ObamaCare Corrupt Deal Shows Need to Amend the Speech and Debate Clause
by Mark J. FitzgibbonsSeveral state attorneys general have been asked, or plan, to investigate the deal struck by Senator Ben Nelson to permanently exempt Nebraska from paying Medicaid expenses in exchange for his voting for Obamacare.
An investigation of the Nelson deal would likely have two focuses. First, is the Nebraska exemption unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which requires “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?” Secondly, did the deal constitute a form of corruption?
Whether the Nebraska exemption constitutes unlawful corruption obviously depends on the facts surrounding how Senator Nelson cut his deal. However, even a pure constitutional challenge would benefit from a clear understanding and presentation of the facts underlying how and why the Nebraska exemption was reached.
If an investigation about unlawful corruption were to proceed, it would of course be critical to question Senator Nelson himself. Senator Nelson – and Harry Reid – would assuredly invoke the Speech and Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution) to block such an investigation.
The Speech and Debate Clause provides that members of Congress:
shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
(Emphasis added.)
The Speech and Debate Clause was written so an overly aggressive executive would not suppress and intimidate critical legislators. The Founders, however, did not envision a Congress as gluttonous and corrupt as the one we have today.
The Speech and Debate Clause has been construed by the courts more broadly than its text to include legislative acts and congressional staff within its protections. Given how too many members of Congress have demonstrated contempt for the first principles embodied in our Constitution, and how they’ve exhibited disdain towards limits on power, perhaps the Speech and Debate Clause needs to be reformed by way of amendment.
The most recent high-profile example of use of the Speech and Debate Clause involved now-imprisoned former Democratic Congressman, William Jefferson, along with former Republican House Speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, who invoked the Clause after Jefferson’s congressional office was raided by the FBI using a judge-authorized search warrant. A United States District Court declared the FBI raid unconstitutional. Congressman Jefferson, however, was unsuccessful in later using the Speech and Debate Clause to challenge his conviction of bribery.
Unfortunately, the Speech and Debate Clause has come to be abused all too frequently. Many members of Congress engage in otherwise actionable defamation to bully and impugn witnesses at congressional hearings, or even members of the public. Emboldened by constitutional immunity, and obviously not respecting their offices as representatives of the people, members of Congress frequently degrade hearings into circuses of false charges more suitable for banana republics than the United States.
The more serious degradation of the Speech and Debate Clause, however, may be that it is used to protect corruption under the guise of official activity in Congress. Even if the promise of ‘transparency’ weren’t an utter joke, there are billions of taxpayer dollars being used for payola. Just look at ACORN as one example, where public money is traded for political endorsements.
The states and the people, from whom Congress derives its enumerated powers by their consent, should be able to question their representatives under oath under certain well-defined circumstances, such as when taxpayer money may have been spent unconstitutionally, or as quid pro quo. The Ben Nelson deal appears to be both, and Americans deserve answers under oath, not in response to fluff from a press favoring Obamacare.
I’ve been critical of some state attorneys general, such as former New Yorker AG Eliot Spitzer, for abusing their investigatory powers over private entities and people. However, if state attorneys general may not investigate federal elected officials when corruption may be present, and question them under standards of reasonable cause when there appears to be corruption, then who’s to stop it?
It seems it’s time for a limited amendment to the Speech and Debate Clause, one that fosters the original intent of the Founders in spirited debate among our representatives, yet does not allow – or even encourage – corruption and abuse of the offices representing the people.
A constitutional amendment is no small matter or accomplishment, but the Founders never intended any provision in the Constitution to protect government corruption on the scale we see today. The Speech and Debate Clause should no longer give corrupt elected officials cover, especially because the Constitution was created by men far more honorable and respectful than they.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
95 Comments
Bottom Line: If this health care 'reform' bill is so good,,,,why did they have to BRIBE so many of THEIR OWN PARTY to get it passed. This bill is nothing more than a hacked together compilation of special interest groups and bureaucrats wet dreams.
The blatant and open corruption is obvious to anyone who pays even a little attention to the workings of Congress. Why then do people continue to vote for the same representatives? Ignorance is the only anwser. The general population no longer has enough critical thinking abilities to hear/see a news story or political add and then objectivley weigh what was said against reality. Too many voters simply "believe" what they are told and then ignore the actions of those they voted for. As I teach my children you can say "I will be good!" but your actions show the truth of what you say, and far to many politicians actions do not match what they say. This is generally considered lying or deciet but only if you aren't a politician.
their wet dreams and our nightmare!! The whole process is corrupt and unconstitutional….
With rare exception remove them all next year and start nullification in every single State house. Demand that your State attorney general file suit and stop this terrible bill!
In the past, we relied upon a man's honor to uphold Constitutional principles. Our Founders were men of honor and respect who could be trusted by their constituents not to seek any special favors for themselves nor trade them for a favorable legislative vote.
That we are today considering a constitutional amendment to codify what was once expected from our representatives as a matter of course is a testament to how far we've fallen from the original intent of our Founders. It also speaks volumes of the type of vermin who have managed to infiltrate Washington and defy the will of the people, seeking to install an unwanted leftist state upon us.
Good luck getting any kind of amendment passed that will limit their powers. The people we have in office now will never relinquish the smallest bit of congressional power, prestige, or clout.
It is so blatantly obvious how these politicians can have their votes "purchased" for sweatheart deals for their states. Their roles in the federal government should be for the welfare of ALL Americans, not just their specific states. This recent round of political maneuvering really skirts the definition of corruption and collusion. When politicians go on TV and make promises to vote against a bill, then all-the-sudden vote for it when $300 million dollars appears for their state, they should be run out of town (aka The Louisiana Purchase). And that is just one of many.
BE it a matter of law or not will people hold him ACCOUNTABLE.. For this party politics the art of their compromise..
The two party system works? Then why are we standing up to our necks in a pile of lies?
By too many people’s standards we can’t hold no one accountable for their actions even the politician caught in a motel room with a naked woman not his wife. Yes it could be innocent I am sure it was.
but until this country learns that our liberty is being stolen one tax, one regulation, one manipulation at a time and all in the name of the public good or is it for government good or is it for party good, we will lose the promise of America.
Again, this is a red herring. The "Marxist" now control the House, Senate, White House, and Judiciary so there is nothing that can be done about anything that they decide to do! we voted for it and we got it! They didn't lie, so we only got what they said that they were going to do!
Unconstitutional……..I know that once Hussein and his posse of Clowns are out-of-office, It will take years to clean up their mess.
Remember to Vote in 2010 and 2012………Harry, Barney, Chris, Baucus, Nelson, Boxer, they need to go!
P.S. If the Cougars hold out, take them to the Humane Society.
These are good pionts, but there were also other deals as well, such the LA Purchase and the medical center for UCONN. These should also be probed.
Also, why is no one attacking the language in the bill that requires a super majority to repeal this law? No one is talking about this and it is critical that this be stripped from this bill!
Sue Baby Sue!
And, don't forget, they've exempted themselves from it.
I fear you are correct. However, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, the proposed amendment can be put forward through the action of a majority of the States and need not necessarily require a Constitutional Convention of any kind.
Good point. The people in power at the state level don't seem to be as corrupt as those at the national level. Less opportunity for big time graft, I suppose.
Originally, the role of the Senate was to protect the rights of the States, which is why each State has equal representation. So, insofar as that still holds, Nelson did act in the "best interests" of his State, assuming that Obamacare is in the best interest of the nation. He got for free something the rest of the States must pay for. (Don't get me wrong… I think what he did is despicable and without honor… but, strictly speaking, he did look out for his State. Obviously, this is one screwed-up situation.)
And, I think, they're closer to those whom they govern. They'd be able to see their constituents' pitchforks from their windows!
Agreed and agreed.
Sen DeMint is working on the "super majority language". You should check his web-site. I think I read the article here before the Christmas Eve vote. It's unconstitutional, so watch who does what. There are some "blue dogs" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that I don't think will stick their neck out that far (I hope I'm right). You can visibly see that some have reached their breaking point and if forced to talk about this issue I can't see them having the energy to try and come up with some kind of logical argument to keep it in the bill.
I am of course looking through "rose colored glasses" today. Maybe I'm hoping for a "Dallas" ending to the New Year. You know, we all wake up on the 1 Jan 10 and find out that the past year has been a bad dream.
Chris, I agree they are there to look out for their state, but not at the expense of the rest of the states as a whole. Yes Nelson got Nebraska a good deal, but the rest of the US has to absorb the cost. That is where they go wrong, and that type of political wrangeling should be wrong.
Ben Nelso, Mary Landrieu, Stabenow & Levin and a few more extortionsists of the taxpayers who benefited one way or another with this healthcare non-reform fiasco should be gone in their next elections.
amend my butt,we need to stop the game playing in govt.. get back to the basics of life,DO THAT WITCH IS RIGHT.(right ….from the heart…. not the wallet).
Back then, one served the country for a brief period of time. It was not a career and sole sort of income thing. These people no longer serve. It is a job just as any other executive position would be. The best way to change this is for the people to vote them out after a certain period of time, such periood based upon the quality of service, but no longer than two terms. And return the Senate to be representatives of the state.
What about articile lV section.2 ." The Citizens of each State shall be entitiled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" That to me is an open and shut case. We need to stop the Corruption. Happy New Year and may GOD Bless You and May GOD Bless The United States of America
Mark posits an interesting idea, but it seems like squeezing the balloon. If legislators were timid about corruption and could be harassed and/or questioned by an overly aggressive, corrupt executive…we would still have what we have today except BarryOh would be out in front of communizing instead of Reid/Peloopi.
Net is: elections matter and we had better know the values and morales of the people elect, once they're in they're in until the next cycle.
I agree. The part that is so horrible is that the other Senators are not standing up and saying that this is not right… they are not representing the interests of their States! By allowing Nelson to score such a deal as this they have, essentially, disadvantaged their own States "for the greater good" of all but their own constituents.
The system had originally been engineered by the Founders to protect against just such abuses as this (by pitting the interests of the several States against each other, in effect, each State acting as a check on the others), but thanks to the dreadful 17th Amendment, the Founders' vision of checks and balances was perverted in favour of mob rule via popular election of Senators.
As I said, this is one screwed-up situation. So, harking back to the original intent of this article, if we're talking about amending language of the Constitution, perhaps repealing the 17th Amendment should also be considered.
Ben "Don Corleone" Nelson is toast.
10th amendment folks … get in touch with your state reps and raise hell.
Agreed!
From the Senate debate on health-care “reform”, Thursday, December 24, 2009 :
“We stand on the doorstep of history.” ~ Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
“Today we make history.” ~ Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
“One of the shining chapters in the history of the United States Senate and our nation.” ~ Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
“An opportunity to meet history’s gaze.” ~ Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
But now, the citizens of Nebraska have their own opportunity to make history.
All they need do, to permanently sully the reputation of their state, is re-elect Ben Nelson in 2012.
Can’t hardly wait.
Good on the guy for trying to get whatever he could for his state; however, his terms should never have been accepted as it is so fundamentally unfair to the citizens of every other state. This also sets a really bad precedent for future stick-em-up "cooperation" (i.e., extortion). I hope that provision is ultimately found to be unenforceable.
If your representatives have the guts to come home, be sure to pay a visit, and show them how much you appreciate their efforts.
Consider what we have here: a government that passes bills clearly out of line with the desires and wishes of the people; a tax system that rewards sloth; cronyism; and elections where aliens and even the dead mysteriously vote. Thomas Jefferson said, "when the people fear the government, there's tyranny. When the government fears the people, there's liberty." Our government does not fear us. They mock us and ridicule us, and dictate to us what THEY want, rather than what WE want. What do our "elected" leaders think is going to eventually happen? We have a well-armed citizenry and, when government does not respond to the redress of the public, that well-armed citizenry will replace it – by force, if necessary. Let's hope they wake up before that happens.
For the same reason government schools stay in business – my school is fine, it's the rest that are bad. My politician is fine, it's the rest that are corrupt. It's ignorance and laziness, pure and simple.
If the health bill passes, Nebraska will be despised by all the other states. They will lose business, their population will age and be poor…but they'll get free Medicaid. Nebraskans must ask themselves if they are willing to gain the reputation as the most hated state. Something tells me they won't like the repercussions of that.
The supermajority provision will be null unless the bill passes the Senate with 67 votes, which it won't. It takes a two-thirds vote to amend Senate rules.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If I have to pay extra for Nebraska, and tax payers in Nebraska don't have to pay, that's not equal.
The Constitution isn't going to be ammended, but we don't need to. We need to hold Ben Nelson's **entire party** accountable for this outrage at election time. Throw all Democrats out of office in 2010 and 2012.
I dont think you would need on if they were single item bills, that would mean no earmarks etc. Rough outline that would need to be wargamed but the idea is for specificity and openess.
Does not mean that could not pass crap, just that it would point to them with big red arrow and everyone would be able to comprehend what they were passing, although 100 pages is bit long for some the 8th graders that they have elected.
How far the mighty have fallen, even worse we built this craptacular ladder ourselves.
I was thinking of the budget, specifically. Currently, it is passed whole or not at all. That must change and the means to do that is via the line item veto.
Another argument for a Federal Legislature that isn't based in DC. There is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to stay in DC full time. In fact, the Constitution says they only have to meet once a year. Bring them home, let them live in the real world, face real constituents daily, in the grocery stores and restaurants and other small businesses, let them see what their policies really do to us. Make them abide by the laws and regulations they foist on us but exempt themselves from (health care comes to mind).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYAaxiK76hM
Add to that list Thinking_Man – TERM LIMITS. Career politicians are the root of the problem!!!!
the 'whore" will soon be gone !!!
"Use GoToMeeting. Free 30-day trial with promo code 'FoxNews'"
Seems like Obama made campaign promises to do a lot of that as president. Odds are 986,534:1 that he won't make good on them.
Benny "the whore" Nelson=Gone in 2012 or sooner if he can convicted of corruption
I like this idea, too.
I have been reading that some of the Western states are writing state law that forbids the Federal government from interceding or regulating gun manufactures within there state. Why can't every state through the state legislature say "NO" to the feds when it comes to health care or anything out of Washington? Let's visit the 10th Amendment of our Constitution and remind our state legislature that they need to protect of from the federal government.
"The people in power at the state level don't seem to be as corrupt as those at the national level."
You obviously haven't been to California. We're leading the way down the krapper. If the saying, "As goes California, so goes the nation." is true, the planet is going to need a bigger waste management system.
Remember, when you watch the movie Armageddon, root for the comet.
And we all know that these analcrainialencephlamotic buffoons will be exempt from this plan. No more than ONE term and no house,senate to the grave freebies. We the people need to write our own laws for the people and by the people. These leeches are not of us and need to be sent packing.
I'd change the 7 days to 30, or 60 days. About the only thing that needs a 7 day turn around is a Declaration of War. Also, I'd require a 'plain language' requirement that must accompany the 'legalese'. If it can't be presented in a straight forward manner, it's probably hiding lies and corruption. And, if one of the two sections is found to misrepresent the other, the authors are jailed.
I can dream, can't I?
I thought it was for the people that come in future generations to proclaim the glories of those of the past.
The damn thing isn't even law yet, and they're already writing themselves into the history books.
I just hope the Mayans got their little calendar right.
dude has the look of a tv preacher
I hope it is enforceable.
Then, according to the 10th Amendment, the rest of the states can tell D.C. to 'pound sand' when the treasury wants to collect.
democracy is term limits
I like the jailed part as well. LOL
Congratulations to the people of Nebraska. They have the common sense to know he has done nothing for them and everything to the other 49 states. Georgia stands with your integrity.
Just another Joker.
But its so EASY to just mark that little icon at the top of the ballot and not have to READ all those pesky names and all….. *sarc off*
I posted much the same thing the other day IdahoGal! I also believe that a term limit amendment is not needed. Just VOTE THEM OUT. Simple and easy if America gets off its collected duff!
I've been wondering what happened to the legal scrutiny in this country.
"The states and the people, from whom Congress derives its enumerated powers by their consent, should be able to question their representatives under oath under certain well-defined circumstances, such as when taxpayer money may have been spent unconstitutionally, or as quid pro quo."
It's one thing to make suggestions. Quite another to proceed. I wish I were in a position to assist in a case of this magnitude. Makes better sense to fire hose Congress but nothing will change until we use the threat of a flamethrower…or at least prison.
Much like "pleading the 5th" does not preclude the prosecution of any other crime, the Speech and Debate Clause ought not preclude the investigations nor any resultant prosecutions.
If it is bribery, that's a felony and the speech and debate clause cannot be used.
Or, doesn't that work?
Seconded!
The constituion as been so twisted in its meaning that I really think its time to try and beef it up, people are sick of this corruption and are ready I think to pass something with teeth.
Open Legislation Amendment
No backroom meetings on bills all meetings held in open sessions, recorded, available to population
No bills greater than 100 pages
No bills with more than 1 issue
No voting on a bill unless they swear that they have read the personally and understand the bills
No person or entity will be offered encouragement in the form of special legislative inclusion, exclusion, tax dollars, or any form of quid pro quo (you scratch my back, I knife other peopels constituents)
All bills must be posted and available to the public for 7 days prior to any debate, 2/3 rule required to override this portion of the amendment
The current tribe would not touch the above, too much swank to loose, which is why we need some political cage fighters
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If I have to pay extra for Nebraska, and tax payers in Nebraska don't have to pay, that's not equal.
Line Item Veto!!
I live in Nebraska. Nebraskans are OUTRAGED. (See Rasmussen Reports: just 17% of Nebraskans support this healthcare/Medicaid disaster.) Nobody in Nebraska has forgotten that he, along with the Maine contingent, got major liberal kudos for brokering the $787B "stimulus" package. He was DONE in this state politically after that. Now he is magic # 60. He won't be welcomed home to Nebraska ever again.
He's running TV ads feigning that he is really not responsible — that, during deliberations, he merely "raised concerns" of the budget-busting burden on Nebraska's state budget to raise Medicaid limits. It was "their" (Reid & Co's) idea to exempt Nebraska from Medicaid increases for eternity. Nelson actually said, "I never asked for it." Yeah — but he agreed to it!!! He and the rest of those nitwits must think we are all brain dead.
I'm sure the intent of the Speech and Debate clause was to not to give politicians the cover to perform illegal acts. We now live in the most politically corrupt country in the world. ____Another area of reform is the conflict of interest. Imagine being chairman of the Banking Committee and you are recieving campaign donations from FREDDIE MAC, Countrywide Finanancial, Bank of America, and the financial Industry PACS. this is outrageous. But, it is allowed.____
I used to rail against term limits because I didn't want the good ones to go – I'm of the opinion now there are no good ones! Vote them all out – start fresh each session – they won't be able to figure it out before they're gone! Vote them all out! Make them stay at home!
Common sense seems to be pointing in the direction of Congressional Reform. The current batch of congress persons seem to think they can play fast and loose with ethics, corruption, bribery and slap something constitutional sounding on it — all the time ignoring the will of their constituency. Congressional Reform needs to be at the top of the 2010 adgenda.
All politicians should server two terms, one on office and one in prison.
Right, perhaps the amendment should be "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of congressmen and senators."
Bo bill can be longer than the constitution.
All elected officials submit to tax audit for the five years prior to election and every year of thier lives afterwards. Audit data becomes public record.
StoryKeeper
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&a...
I dont get it. Who is responsible for holding our political system accountable to our constitution? Obstruction and collusion seem to be the rule. The most dissapointing revelation is that the main stream media is not exposing it to the public as the watch dog it should be. It resembles a communistic control of news.. Their absence is deafening. I believe there is limited public outrage due to MSM covert omissions of reporting..
Unbelievable that corruption charges have not been made as yet on these elected officials who have all abused their powers at our expense. I move to charge, arrest all who are further damaging our country with all the bribes and mega-deals being made with our tax money. If Holder gets in the way – have him impeached or arrested also. We say yet again, we have had enough of the "Hope and Change" Obama sold us on to get elected. Time to hold him accountable for all his broken campaign promises that are sinking our country into bankruptcy. "Lets Roll"
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Monroe – along with most Senators and members of the House used their own personal funds while in office not to mention finance the Revolution. John Hancock poured tons of money into the war effort. Monroe even paid for his own expenses when he was Secretary of State while in France under Madison. When the British burned all the public buildings in Washington DC in 1812 – Monroe went to his home, got his sword, his pistols, and rifle, road back to DC on horseback with a group of men and was ready to mount a charge against the British. Can you see even one of these cowards in office doing such a thing? Andrew Jackson slaughtered the British at New Orleans and Pensecola. All of our history is for not. We've got a group of people in Washington DC that are as foreign to America as the British were in the late 1700's and early 1800's. The only difference is "We the People" are a bunch of loosers now with no spine to do anything about it.
Why do they limit this to just the Nelson Deal ? What about Harry Reid Deal, Landrieu Deal, Dodd Deal, etc. etc. etc. Seems like this initiative fits more than just the Nelson Deal. Votes are bought constantly by special deals to states. This practice should be shut down.
If we had honorable men, like the founding fathers, in our congress, no senator or representative would have taken part in this sham against the people, without demanding the other party be invited in, rather than SHUT OUT completely. I hope this vote buying and the odious behavior of this congress will open the eyes of the electorate. Landrieu, Nelson, Dodd, the whole corrupt mess need to be voted out. Landrieu was so proud of her $300 million or OUR money, she even bragged that it wasn't $100 million, that it was $300 million and she wasn't "going to be defensive about it!" Guess she wanted everyone to know she wasn't a cheap one! To think Nelson would think it appropriate to saddle the rest of the country with Nebraska's medicaid costs, blows one's mind. FOLKS, WAKE UP! NEVER IN MY LIFE DID I THINK A PRESIDENT WOULD FIRE THE MANAGER OF A PRIVATE COMPANY, TAKE OVER THAT COMPANY, AND GIVE IT MOSTLY TO IT'S CORRUPT LABOR UNION. NEVER DID I THINK SEIU WOULD BE THE RULING CLASS IN THE WHITEHOUSE. NEVER DID I THINK A CONVICTED FELON WOULD WRITE THE GUIDELINES TO GET THIS HEALTHCARE MESS PASSED, BUT ALL OF THIS HAPPENED.
AMEN!!! I don't think it is very far off either. Good post!
Don't forget queen Pelosi!
Wouldn't it be fun if O'Keefe and Giles (of ACORN corruption exposing fame) disguised themselves as Dingy Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and filmed these back room deals?
[...] Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | [...]
I say we try him for treason against the Constitution and the Poeple of the United States. Once he's found guilty I recommend he be sentenced to death (as this is a during war time while out brave solderies fight tyranny and evil and many fields) and hanging him publically on live TV. Maybe that would get Washington's attention.
We all sit in our homes watching cable TV, go to work to collect our paycheck, go to dinners and movies, maybe a party with some friends. We have all grown into nothing but a bunch of cowardly loosers in this country. All the while, we've looked to the government to solve all our every day life problems and issues. We sue anyone and everyone at the drop of a hat. Nothing short of armed revolution will ever change anything back to the original principles this country was founded on. There's too many special interest groups, too many factions of individuals who want to live on Uncle Sam's plantation at the expense of everyone else. Our court systems have set precedences far beyond the original language of the Constitution. A fear all is lost in the cause of liberty and freedom. We will now be subjected to a European style government. I hope everyone has tough skin around their ankles, Uncle Sam is forging the shackles for us all. Instead of electing "one of us" – we've been busy electing "one of them". It is now us against them. They no longer consider themselves "one of us".
The only way to truly reform our corrupt and dysfunctional government is through constitutional amendments that will never, however, be proposed by Congress, but only through an Article V convention, exactly what the Founders gave us if and when we lost trust in the federal government. Learn all the facts at foavc.org, where you can also see the 750 applications from all 50 states.
I HAVE SAID THIS BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FROM THE GITGO. AN UNINFORMED ELECTORATE, VOTING IS A DANGEROUS THING.
This is called business as usual in Washington.
I like the full discloure idea as well, I would extend it to spouses, would also like to put an anti-nepotism clause with severe penalties in.
I really have no problems with bills of around a 100 pages, whatever could get passed, the single item I think would be more important the raw length.
The way the Obama clown crew is operating I think an anti-corruption ammendment would be a pretty good one for some one to put forward.
But then who is to judge what 'single item' means? ('Tax the people and spend it' is a single item.)
I read in one of the other threads that congress is actually pushing blank bills along the process so that the leadership can get it started and then add whatever language they want as needed. Something tells me that is not the good government envisioned by the founding fathers. What the hell is going on here? How can this kind of activity be allowed to stand? But the public sleeps and for the most part doesn't care.
The founding fathers created this countries basis of government in the constitution in so may pages/words. I think any subsequent legislation can do whatever it is need to be done in the same amount of words or less.
And yes full disclosure for the legislator and family, for all of time the remaining years of the legislators life. That will give jobs to the lawyers we put out of work when tax reform and simple flat tax is implemented.
Single item – as in no ear marks, if we get to the point where words mean nothing then the language of the constituion doesnt matter a wit anyway, some would argue we are already there
Well the words mean what the statist wants them to mean, yes we are there. Is the tenth amendment not clear enough as it is?
Yes in a lot of ways it doesn't matter, they don't care what is written there.
I take your point and basically agree with you, I just like my idea limiting word count as it might be harder to ignore. Don't you think the founding fathers didn't include such detail in the original constitution because it likely never occurred to them this kind of fraud would be attempted by our legislators much less allowed by the citizens. We are in a very different world then they lived in back then.
All of this is moot anyway and none of these changes will ever happen.
In general I agree that we probably dont need more than a few pages per bill, it's a matter of war gaming for something that may never occur.
Yes you may be right, but I come from a family where one branch is almost all Harvard and Yale left leaning idiots (said with complete love) and even they are seeing the issues with the way things are going and its causing them doubt.
When that branch of the family starts agreeing in principle with the military and business types part of the clan then I see a once in lifetime opportunity if the pieces are in place and its framed correctly.
Luck favors the prepared and the willing, here is hoping to a lucky 2010 and an even luckier 2012
Nice chatting, T
Right back at you brother, let's get-r-done!
This bill needs a "fine tooth comb" on every possibility for challenge. It was born of corruption with the goal of corrupting the system. There is a time for the legal profession to take up the challenge of stopping this multi-facets monstrosity from setting precedents which are rooted in corruption. Reform of Congress; its practices have lost sight of Constitutionality and responsibilty to their constituencies.