PDA

View Full Version : GOP House using Dems favorite Const. clauses...



Soflasnapper
09-16-2011, 06:34 PM
As they had evidently planned to do all along?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Instead, this Congress has often demonstrated something else: an ongoing tendency to make the Constitution say whatever they want it to.

Over nine months, the House has passed laws about a variety of modern issues that the Founders didn’t mention — abortion, charter schools and lasers. For authority, they have often turned to broad clauses about “commerce,” the “general welfare,” and the need for “necessary and proper” laws.

That’s not necessarily wrong. But — as the country observes Constitution Day Saturday — it has left some conservatives wondering if their message has sunk in.“They’re generally pretty loosey-goosey,” said Matthew Spalding, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “I’ve not seen any evidence yet that it’s really causing the average lawmaker to spend any time thinking about Constitutional limitations.”</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It worked out essentially as I anticipated it would,” said Rep. E. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), the head of the Congressional Constitution Caucus. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Garrett had pressed for a more restrictive version of the rule, which would ban members from citing the “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” clauses. He said the GOP leadership shot it down.</span>

Now, Garrett said, the use of these clauses by other legislators “shows to me that they could not really find a distinct Constitutional basis for their legislation, and they covered it over.”</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In H.R. 2218, which passed this week, the House altered an existing program that provides grants to charter schools. Charter schools — indeed, any kind of schools — are not mentioned in the Constitution.

So where did the House get the authority to regulate them now? Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the bill’s sponsor, cited Article I, Section 8.

“Well, that’s everything,” said Akhil Reed Amar, an expert on the Constitution at Yale University. Section 8 is a long list of everything Congress is allowed to do.“So that’s not specific.”

A spokesman for Hunter defended the citation, saying that Hunter had relied particularly on the part of that section that allows Congress to make rules providing for “the general welfare.” </div></div>

WaPost story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-finds-and-lists-meaning-in-constitution/2011/09/14/gIQA1VQzXK_story_1.html)

Gayle in MD
09-16-2011, 07:29 PM
Republicans seem to think our constitution is their own personal play toy, to flip around to their hearts content.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

llotter
09-17-2011, 03:25 AM
Nobody here is claiming the Republicans have been true to the Constitution. I haven't voted Republican since 1988 for that very reason and even then I held my nose while pulling the lever for Bush Sr.

It is a mistake to delineate the issues by party, as you are wont to do, though the Dems are certainly further toward the Left, big government, central planners than the Reps, it really muddles clear thinking on the underlying principles...or maybe that is your intent, to confuse.

LWW
09-17-2011, 03:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody here is claiming the Republicans have been true to the Constitution. I haven't voted Republican since 1988 for that very reason and even then I held my nose while pulling the lever for Bush Sr.

It is a mistake to delineate the issues by party, as you are wont to do, though the Dems are certainly further toward the Left, big government, central planners than the Reps, it really muddles clear thinking on the underlying principles...or maybe that is your intent, to confuse. </div></div>

You are presenting pearls before swine so to speak.

The O-cult simply cannot fathom that their are actually people who don't slavishly obey the fiats dictated by a political party.

Gayle in MD
09-17-2011, 04:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody here is claiming the Republicans have been true to the Constitution. I haven't voted Republican since 1988 for that very reason and even then I held my nose while pulling the lever for Bush Sr.

It is a mistake to delineate the issues by party, as you are wont to do, though the Dems are certainly further toward the Left, big government, central planners than the Reps, it really muddles clear thinking on the underlying principles...or maybe that is your intent, to confuse. </div></div>

Your statements are ridiculous.

You obviously have not studied the facts about which Presidents, and House majorities, have actually spent, borrowed and grown the Federal government, beyond belief, which is one of the reasons why you ideologists from the right, continue to vote against your own best interests.

Additionally, you all totally neglect which party truly is the party which ALWAYS expands spending, and particularly, Federal Defense spending, where the huge waste really exists.

Defense spending grew more under George Bush, than ever before in our history, to incredible and unsustainable levels.

We still do not have all of the bottom line numbers on Bush's structural projects, under the banner of terrorism, CIA, and Homeland Security, which was one of the most screwed up policies in history, and ultimately, only expanded a huge bureaurocy which couldn't even respond to natural disasters.

I spend a good deal of time, watching and listening to the stated beliefs of Repiglicans, and hence, I know very well which party holds us back, and which party has the most honor, and commitment, to ALL Americans, not just the wealthy top one percent.

I know where the no bid contracts originate, and also where the bribes originate, which favor the very corporations and ocrrupt financial corporations, which steal from all of us, outsource our jobs, and pollute this world, for profit.



G.

Gayle in MD
09-17-2011, 04:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody here is claiming the Republicans have been true to the Constitution. I haven't voted Republican since 1988 for that very reason and even then I held my nose while pulling the lever for Bush Sr.

It is a mistake to delineate the issues by party, as you are wont to do, though the Dems are certainly further toward the Left, big government, central planners than the Reps, it really muddles clear thinking on the underlying principles...or maybe that is your intent, to confuse. </div></div>

You are presenting pearls before swine so to speak.

The O-cult simply cannot fathom that their are actually people who don't slavishly obey the fiats dictated by a political party. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that their are actually </div></div>

That would be "there" not their...

Of all of the people here to be pointing out misspellings, or grammar errors, to others, you of all, most need to edit and correct your own posts, where those who quote you, I notice, display your on-going assault on spelling and grammar.

A real joke, given the arrogance which is so embedded in your overall personality.

You are among the worst, which is true of most of you righties, BTW.

We all make those kinds of mistakes, but only a few here think themselves perfect enough to consistantly call attention to the mistakes of others.

Some grown ups understand that it is rude, socially, to be constantly correcting other adults.

But then, no one who would intentionally take the time to try to dig up what they "think" would be embarrassing for another, and try to use it to blackmail them, and dictate what they can and cannot write, would have any polish, or social skills.



G.

LWW
09-17-2011, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Defense spending grew more under George Bush, than ever before in our history, to incredible and unsustainable levels.
G.

</div></div>

REALLY?

In 1933 US defense spending was $1.4B

In 1945 US defense spending was $93.7B ... an increase of 6,592.9%.

In 1953 US defense spending was $56.9B ... a decrease of 39.3%.

In 1960 US defense spending was $53.3B ... a decrease of 6.3%.

In 1969 it was $94.7B ... an increase of 77.7%.

In 1974 it was $98.4B ... an increase of 3.9%.

In 1977 it was $121.6B ... an increase of 23.5%.

In 1981 US defense spending was $193.6B ... an increase of 59.2%.

In 1989 US defense spending was $343.2B ... an increase of 77.3%.

In 1993 US defense spending was $344B ... an increase of 0.99%.

In 2001 US defense spending was $389.7B ... an increase of 13.3%.

In 2009 US defense spending was $794B ... an increase of 103.7%.

In 2011 US defense spending was $964.8B ... an increase of 21.8%.

In short ... FDR grew the military faster than anyone in the last century. The JFK/LBY run up was quite similar to the GWB run up. Ike, Nixon, and GHWB were relatively small spenders ... Truman benefited from the winding down of WWII. James Earl Carter was far and away the biggest spender during peace time since WWII.

And finally, Barack Hussein Obama Junior oversaw military spending increases of $85.2B on average ... while George Walker Bush oversaw an increase of $50.5B per year.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST! (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?span=usgs302&year=2012&view=1&expand=30&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&local=s&state=US&pie=#usgs302)</span>

Gayle in MD
09-17-2011, 07:21 AM
Cute, but you did what you always do, you twisted the meaning of the numbers.

Policies LEFT OVER FROM REPIGLICN PRESIDENTS, such as Reagan, Bush and Bush, are carried over to the next administration.

G.W.Bush, left the greatest deficits, of any president, created by the greatest policy failures in our history, had the poorest job creation, grew the government the most, and then left all of it in President Obama's lap.

There are Defense Buildings all over Washington D.C., under construction, half built, which BUSH left in his wake.

There is also currently the biggest embassy ever built, bigger than the Vatican, in Iraq, the costs of which are outside human comprehension, those left over, and on going in costs and expense, AND INTEREST, along with his huge deficits, and on-going interest on his unprecedented BORROWING, MORE THAN ALL PREVIOUS ADMISTRATIONS COMBINED, he left us in a debt ditch, all handed off to President Obama.


Bush one, spent his entire presidency, complaining about Reagan's VOODOO economics, which left us in a deep recession.

Costs, are carried over, to the next administration, hence, your statements are absurd.

The COSTS, of diverting the Bush Depression, and paying for his spending, often referenced by the term, Blank Check Repiglican Congress, which also spent like drunken sailors, for six damn years, as they BROKE the earmark record, and never mentioned deficits, throughout Bush's unprecedented borrowing, unpaid for tax cuts, his unpaid for Prescription Drug give away to Big Pharma, expansion of the Federal Goernment, his collapsed economy, and the interest on all of his borrowing, all inherited by President Obama, by BUSH, the absolute WORST legacy, ever passed off to a president since ROOSEVELT took office, as virtually ALL historians agree, and those on-going BUSH debts and interest on Bush's Borrowing, and spending, is what you ignorant Righties try to lay at President Obama's feet!

This is why I don't bother with you, or your ridiculous posts, because overall, you're a MORON, Without Conscience! who likes to twist the actual facts, to paint whatever picture you like, yet your own assertions are never correct, IOW, not true, since you fail always to consider..."Under the conditions prevailing" AND you fail to include, by whom, and from where the original spending, borrowing and left over debts and interest on those debts, began, and who inherited it.

G.

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 06:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On MSNBC today, Andrea Mitchell pressed Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on the hypocrisy of Republicans all of a sudden getting religion “about paying for everything.” Hatch replied that it “wasn’t right” that they didn’t pay for the legislation, but it was understandable because they were “trying to solve a problem for millions of millions of Americans”:

HATCH: Well, in those days, a lot of things weren’t paid for and that wasn’t right. I have to admit that. On the other hand, we were trying to solve a problem for millions of millions of Americans who were unable to get their drugs.

MITCHELL: Well so are the supporters of expanding health care coverage.

HATCH: Yeah, but there’s a difference between trying to help senior citizens, who really can’t afford drugs and doing something that effects every American in the United States of America and many people who don’t belong in the United States of America. And do it in a way that even the, even the actuaries of the current administration admit would be not only costly, but put us into tremendous debt. So there’s a real difference between two.

Hatch said that he wished Republicans “hadn’t done that in the sense of not paying for it,” but he claimed that was because they didn’t have a “fiscal conservative majority in the Senate.” Hatch did admit that Democrats were “at least they’re trying to” pay for their legislation. Watch it: [link to video at link site here. (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/01/22/78715/hatch-pay-health-bill/) ]

[...]

This isn’t the first time Hatch has admitted the GOP’s politically convenient inconsistency on paying for proposals. In Dec. 2009, Hatch told the AP that “it was standard practice not to pay for things” six years ago. “It certainly added to the deficit, no question,” said Hatch, claiming that the fiscally irresponsible bill had been vindicated because it “has done a lot of good.” </div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 06:42 AM
LOL...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn’t the first time Hatch has admitted the GOP’s politically convenient inconsistency on paying for proposals. In Dec. 2009, Hatch told the AP that “it was standard practice not to pay for things” six years ago. “It certainly added to the deficit, no question,” said Hatch, claiming that the fiscally irresponsible bill had been vindicated because it “has done a lot of good.”

</div></div>

Easy to blow away his BS.

IIARIOK!

Repigs and the Chimp, blocked any opportunity for Americans to get their own drugs, far more affordably, from Canada, or for Medicare and Veterans hospitals, to do the same.

That one policy, removed any opportunity for what they claim they love, free market competition.

They block everything that could bring down costs, for their resident, American Bribers, Corporate America, the crux of most all of our problems, IMO.

Bush and the Repigs, were more concerned about a give away to Big Pharma, than anything else.

Bottom line...Bush and his Repiglican, Blank Check Congress, created, going forward, over a Trillion in debts, all of it due to Repiglican corruption and cronyism.

What homeowner, gives away no bid contracts, to any company, for home improvement projects?

Sheer cronyism, and exploitation of our collective money, by Bush, and Cheney, who promoted War Profiteering, as their overall foreign policy.

Hatch is a joke.

I didn't hear him bitching about spending, or deficits, while Bush and the Repig, Blank Check Big Spenders, Record Breaking Earmarkers, were in there, having a field day blowing money on self defeating, irrational policies.

G.

LWW
09-24-2011, 07:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Easy to blow away his BS.

G. </div></div>

Yet amazingly, you always fail?