President Barack Obama is moving to tilt the balance of power back to patients in the struggle over whether health care providers must provide controversial services, regardless of whether they violate religious or moral principles.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WomensHealth/story?id=6977348&page=1
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Whack-a-Mole Pelosi butts heads with Obama
Nancy Pelosi has this grin plastered on her face every time I see her that reminds me of The Joker most days. She is ecstatic that "she" won. Her Constitution killing agenda has been given wings and she is thrilled.
I've wondered as I watched the stimulus package zip into nightmare reality just who was pulling the strings, Obama or Pelosi and crew. It seems the power struggles between the Presidential office and Congress will continue in this administration.
Obama seems to be more centrist in some areas. However, where he is moderate, Pelosi and friends in Congress are not. Whacky Mole Pelosi is more than willing to cheerfully push through the initiatives of Obama's that she likes, usually with a few more tidbits to make his bad ideas worse. But in "exchange" for doing what she wanted to do in the first place, I'd guess she and Reid are exacting a price. Support for his agenda entails his support of her agenda.
Bottom line - we're screwed.
Pelosi butts heads with Obama
Nancy Pelosi repeatedly stood to applaud Barack Obama when he addressed a joint session of Congress Tuesday night. But in the days since, the speaker of the House has been standing up for herself — distancing herself from the president on Iraq, on tax cuts and on the prosecution of former Bush administration officials.
Pelosi’s aides say the speaker was comfortable playing the role of Obama’s shield during the stimulus fight — Republicans teed off on her rather than on the immensely popular new president — and that she remains strongly supportive of the administration on health care, energy and education reform.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19389.html
I've wondered as I watched the stimulus package zip into nightmare reality just who was pulling the strings, Obama or Pelosi and crew. It seems the power struggles between the Presidential office and Congress will continue in this administration.
Obama seems to be more centrist in some areas. However, where he is moderate, Pelosi and friends in Congress are not. Whacky Mole Pelosi is more than willing to cheerfully push through the initiatives of Obama's that she likes, usually with a few more tidbits to make his bad ideas worse. But in "exchange" for doing what she wanted to do in the first place, I'd guess she and Reid are exacting a price. Support for his agenda entails his support of her agenda.
Bottom line - we're screwed.
Pelosi butts heads with Obama
Nancy Pelosi repeatedly stood to applaud Barack Obama when he addressed a joint session of Congress Tuesday night. But in the days since, the speaker of the House has been standing up for herself — distancing herself from the president on Iraq, on tax cuts and on the prosecution of former Bush administration officials.
Pelosi’s aides say the speaker was comfortable playing the role of Obama’s shield during the stimulus fight — Republicans teed off on her rather than on the immensely popular new president — and that she remains strongly supportive of the administration on health care, energy and education reform.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19389.html
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama administration guns for assault weapons ban
The Obama administration's announcement that it will push to reinstate the assault weapons ban has stunned Capitol Hill and revived a debate that has been dormant for years. > Read More By Mike Soraghan
Obama's Plan Would Impose Salary Caps on Military, Federal Workers
Obama's Plan Would Impose Salary Caps on Military, Federal Workers Obama's budget would impose a 2 percent cap on pay raises for civilian federal workers and a 2.9 percent cap on pay raises for the military.
Karl Rove: Obama's Straw Men
As always, excellent insights and clarity from Karl Rove:
President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.
On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561484923478287.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.
On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561484923478287.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
He Who Has Earmarks, Let Him Hear
And now, back to our regularly scheduled spending. One week after the shock of the $1.3 trillion stimulus hit home, President Obama and his party are back at it, promoting fiscal responsibility while exercising anything but. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), fresh from her taxpayer-funded vacation, lifted the veil on a $410 billion omnibus bill that fails to live up to the President's campaign promises of "earmark reform."
"[W]hen I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely," he told a crowd in Mississippi last year. Of course, the irony is that Congress introduced a bill with 9,000 earmarks on the same day that the President delivered a speech to economists on spending restraint. "[I]f we want to spend, we'll need to find somewhere to cut," the President suggested Monday, mere days after he signed the biggest spending bill in U.S. history. At the same meeting, Obama vowed to reduce the deficit by half in his first term, which would be a real feat considering that he has already expanded it by roughly a trillion dollars. Got vertigo yet?
Liberals claim the omnibus, now under review in the House, is pork-free. The evidence suggests otherwise. A portion of the $5 billion in earmarks is slated to fund: a "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program" ($200,000); the creation of a "Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate" ($5.8 million); the National Council of LaRaza ($473,000); "the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii" ($2 million); and the Las Vegas Natural History Museum ($143,000), where Sen. Harry Reid's son served as a board member.
The flagrant waste, while upsetting, is far less damaging to values voters than the shifts in social policy, which often go undetected in spending bills like this one. Of particular concern to FRC are the diminished pro-life "riders" attached to the legislation. (For a better understanding of the term "rider," check out the FRC Action Blog). Unfortunately, we learned yesterday that the President has reinstated $50 million for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). For the first time in eight years, the U.S. will be knowingly subsidizing forced abortion and sterilization.
The President demanded $545 million ($88 million more than 2008) in contraceptives and other "family planning" activities that do not merit public support. In a major setback for the Community-Based Abstinence Education program, the White House asked for a $13 million reduction in CBAE grants, while increasing its funding for Title X birth control programs to $307 million. Another provision would give college health and abortion clinics the ability to purchase contraception and Plan B at a "nominal" price. (Keep in mind that leaders are proposing this while a network of California Planned Parenthood clinics is under investigation for fraudulently re-selling these same drugs at higher prices for profit.)
On the education front, the bill includes language that would eliminate the D.C. school voucher program and bars new students from participating in the program despite its documented success. In a subtle move, House liberals have also pushed for $1.2 billion in "anti-bullying programs." In the past, these funds have been used to introduce pro-homosexual curricula into the nation's public schools. Last, but by no means least, the report language launches a sneak attack on marriage by encouraging reconsideration of the ban on benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees.
Tonight, despite these assaults on American values, the President will address the nation with the familiar themes of hope, camaraderie, and optimism. But, as we have come to expect in Obama's first month, the rhetoric of this administration falls miserably short of reality.
Additional Resources Kitchen Table Blog: What Exactly are Pro-life Riders?
Tony Perkins
Family Research Council:
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
W: frc.org
"[W]hen I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely," he told a crowd in Mississippi last year. Of course, the irony is that Congress introduced a bill with 9,000 earmarks on the same day that the President delivered a speech to economists on spending restraint. "[I]f we want to spend, we'll need to find somewhere to cut," the President suggested Monday, mere days after he signed the biggest spending bill in U.S. history. At the same meeting, Obama vowed to reduce the deficit by half in his first term, which would be a real feat considering that he has already expanded it by roughly a trillion dollars. Got vertigo yet?
Liberals claim the omnibus, now under review in the House, is pork-free. The evidence suggests otherwise. A portion of the $5 billion in earmarks is slated to fund: a "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program" ($200,000); the creation of a "Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate" ($5.8 million); the National Council of LaRaza ($473,000); "the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii" ($2 million); and the Las Vegas Natural History Museum ($143,000), where Sen. Harry Reid's son served as a board member.
The flagrant waste, while upsetting, is far less damaging to values voters than the shifts in social policy, which often go undetected in spending bills like this one. Of particular concern to FRC are the diminished pro-life "riders" attached to the legislation. (For a better understanding of the term "rider," check out the FRC Action Blog). Unfortunately, we learned yesterday that the President has reinstated $50 million for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). For the first time in eight years, the U.S. will be knowingly subsidizing forced abortion and sterilization.
The President demanded $545 million ($88 million more than 2008) in contraceptives and other "family planning" activities that do not merit public support. In a major setback for the Community-Based Abstinence Education program, the White House asked for a $13 million reduction in CBAE grants, while increasing its funding for Title X birth control programs to $307 million. Another provision would give college health and abortion clinics the ability to purchase contraception and Plan B at a "nominal" price. (Keep in mind that leaders are proposing this while a network of California Planned Parenthood clinics is under investigation for fraudulently re-selling these same drugs at higher prices for profit.)
On the education front, the bill includes language that would eliminate the D.C. school voucher program and bars new students from participating in the program despite its documented success. In a subtle move, House liberals have also pushed for $1.2 billion in "anti-bullying programs." In the past, these funds have been used to introduce pro-homosexual curricula into the nation's public schools. Last, but by no means least, the report language launches a sneak attack on marriage by encouraging reconsideration of the ban on benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees.
Tonight, despite these assaults on American values, the President will address the nation with the familiar themes of hope, camaraderie, and optimism. But, as we have come to expect in Obama's first month, the rhetoric of this administration falls miserably short of reality.
Additional Resources Kitchen Table Blog: What Exactly are Pro-life Riders?
Tony Perkins
Family Research Council:
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
W: frc.org
@Divapalooza, thought you'd appreciate the title of this one:
Pork-a-Palooza… Here is Some of What Obama’s Stimulus Bill Is Spending Your Tax Dollars On…
Posted: 23 Feb 2009 09:06 PM PST
Awesome stuff. I am just so happy to know that my tax dollars are going on the following extremely important stimulus items which are bound to stimulate economic growth…HT Michelle Hill staffer Tom Jones is going through the omnibus spending bill with a fine-tooth comb, and Twittering his earmark findings, including: * $200,000 for “Tattoo Removal [...]
Note: I'm gonna start calling the spending bill the porkapalooza! Above from PUMA. Divapalooza, you hafta post this one on your blog!
Posted: 23 Feb 2009 09:06 PM PST
Awesome stuff. I am just so happy to know that my tax dollars are going on the following extremely important stimulus items which are bound to stimulate economic growth…HT Michelle Hill staffer Tom Jones is going through the omnibus spending bill with a fine-tooth comb, and Twittering his earmark findings, including: * $200,000 for “Tattoo Removal [...]
Note: I'm gonna start calling the spending bill the porkapalooza! Above from PUMA. Divapalooza, you hafta post this one on your blog!
.jpg)
Stop the Bailouts Petiton
"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law..."—Article 1, Section 9, the Federal Constitution.
http://stopbailouts.net/
Petition to the 111th Congress of the United States
Whereas, the United States Congress has otherwise appropriated, committed, borrowed, and printed some $10 trillion throughout 2008 and into 2009 over and above the regular budget, and
Whereas the bulk of these funds have been used to “bailout” or otherwise subsidize banks, financial firms, delinquent homeowners, and other institutions, and
Whereas, all of this record-setting expenditure has been borrowed funds not otherwise available to the Treasury of the United States, and
Where, the conditions leading to the current financial crisis were created by government and are a direct result of 15 years of flawed fiscal, monetary and social policy,
Now therefore, we the undersigned citizens of the United States do hereby call on Congress to take the following immediate actions:
1. Insist that all funds expended or committed by any agency or authorized agent of the United States be subject to a public vote of the elected Congress.
2. Undertake an immediate investigation of exactly how all funds have been spent, to whom the Federal Reserve has issued loans and the terms of such loans, and otherwise make the entire process of the financial bailout completely transparent.
3. Block all moves by the Obama Administration to hand homeowners of mortgages in default or near default a reduction in principle of the amount of the mortgage.
4. Bring an immediate end to the bailout and subsidies for firms and individuals who have made bad decisions and allow market forces to find the appropriate price level of housing and securities to enable the market to again function.
http://stopbailouts.net/
http://stopbailouts.net/
Petition to the 111th Congress of the United States
Whereas, the United States Congress has otherwise appropriated, committed, borrowed, and printed some $10 trillion throughout 2008 and into 2009 over and above the regular budget, and
Whereas the bulk of these funds have been used to “bailout” or otherwise subsidize banks, financial firms, delinquent homeowners, and other institutions, and
Whereas, all of this record-setting expenditure has been borrowed funds not otherwise available to the Treasury of the United States, and
Where, the conditions leading to the current financial crisis were created by government and are a direct result of 15 years of flawed fiscal, monetary and social policy,
Now therefore, we the undersigned citizens of the United States do hereby call on Congress to take the following immediate actions:
1. Insist that all funds expended or committed by any agency or authorized agent of the United States be subject to a public vote of the elected Congress.
2. Undertake an immediate investigation of exactly how all funds have been spent, to whom the Federal Reserve has issued loans and the terms of such loans, and otherwise make the entire process of the financial bailout completely transparent.
3. Block all moves by the Obama Administration to hand homeowners of mortgages in default or near default a reduction in principle of the amount of the mortgage.
4. Bring an immediate end to the bailout and subsidies for firms and individuals who have made bad decisions and allow market forces to find the appropriate price level of housing and securities to enable the market to again function.
http://stopbailouts.net/
Rep. Jeff Flake’s anti-earmark resolution up today
Floor Update:
We have begun up to one hour of debate on the Rule to provide consideration for H.R. 1105 – Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009. We then expect another series of votes at approximately 1:15 – 1:30 p.m.
Following votes, we expect to proceed with up to one hour of general debate on H.R. 1105 – Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009. We then expect another series of votes.
The House may then begin up to forty minutes of consideration on the suspension bill H.Res. 183 - Expressing condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims of the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. Following suspension debate, we expect to consider the Rep. Flake (R-AZ) Privileged Resolution. We then expect our final series of votes.
Article (via RedState, please subscribe, good articles & tips, http://www.redstate.com/):
Rep. Flake targets earmarks amidst PMA controversy
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the House’s most vocal critic of pork barrel spending, is trying to shake the ethics committee into action on the link between earmarks and campaign contributors.
We have begun up to one hour of debate on the Rule to provide consideration for H.R. 1105 – Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009. We then expect another series of votes at approximately 1:15 – 1:30 p.m.
Following votes, we expect to proceed with up to one hour of general debate on H.R. 1105 – Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009. We then expect another series of votes.
The House may then begin up to forty minutes of consideration on the suspension bill H.Res. 183 - Expressing condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims of the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. Following suspension debate, we expect to consider the Rep. Flake (R-AZ) Privileged Resolution. We then expect our final series of votes.
Article (via RedState, please subscribe, good articles & tips, http://www.redstate.com/):
Rep. Flake targets earmarks amidst PMA controversy
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the House’s most vocal critic of pork barrel spending, is trying to shake the ethics committee into action on the link between earmarks and campaign contributors.
Democrat Barney Frank Wants to Cut Military Spending
In my Schitzobama blog post I mentioned military spending cuts. Here's an article on the subject:
Democrat Barney Frank Wants to Cut Military Spending
(CNSNews.com) – Congress should cut U.S. military spending by $160 billion, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, proposed at a press conference Tuesday. That same day, however, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who controls the House floor schedule, distanced himself and the majority leadership from Frank’s proposal -- and both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services declined to endorse Frank’s plan.
Democrat Barney Frank Wants to Cut Military Spending
(CNSNews.com) – Congress should cut U.S. military spending by $160 billion, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, proposed at a press conference Tuesday. That same day, however, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who controls the House floor schedule, distanced himself and the majority leadership from Frank’s proposal -- and both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services declined to endorse Frank’s plan.
Schitzobama
This is a tale of multiple personalities. Candidate Obama, President Obama and President Obama.
Candidate Obama says there will be new culture in Washington. Lobbyists will know their place and that place won't be on his cabinet.
President Obama welcomes lobbyists with open arms in his cabinet. He makes exceptions when it's his friends or choices.
Candidate Obama says earmarks will not happen in his White House if elected. He'll cut those suckers right out of bills. He'll veto those darn things if anyone has the temerity to even think about including them.
President Obama isn't concerned about the 8,570 (more or less depending on who's counting and reporting) in the Democrat's $410 billion Omnibus spending package. He's thinking maybe he'll start this earmark thing next year. All the pork in the trillion dollar porkulus bill? That's technically not considered earmarks as it was included in the bill. Earmarks get added afterwards. Oink oink.
Candidate Obama is going to have an ethical, above-board, above-average cabinet.
President Obama doesn't seem to think paying legally owed taxes has anything to do with ethics, even in his choice for Secretary of Treasury, a job that oversees that pesky agency that makes sure you and I pay our taxes properly.
Candidate Obama said his there would unprecedented openness and transparency in his administration. Bills would be on-line before passage so the public would know what was in them.
President Obama has yet to follow through on that promise. Porkulus wasn't even available for review by those who voted on it. The current $410 billion bill speeding through Congress to his desk isn't going to be on-line before the vote, either.
Schitzobama seems to be experiencing more difficulties now that he's in office!
He pushes through a spending porkulus package that will be possibly paid off by our great-great-great grandchildren, and then says he's going to cut the deficit in half in four years. Huh?
Congress and the Obama administration are saying they want to cut military spending by 20 - 25%, yet last night he said he wants to increase the number of soldiers and Marines, and increase the pay of the military and veterans? Huh?
Schitzobama also says he's not going to let terrorists conspire, plot to kill us in other countries. This after releasing terrorists who are certainly already conspiring against us, and promising the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
The words and actions of this man do not connect, in fact they are often completely diametrically opposed. It should be clear to every American that we have a President who simply says what he thinks the public wants to hear. He has an agenda, he's moving forward. We need to learn to ignore the words and watch the actions. Unfortunately for us, the actions are happening with little or no warning and it's hard to react after the fact.
Candidate Obama says there will be new culture in Washington. Lobbyists will know their place and that place won't be on his cabinet.
President Obama welcomes lobbyists with open arms in his cabinet. He makes exceptions when it's his friends or choices.
Candidate Obama says earmarks will not happen in his White House if elected. He'll cut those suckers right out of bills. He'll veto those darn things if anyone has the temerity to even think about including them.
President Obama isn't concerned about the 8,570 (more or less depending on who's counting and reporting) in the Democrat's $410 billion Omnibus spending package. He's thinking maybe he'll start this earmark thing next year. All the pork in the trillion dollar porkulus bill? That's technically not considered earmarks as it was included in the bill. Earmarks get added afterwards. Oink oink.
Candidate Obama is going to have an ethical, above-board, above-average cabinet.
President Obama doesn't seem to think paying legally owed taxes has anything to do with ethics, even in his choice for Secretary of Treasury, a job that oversees that pesky agency that makes sure you and I pay our taxes properly.
Candidate Obama said his there would unprecedented openness and transparency in his administration. Bills would be on-line before passage so the public would know what was in them.
President Obama has yet to follow through on that promise. Porkulus wasn't even available for review by those who voted on it. The current $410 billion bill speeding through Congress to his desk isn't going to be on-line before the vote, either.
Schitzobama seems to be experiencing more difficulties now that he's in office!
He pushes through a spending porkulus package that will be possibly paid off by our great-great-great grandchildren, and then says he's going to cut the deficit in half in four years. Huh?
Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade. - Transcript of Obama's Address to Joint Session of Congress, 2/25/09
Congress and the Obama administration are saying they want to cut military spending by 20 - 25%, yet last night he said he wants to increase the number of soldiers and Marines, and increase the pay of the military and veterans? Huh?
As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy. To each and every one of them, and to the families who bear the quiet burden of their absence, Americans are united in sending one message: we honor your service, we are inspired by your sacrifice, and you have our unyielding support. To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned. - Transcript of Obama's Address to Joint Session of Congress, 2/25/09
Schitzobama also says he's not going to let terrorists conspire, plot to kill us in other countries. This after releasing terrorists who are certainly already conspiring against us, and promising the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend - because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists - because living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. - Transcript of Obama's Address to Joint Session of Congress, 2/25/09
And in another part of his speech:
And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy or Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away. - Transcript of Obama's Address to Joint Session of Congress, 2/25/09
The words and actions of this man do not connect, in fact they are often completely diametrically opposed. It should be clear to every American that we have a President who simply says what he thinks the public wants to hear. He has an agenda, he's moving forward. We need to learn to ignore the words and watch the actions. Unfortunately for us, the actions are happening with little or no warning and it's hard to react after the fact.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Heritage Foundation: The Oath and the District of Columbia
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ... No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.- Article I of the United States Constitution
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.- Article VI of the United States Constitution
For all of its many ambiguities, on the matter of whether the residents of the District of Columbia can vote in the House of Representatives, the United States Constitution is crystal clear: no.
In 2000 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed this truth, writing: "The Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives."
The Supreme Court later affirmed that decision.Despite the clarity of the law, Senate leaders have scheduled a vote today on S. 160, which would create two new seats in the House of Representatives and give one of them to the District of Columbia. The new fig leaf the left is using to push this blatantly unconstitutional measure is the argument that Art.1 sec. 8's grant to Congress to exercise "exclusive Legislation" over the District, gives them the power to grant the District a seat in the House. Heritage fellow Hans von Spakovsky exposes how specious this claim is:
The Constitution’s provision giving Congress the power to run the affairs of the District of Columbia — the seat of the nation’s capitol — doesn’t wipe out other parts of the document. Congress could not, for example, restrict the First Amendment rights of District residents.
Furthermore, the very same section of the Constitution also applies to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards” and other federal properties. But it would be ridiculous to assert, on the basis of that text, that Congress has the power to award House seats to an army base, federal office building, or Navy pier.
Conservatives are not alone in pointing out what a blatant violation of the Constitution S. 160 would be. Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley writes:
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention or ratification conventions would have worked out such specific and exacting rules for the composition of Congress, only to give the majority of Congress the right to create a new form of voting members from federal enclaves like the District.
It would have constituted the realization of the worst fears for many delegates, particularly Anti-Federalists, to have an open-ended ability of the majority to manipulate the rolls of Congress and to use areas under the exclusive control of the federal government as the source for new voting members.
Some Senators appear to believe they can in good conscience vote for explicitly unconstitutional legislation if they include a provision in the bill that allows a Member of Congress to challenge the law in court. But such a provision would only clear statutory standing. Any plaintiff would also have to muster constitutional standing and as Heritage scholars Andrew Grossman and Nathaniel Ward detail, Congress has the power to play political games with voting in the House to prevent such a suit from ever happening.
Members of Congress take an oath to defend the Constitution. This makes them duty bound to oppose any legislation that is unconstitutional. It would be a black eye on the entire Congress if they chose political expediency over their solemn promise to the American people.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.- Article VI of the United States Constitution
For all of its many ambiguities, on the matter of whether the residents of the District of Columbia can vote in the House of Representatives, the United States Constitution is crystal clear: no.
In 2000 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed this truth, writing: "The Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives."
The Supreme Court later affirmed that decision.Despite the clarity of the law, Senate leaders have scheduled a vote today on S. 160, which would create two new seats in the House of Representatives and give one of them to the District of Columbia. The new fig leaf the left is using to push this blatantly unconstitutional measure is the argument that Art.1 sec. 8's grant to Congress to exercise "exclusive Legislation" over the District, gives them the power to grant the District a seat in the House. Heritage fellow Hans von Spakovsky exposes how specious this claim is:
The Constitution’s provision giving Congress the power to run the affairs of the District of Columbia — the seat of the nation’s capitol — doesn’t wipe out other parts of the document. Congress could not, for example, restrict the First Amendment rights of District residents.
Furthermore, the very same section of the Constitution also applies to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards” and other federal properties. But it would be ridiculous to assert, on the basis of that text, that Congress has the power to award House seats to an army base, federal office building, or Navy pier.
Conservatives are not alone in pointing out what a blatant violation of the Constitution S. 160 would be. Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley writes:
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention or ratification conventions would have worked out such specific and exacting rules for the composition of Congress, only to give the majority of Congress the right to create a new form of voting members from federal enclaves like the District.
It would have constituted the realization of the worst fears for many delegates, particularly Anti-Federalists, to have an open-ended ability of the majority to manipulate the rolls of Congress and to use areas under the exclusive control of the federal government as the source for new voting members.
Some Senators appear to believe they can in good conscience vote for explicitly unconstitutional legislation if they include a provision in the bill that allows a Member of Congress to challenge the law in court. But such a provision would only clear statutory standing. Any plaintiff would also have to muster constitutional standing and as Heritage scholars Andrew Grossman and Nathaniel Ward detail, Congress has the power to play political games with voting in the House to prevent such a suit from ever happening.
Members of Congress take an oath to defend the Constitution. This makes them duty bound to oppose any legislation that is unconstitutional. It would be a black eye on the entire Congress if they chose political expediency over their solemn promise to the American people.
We knew the spending bill had earmarks... but 9,000?
Change. Reform. A different Washington. Hope. No more earmarks. Cut wasteful spending.
There is change. It's now worse than ever. He says one thing, does the complete opposite. When is America going to wake up? Tea Party? I hope the Tea Party is HUGE. I hope mainstream media actually covers it. They're ignoring all the protests being held when Obama shows up to mouth his empty words.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/stimulus_bill_earmarks/2009/02/23/184512.html?s=al&promo_code=7AD3-1
Obama's New Spending Bill Has 9,000 Earmarks
William Douglas and David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.
"We need earmark reform," Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. "And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
President Barack Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot this week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that's riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/stimulus_bill_earmarks/2009/02/23/184512.html?s=al&promo_code=7AD3-1
There is change. It's now worse than ever. He says one thing, does the complete opposite. When is America going to wake up? Tea Party? I hope the Tea Party is HUGE. I hope mainstream media actually covers it. They're ignoring all the protests being held when Obama shows up to mouth his empty words.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/stimulus_bill_earmarks/2009/02/23/184512.html?s=al&promo_code=7AD3-1
Obama's New Spending Bill Has 9,000 Earmarks
William Douglas and David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.
"We need earmark reform," Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. "And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
President Barack Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot this week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that's riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/stimulus_bill_earmarks/2009/02/23/184512.html?s=al&promo_code=7AD3-1
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Rally to Support Jeffersonian Principles
While this is in New Hampshire, they're asking that emails be sent in support to elected officials. This is an event I was invited to on Facebook, but it's being promoted in numerous areas I gather.
The largest support of Jeffersonian Principles in living memory will happen Wednesday, March 4th, starting at 8AM at the State House in Concord, NH. There we will show our support for HCR6, while our liberty-loving Representatives support it inside Representatives' Hall. This is a crucial day -- a day to prioritize your love for liberty above your day-to-day life. Whether you live in New Hampshire, or just want to come support this resolution and do so among hundreds of others, who love liberty, come join us!
WHAT: Rally in support of HCR6 Read It in Full HERE http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
WHEN: 8:00 AM, Wednesday, March 4th
WHERE: NH State House, 107 N Main St., Concord
WHY: The Federal government has gone far enough. We need to draw a line in the sand. If there is further egregious, serious disrespect of the US Constitution by the Federal government, then New Hampshire must reclaim its sovereignty.
See the interview on Glenn Beck here
longer interview here. http://nhcaptv.com/episode/55
WHO: YOU! Not "somebody". Not "those people". YOU!!
HCR6 came out of committee with a surprise "Inexpedient to Legislate" recommendation.
If you need to call in sick to work in order to be at the Capitol at 8AM Wednesday March 4th, then you call in sick to work.
For those that remember it, this is a replay of the resistance against the bills to get NH out of Real-ID. This is unacceptable. Fortunately, we have a playbook. We know what it takes to move this forward: MASSIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT!
ACTION ITEMS BEFORE THE RALLY:
1. Email or call your State Reps. Simply, courteously, ask them to support HCR6 when it comes to a vote. Their contact info is here http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/
2. Contact the Speaker of the House, Terie Norelli, mailto:terie.norelli@leg.state.nh.us or (603) 271-3661 and ask her to support HCR6 when it comes to the full legislature for a vote
3. Contact all our delegation to the Fedaral government. Tell them you demand that they support HCR6! Be bold with them, they need a wake-up call!
Judd Gregg http://gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Jeanne Shaheen
http://shaheen.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Paul Hodes
http://hodes.house.gov/contact.aspx
Carol Shea-Porter
http://forms.house.gov/shea-porter/webform/issue_subscribe.htm
4. Pass this info along to everyone you know
For those on Facebook, there is an event set up there. Go to it, and invite everyone you know:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=51203501167#/event.php?eid=51203501167
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=61402276059
Further discussion:
http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1806.msg13802
Tell NH Reps to overturn the ITL and support HCR6!!!
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H25
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
lars@taybre.net,
mbaldasaro@comcast.net,
alexis.chininis@gmail.com,
dennis.fields@leg.state.nh.us ,
kpanne@juno.com,
georgekatsiantonis@hotmail.com,
kris-e-roberts@live.com,
todd.smith@leg.state.nh.us,
frank.emiro@leg.state.nh.us,
jtwo101588@aol.com,
valerie.hardy@leg.state.nh.us,
cynthiapsweeney@yahoo.com,
baldwindomingo@yahoo.com,
sarah.hutz@unh.edu,
pgmff@comcast.net,
mike.rollo@leg.state.nh.us
Please someone take up a donation and buy these poor Reps a computerbox:
Rep. Leo Pepino (603)624-1476
Rep. Robert Haley (603)668-7832
Rep. Thomas Katsiantonis (603)627-9652
Your patriotism, honor and support are greatly appreciated.
http://letsgetthisright.org
http://freestateproject.org/
The largest support of Jeffersonian Principles in living memory will happen Wednesday, March 4th, starting at 8AM at the State House in Concord, NH. There we will show our support for HCR6, while our liberty-loving Representatives support it inside Representatives' Hall. This is a crucial day -- a day to prioritize your love for liberty above your day-to-day life. Whether you live in New Hampshire, or just want to come support this resolution and do so among hundreds of others, who love liberty, come join us!
WHAT: Rally in support of HCR6 Read It in Full HERE http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
WHEN: 8:00 AM, Wednesday, March 4th
WHERE: NH State House, 107 N Main St., Concord
WHY: The Federal government has gone far enough. We need to draw a line in the sand. If there is further egregious, serious disrespect of the US Constitution by the Federal government, then New Hampshire must reclaim its sovereignty.
See the interview on Glenn Beck here
longer interview here. http://nhcaptv.com/episode/55
WHO: YOU! Not "somebody". Not "those people". YOU!!
HCR6 came out of committee with a surprise "Inexpedient to Legislate" recommendation.
If you need to call in sick to work in order to be at the Capitol at 8AM Wednesday March 4th, then you call in sick to work.
For those that remember it, this is a replay of the resistance against the bills to get NH out of Real-ID. This is unacceptable. Fortunately, we have a playbook. We know what it takes to move this forward: MASSIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT!
ACTION ITEMS BEFORE THE RALLY:
1. Email or call your State Reps. Simply, courteously, ask them to support HCR6 when it comes to a vote. Their contact info is here http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/
2. Contact the Speaker of the House, Terie Norelli, mailto:terie.norelli@leg.state.nh.us or (603) 271-3661 and ask her to support HCR6 when it comes to the full legislature for a vote
3. Contact all our delegation to the Fedaral government. Tell them you demand that they support HCR6! Be bold with them, they need a wake-up call!
Judd Gregg http://gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Jeanne Shaheen
http://shaheen.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Paul Hodes
http://hodes.house.gov/contact.aspx
Carol Shea-Porter
http://forms.house.gov/shea-porter/webform/issue_subscribe.htm
4. Pass this info along to everyone you know
For those on Facebook, there is an event set up there. Go to it, and invite everyone you know:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=51203501167#/event.php?eid=51203501167
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=61402276059
Further discussion:
http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1806.msg13802
Tell NH Reps to overturn the ITL and support HCR6!!!
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H25
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
lars@taybre.net,
mbaldasaro@comcast.net,
alexis.chininis@gmail.com,
dennis.fields@leg.state.nh.us ,
kpanne@juno.com,
georgekatsiantonis@hotmail.com,
kris-e-roberts@live.com,
todd.smith@leg.state.nh.us,
frank.emiro@leg.state.nh.us,
jtwo101588@aol.com,
valerie.hardy@leg.state.nh.us,
cynthiapsweeney@yahoo.com,
baldwindomingo@yahoo.com,
sarah.hutz@unh.edu,
pgmff@comcast.net,
mike.rollo@leg.state.nh.us
Please someone take up a donation and buy these poor Reps a computerbox:
Rep. Leo Pepino (603)624-1476
Rep. Robert Haley (603)668-7832
Rep. Thomas Katsiantonis (603)627-9652
Your patriotism, honor and support are greatly appreciated.
http://letsgetthisright.org
http://freestateproject.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
