses in Congress managed to pass a bill that didn’t exist.
The Republicans should take this one to court. I know that SCOTUS doesn’t like to meddle with the legislative branch, but this seems likely to be unconstitutional.
Of course, the real problem is the willingness of legislators to vote for bills that they haven’t read, or even given time to read. Once that became acceptable, it was inevitable that they would start voting on wills of the wisp. I would dearly love to see everyone one of these criminals punished at the polls next year. Especially the Republican capntr8trs.
[Update a few minutes later]
Well, I went over and took a look at Article I. Unfortunately, the founders decided to leave everything pretty much up to Congress:
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.
That’s it. No definition of what constitutes a “bill” or procedures of how it should be “passed” at all. I guess they didn’t anticipate that we would ever have such an irresponsible and criminal lot running the place.
As damaging and without merit as I believe the bill to be, the way in which this congress has subverted our democratic traditions by voting blank checks (literally and figuratively) is the most appalling thing of all.
This is the second example of such behavior, the first being the stimulus. It’s time for a coordinated strategy to counter this. We don’t have the votes to matter, but we must at least battle in the media
* Start with accurate labels. “anti-democratic”, “Hiding the truth”, etc, etc.
* The repub. caucus should walk out. Simply refuse to vote at all. This must be coordinated. The dems may have a quorum, but I imagine that the lack of 40% of the body would have some effects.
Thievery so fast you can’t even see it!
Years ago, when asked about a bill on which he obviously hadn’t been given any talking points, the Senator from Chappaquiddick kept replying, “the courts will decide.” Who cares about the details when you can show your moral superiority?
This just takes that attitude to a new level, instead of the having the courts decide what obscure or incomprehensible language really means, we now have laws that are written out (or at least read for the first time) after they are approved.
And what’s the point of being in the opposition party if all you are going to do is provide cover for the worst excesses of the majority? The people to blame for this are these 8 traitors and the so-called Blue Dogs who put people like Waxman and Pelosi in the position to create this fiasco. (And that includes the Blue Dogs who think they can have it both ways by voting against specific fiascoes while brining home the earmarked pork.)
Or Blue Dogs in the Senate who vote for
closcloture while saying that they opposed the bill, but it “deserves a vote,” knowing that it will then pass with a majority without their vote.As I understand it, the House and the Senate usually pass their own different versions of most bills, and then the people behind them get together and create a single “compromise” version, which they then take back to their respective Houses and get rubber-stamped for submission to the President. As long as that’s the case, I guess the initial votes in the separate houses are really just “shows of force” for the concept rather than up or down on specific sets of wording. So does it really matter whether the words are all put together or not, when it will be a different set of words that come back from the joint committee anyway, and whatever the joint committee sends back will be approved or disapproved without further debate by the same congresscritters as before?
The deplorable thing is the dumbed-down state of our politics, where voters only have patience to hear a one-sentence description of a piece of legislation, and can’t be bothered with details. It would really be helpful to dump a few pounds of smart-powder into the water supplies of all our cities. Wish I knew where I could lay my hands on a few tons of it.
I believe the term is “cloture” and not “closure”.
This is the kind of bill that just cries out for one of those eeeeeevil presidential “signing statements.” And the signing statement would contain more substance than any congressional debate on this non-bill could ever have had.
Mark, you sound so reasonable that I can’t believe you ask?…
So does it really matter whether the words are all put together or not, when it will be a different set of words that come back from the joint committee anyway
Does it matter? Are you serious?
What are they debating? What are they voting on? Why bother to vote at all, let’s just let the emperor decree.
“No definition of what constitutes a “bill” or procedures of how it should be “passed” at all. I guess they didn’t anticipate that we would ever have such an irresponsible and criminal lot running the place.”
.
.
I can’t think, that those men of great integrity who founded our country, could have ever imagined the kind of spineless, self serving, weasels and idiots who now call themselves Senator or Congressman.
It’s a good thing the founders are all dead, this’ed kill ’em.
Or Blue Dogs in the Senate who vote for cloture while saying that they opposed the bill, but it “deserves a vote,” knowing that it will then pass with a majority without their vote.
Doing what you suggest — using cloture to make the Senate a body that requires 60 votes to pass anything — is a perversion of the Senate rules.
Voting for cloture was never meant to mean “I support this bill.” It was meant to mean “We do not need to spend more time debating this, let’s vote.” Before recent times a Senator who wanted to use cloture to hold up a bill had to actually hold the floor and filibuster, like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.” Now it takes a supermajority to let the business of the Senate proceed, something that has never before been the case.
The Senate should abolish cloture; 51 votes should be enough for everything but veto overrides. The current practice is good for a handful of Senators in the middle of the ideological spectrum, who hold enormous influence as potential 60th votes; it is bad for the Senate and the country.
The Senate should abolish cloture
No, they should go back to a true filibuster.
Whatever the conference committee (not “joint” committee, at least in the U.S. system) will have to be voted on again by both houses; what gets sent to the President has to have been voted on by both houses in exactly the same form.
Which is of course pointless if none of the elected lawmakers has any idea what the damn thing says.
Ahhh… here we have a topic on voting on non-existent bills and where does Jim stake his claim?
Waaaa! Filibuster!
I guess if you can’t defend the topic at hand, fall back to strawmen.
Waitasec… Rand, do you have comment history archived through 2005?
I’d like to see what Jim was saying when the debate was around whether any federal judges should be appointed without 60 votes for cloture.
“I guess they didn’t anticipate that we would ever have such an irresponsible and criminal lot running the place.”
No sh*t! >:-(
Every congressman who voted for this bill, unread, is in gross dereliction of duty. That it was voted on in incomplete form is criminal, and any voter who tolerates such behavior of their representative doesn’t deserve the privilege of voting.
Where I a judge called upon to hear a challenge, I’d rule that when the bill is complete and congress has a chance to review it they may vote again. The vote on the incomplete bill is invalid. I’d also have some nasty things to say about the contents of the bill if it came before me.
here we have a topic on voting on non-existent bills and where does Jim stake his claim
I didn’t introduce the topic of cloture votes, Rand did.
I’d like to see what Jim was saying when the debate was around whether any federal judges should be appointed without 60 votes for cloture.
I don’t think I was commenting here in 2005. I didn’t like the judges Bush was appointing, but if I could go back in time and abolish cloture as of 2001, I would.
do you have comment history archived through 2005?
“Jim” wasn’t commenting back then.
Hmmm and still Jim doesn’t say if he supports a bill that doesn’t physically exist and has had constant fluid changes and no one’s been able to acutally read.
Mindless partisanship or hope springs eternal?
I suppose it isn’t shocking that we’re governing by the Peter Pan Principle.
Clap your hands if you believe!
I suppose it isn’t shocking that we’re governing by the Peter Pan Principle.
“Every time a bell rings, another Chicago politician gets a bribe.”
Let’s ask them if they sign contracts without reading them. Every yes voter betrayed their constituents. Unfortunately, the so-called press will not report how egregious this really is. Anyone who thinks these people know what they are doing is not reality based.
Does this mean all “present” votes , on bills, are unconstitutional?
Unfortunately, the so-called press will not report
I did catch someone on Fox mention this but it was two seconds and no discussion.
This issue has me on a slow boil. The politicians have nothing but contempt for the citizens. The only protection we have is the press and not only are they not doing their jobs, they obviously have no clue what their jobs are.
I don’t want fair and balanced… I want principled and loud. I want the truth pounded into the addled brains of the masses (like MJ coverage) until they finally get it (because grade school civics obviously didn’t take.)
Madlibs legislation: an idea whose time has apparently come–
http://www.jrganymede.com/2009/06/29/madlibs-cap-and-trade-bill/