Comments on: ObamaCare Corrupt Deal Shows Need to Amend the Speech and Debate Clause

By: Prudence

Prudence — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:15:22 +0000

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.

By: HarryTuttle

HarryTuttle — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:34 +0000

Right back at you brother, let's get-r-done!

By: Thinking_Man

Thinking_Man — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:55:51 +0000

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

By: HarryTuttle

HarryTuttle — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:28:41 +0000

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.

By: Thinking_Man

Thinking_Man — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:29:32 +0000

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

By: HarryTuttle

HarryTuttle — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:26:06 +0000

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.

By: Thinking_Man

Thinking_Man — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:35:42 +0000

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.