To my democratic friends, did you receive __________ in the mail?

#26
#26
I assume you guys think the WSJ article is wrong as well then since it states: Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past....?

So, here's my point:
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
Click to expand...

Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

And OE, the issue isn't whether the government will "take over 20% of the economy", it's whether the procedure is legal. If you believe the procedure is legal but shouldn't be used here, that's different.
 
#27
#27
VolInMn said:
That's incorrect. It's completely legal and has been used numerous times, mostly by Republicans.

/the more you know
Click to expand...

This statement proves that you are either just stirring up shat or stupid as shat.
 
#28
#28
VolInMn said:
I assume you guys think the WSJ article is wrong as well then since it states: Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past....?

So, here's my point:


Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

And OE, the issue isn't whether the government will "take over 20% of the economy", it's whether the procedure is legal. If you believe the procedure is legal but shouldn't be used here, that's different.
Click to expand...

It has been used.....that is not what you said......you said it is legal.....it is not
just because it has been done, does not make it legal
the Dems took it to court almost everytime it was used by the GOP, but since it was only used on meaninless paperwork, the courts allowed it


"the more you know"....arse wipe
 
#29
#29
VolInMn said:
I assume you guys think the WSJ article is wrong as well then since it states: Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past....?

So, here's my point:


Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

And OE, the issue isn't whether the government will "take over 20% of the economy", it's whether the procedure is legal. If you believe the procedure is legal but shouldn't be used here, that's different.
Click to expand...

The procedure is illegal. The constitution is in place to protect us from the fools you adore in congress and the white house.

:hi:
 
#30
#30
I hope and pray if this garbage passes that it is challenged. You know as well as I do that Theodore "Teddy Ballgame" Olsen will destroy this garbage.

Kennedy will be the swing and there is no way he votes against freedom.
 
#31
#31
I guess it's safe to say that you don't like activist judges OE.

:)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
I prefer to be protected from fools and live my life how I want.

I know freedom doesn't matter much to you guys, but to some of us, it is every thing.

:)
 
#33
#33
T-TownVol said:
It has been used.....that is not what you said......you said it is legal.....it is not
just because it has been done, does not make it legal
the Dems took it to court almost everytime it was used by the GOP, but since it was only used on meaninless paperwork, the courts allowed it


"the more you know"....arse wipe
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why he kept using the word rule rather than law. It has been used administratively. There has been nothing of merit actually passed with it. This is an end around on American will and processes.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
T-TownVol said:
"the more you know"....arse wipe
Click to expand...

Like I've told you before, if you have a personal problem with me, send me a PM and I'll be happy to remove the verbal gloves, as it were. Otherwise, I'm trying to follow the rules of this board with regard to name calling. You might try to do the same.
 
#35
#35
VolInMn said:
Like I've told you before, if you have a personal problem with me, send me a PM and I'll be happy to remove the verbal gloves, as it were. Otherwise, I'm trying to follow the rules of this board with regard to name calling. You might try to do the same.
Click to expand...

don't flatter yourself there Skippy....it ain't personal....just the truth

you sound like a 10yr old boy calling out another trying to get them in trouble with the Mods
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
Look, as long as you all believe that every time it was used in the past it was against the law, I have no problem with that. My issue would be if someone had no problem with it in the past, but suddenly does now.

If this has been illegal since conception, it makes one wonder why nothing has ever been done about it.
 
#37
#37
It was always against the law. I don't care if you say it was. However the idea that they're trying to pass something major with it is absolutely sickening. If this does somehow end up in the Supreme Court, they're simply not doing their jobs if they allow this.
 
#38
#38
T-TownVol said:
don't flatter yourself there Skippy....it ain't personal....just the truth
Click to expand...

Oh darn. I was so looking forward to a profanity laden PM just stuffed full of your ingenious and witty insults.

I suppose I'll have to try and pick up the shattered pieces of my life and move on.

T-TownVol said:
you sound like a 10yr old boy calling out another trying to get them in trouble with the Mods
Click to expand...

*chuckle*

Pot, kettle, etc.
 
#39
#39
VolInMn said:
Oh darn. I was so looking forward to a profanity laden PM just stuffed full of your ingenious and witty insults.

I suppose I'll have to try and pick up the shattered pieces of my life and move on.



*chuckle*

Pot, kettle, etc.
Click to expand...

I am not the one telling you how to speak.....your life is sad....not shattered.....BHO has three more years to get that done
I don't hide behind a PM
 
#40
#40
VolInMn said:
Look, as long as you all believe that every time it was used in the past it was against the law, I have no problem with that. My issue would be if someone had no problem with it in the past, but suddenly does now.

If this has been illegal since conception, it makes one wonder why nothing has ever been done about it.
Click to expand...

I don't care what they do for procedural garbage. I care about the process by whic they pass laws that impact all of us.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
VolinMN - can you produce any significant legislation (on par with HC reform or even close) where this rule was used?

Can you find any that make law (signed by POTUS) while avoiding a vote on said bill by one house of Congress?

Just curious.
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
VolinMN - can you produce any significant legislation (on par with HC reform or even close) where this rule was used?

Can you find any that make law (signed by POTUS) while avoiding a vote on said bill by one house of Congress?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

give him a few....he is still running away from his "this is not illegal" shat
 
#44
#44
Sorry kids, I have a family and stuff to do so I can't hang out here all evening.

@volinbham: Are we now going to argue that this procedure is okay sometimes, depending on what it covers?

@BPV: If you believe that this procedure is and always has been illegal, no matter which party uses it, I can respect that, as I already said.

@T-Town: You make convincing arguments with your razor sharp observations and I am in awe of your stunning intellect. Obviously, I cannot compete with such superior intelligence. So, feel free to scoot on off to bed knowing you've won the day. You need your sleep for morning comes early and the french fry machine waits for no man.
 
#46
#46
BeecherVol said:
crickets
Click to expand...

jiminy%20cricket.jpg


Mn is sooooooo FOS.
 
#47
#47
VolInMn said:
@BPV: If you believe that this procedure is and always has been illegal, no matter which party uses it, I can respect that, as I already said.
Click to expand...

I do believe it's illegal, regardless how it's used. That said, I don't care if used to determine procedural issues within congress or internal workings. When it's being used to pass sweeping law changes, it needs to be rightfully challenged to the SCOTUS and blasted for sidestepping the founding fathers' intent in providing checks and balances.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#50
#50
TennTradition said:
This is the best source I have found concerning past use of the self-executing rule. From the Congressional Research Service:

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/98-710.pdf
Click to expand...
It really is a garbage rule, enacted to provide political cover to those who support it. It allows them to pass the law yet get to say they didn't vote for the law. Pure politics of self preservation at the expense of Americans.

Makes me want to hurl.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top