Bill that passed the house gets rid of the senate and the president

HR1255

SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.

(a) Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011- If the House has not received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.

So what does it do?

If, by April 6, the senate has not passed any budget legislation, the budget passed in the house on February 19, becomes LAW, without any senate vote or presidential signature.

Why are they doing this?

The budget was passed on February 19 in the house and has not passed the senate yet. So the republicans are tired of waiting for the senate, so they wrote this bill to make things happen. But it still unconstitutional.


This is totally unconstitutional. And at least half the house voted for it.

Not to mention... it still needs to pass the senate and have Obama's signature...to pass the budget without any senate vote or presidential signature... the whole thing is grandstanding and ridiculous.

BTW, this is NOT an April fool's joke.

Vitchilo

Unconstitutional. I find it hard to believe the House Republicans are trying to push this false concept. I just have to believe that this quote is one where that idiot Eric Cantor was making a press speech and was verbalizing his own personal fantasies. "UGG Me big important man..mmmm good to be House Majority Leader,,mmmgood.

Just look at everything they're doing in Washington; I have trouble pointing to any constitutional basis for any of it. Everyone is ignoring everyone else - even court orders to cease and desist. And especially us. Stop voting for the lesser of two evils.

This is not new , I trust that this is their full intention to let this outcome to come to pass .The game changer so to speak .Can you imaging the fallout that would result ?

Since when is something unconstitutional in THIS administration?

Originally posted by Violater1
Since when is something unconstitutional in THIS administration?

What does this bill have to do with the administration? Did the Obama administration craft the provision in question?

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Violater1
Since when is something unconstitutional in THIS administration?

What does this bill have to do with the administration? Did the Obama administration craft the provision in question?

unless im wrong, obama was supposed to do this when he was elected, not make the house of our only representatives do it

reply to post by Vitchilo


Purely just grandstanding and trying to force a push on the Senate. Though, there is a larger discussion here at hand. The constitutionality of the bill is in question and while I can see their thought process and strategic movement on this, it is a poor tactic overall.

With the 17th Amendment, basically both the House of Representatives and the Senate or essentially one in the same. While the 17th did not change the very basic fact that a bill must pass both houses, it did strip the states the ability to take take part in the Federal Government by making senators voted in by popular vote rather than being voted in how the states decided to.

So the question remains, why have two separate houses that serve the same interests? Especially the more powerful Senate? In the House, an interest group, lobby or community must persuade numerous amounts of representatives to enact a bill and get it going in committee.

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
unless im wrong, obama was supposed to do this when he was elected, not make the house of our only representatives do it

What? I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here...if it is a jab at the whole "Obama is going to save us" then I see your satire. Else, you are sorely ill-informed and ignorant to the processes of how the separation of powers is supposed to work and why they are enshrined (albeit severely ignored) in the Constitution.

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Violater1
Since when is something unconstitutional in THIS administration?

What does this bill have to do with the administration? Did the Obama administration craft the provision in question?

unless im wrong, obama was supposed to do this when he was elected, not make the house of our only representatives do it

You're wrong.

Originally posted by Violater1
Since when is something unconstitutional in THIS administration?

First, whoever is staring this is blinded and ignorant. Yeah, its a personal attack but seriously. This is a bill in the House of Representatives. It has nothing to do with the administration, but rather the 111th Congress.

It is this very reason why whenever anyone asks me or tries to label me and place me into a box, I tell them that the Republican and Democratic party do not serve my thoughts. Nor do they own them or hold copyright upon them. They are my own. Call me a fence sitter. I don't care.

This type of ignorance amongst the voting public (I am making a HUGE assumption here) is why corruption is rampant. Fail to keep the Republic by remaining vigilant, informed and engaged and we end up with the modern day politics we have today in the United States of America.

One where people think that the "Bush Tax Cuts" are actually former President Bush's tax cuts. They are not, they were Congress' tax cuts. They passed the bill.

The very same with when people call Afghanistan and Iraq as inherited wars and they are now President Obama's. Horse squeeze! They are still Congress' and by extension, the Peoples. They authorized it, they fund it, they do nothing about it.

The president has the power of the bully-pulpit and persuasion in regards to the bills that are routed through Congress. Sure he has the veto, but that is also why there is an override provision. Government should not ever have one person at the helm dictating policy, law and war.

Now...for a broader aspect the creation of numerous agencies that have bureaucrat upon bureaucrat that write regulations, as opposed to law is a different story. The creation of "Czars", which serve nearly in cabinet capacity without subjection to Congress approval. The broad use of executive orders. Political maneuvering that sidesteps law. These are things to worry about and they didn't start with this president nor the last.

They started because the people were lulled asleep. Prosperity has that effect. It is quite understandable really. Why worry about Washington when I have a house with a white picket fence, a car and 2.5 children? But the pendulum has to swing back sooner or later. That is what is happening now and has been for about the past 6-8 years I believe.

reply to post by Vitchilo


You're absolutely right, this is absurd and it's no April fools joke. At first I thought it was, or at least that it had to be, but to my surprise it turned out to be absolutely true. I was following the subject for two days on MSNBC and I posted a thread on the subject this morning which includes the video clips from The Last Word with Lawrence ODonnell. If you're so inclined, you can check it out here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Vitchilo


They are doing it because they have fascist instincts. If they could get away with it Republicans would form a fascist state.
Look what Nixon did [Watergate] Reagan did [ Iran Conmtra] and look what Bush did [ War in Iraq and 911]. The dems are a few degrees better but not much.

And look at that Governor in Wisconsin who had to be told THREE times by a judge to obey the law

The Republicans are DANGEROUS!

Originally posted by inforeal
They are doing it because they have fascist instincts. If they could get away with it Republicans would form a fascist state.
Look what Nixon did [Watergate] Reagan did [ Iran Conmtra] and look what Bush did [ War in Iraq and 911]. The dems are a few degrees better but not much.

And look at that Governor in Wisconsin who had to be told THREE times by a judge to obey the law

The Republicans are DANGEROUS!

When a judge makes an order that is favorable to your position, you herald it. Such as you have above. But when a judge questions something for your cause it is a different tune the judge is acting outside his authority, he is just a fascist! . Not you exactly, but many that espouse the same line of thinking.

As far as your examples that you are stretching (careful not to pull a tendon...) to equate to fascism; please do explain how a political blunder and criminal act [Nixon], a political blunder and backstabbing of an ally [Reagan] and wars that were authorized and celebrated by both parties in Congress when politically expedient [Bush] equal fascism.

Because honestly...I doubt you could give me an accurate description of one form of Fascism as a political ideology and how your above referenced occurrences connect. But it is a good buzz word so continue on I suppose. Hell, you cannot even place Fascism onto a template with regards to Left/Right politics. How can you call something far-right that is not only anti-liberal, but anti-conservative? Something that seeks social intervention dictated by the State's needs while allowing private corporations to serve those needs.

Seems we have accomplished what Italy attempted to do; coming from both sides of the aisle. But partisanship is rampant and blinding that you wouldn't ever admit it.

Lets look at some fun stuff though. Starting at a period in which the pendulum began to swing heavily towards a more central, National Government and away from Federalism.

63rd Congress of the United States: Majority - Democrats in both Houses.
Federal Reserve Act (Woodrow Wilson)
16th Amendment / Revenue Act of 1913 (Woodrow Wilson)
17th Amendment (This swung the pendulum the hardest)

The three things above have created more of an environment that is far deadlier and dangerous than Fascism, Republicans or Democrats than your three examples combined and raised to the nth exponent. These three are the major contributions to where we are today as a political spectrum on whole. The Fascism that Italy sought to obtain during the late 1920s through 1945.

do away with all of them...we need a NEW government anyways...one that is once again...for the people and of the people...they're all for the corporations and money nowadays...they could give 2 flyin poodles of a care about us

The Lower Chamber has absolutely no authourity or legal ground to circumvent The Senate or The Office of POTUS! That is that, nothing else matters but this!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


We disagree on much Immaculate...but here we are in agreement. But I am not fully convinced they are actually trying to skip the process but have rather made a poor tactical choice in a strategic political battle. None the less, Senate has yet to act on a budget...

Na it's alright everyone, the GOP and the TEA Party are doing it, so it must be OK, because that's the smaller government they have in mind.

House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1255: Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011

221 Republicans voted for this bill. 15 voted against. Just barely enough to get it passed.

I'm kind of curious as to what happened to their rule that every bill introduced required a statement on constitutionality.

There ya go Tea Party, that's what you voted for.