dagblog - Comments for "Taking the REINS"

US Constitution. Article 1.

Beetlejuice — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:40:51 +0000

US Constitution. Article 1. Section 7. 2nd para.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representative and the Senate, shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after careful Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objection, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

Well it looks as it the Founding Fathers took the necessary precautions allowing a method by which the Legislative Branch could override a Presidential veto.

The current GOP have become accustomed to bringing the wheels of government to a grinding halt with the use of a single member of their caucus placing a hold on proceedings they don't approve ... just a single nay. Not a simple majority of 51 or 2/3 of either House or Senate ... just a single no is all it takes. While they enjoy exercising their political muscle in this manner, seems they're envious if not down-right angry because, by the Constitution, the President is enumerated with that tool to cull their legislative efforts.

What's more at stake is this piece of legislation would allow a simple majority controlling Congress to hallow out existing law without following the enumerated path as outlined by the Constitution. It is possible they could use the language of the bill to make subtle changes to the Constitution ... christian nation, school prayer, removing the wall of separation between church and state for example. It's nothing more than a slim majority running roughshod over those not of their political persuasion.

However, they do forget one little detail. If all it takes is a slim majority, the Democrats could gain the upper-hand and reverse everything they accomplish. So legislation for the immediate now is suspect, unless there are plans yet to be unfolded that secures their political dominance.

As a side note, this legislation should be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment not as a simple piece of legislation. In fact, if they were serious, they should be either stripping the President of his veto powers or changing the 2/3 majority in both House and Senate to a simple majority in either House or Senate. But they would need 38 states legislatures to go along with it, which they don't control ... yet.

The real clincher will be the make-up of Congress after the 2012 election cycle. If the GOPer's succeed in capturing both House and Senate, the Constitution won't matter much.

And MrSmith1, you stated

... If Americans don't vote these GOP idiots out of office, we're a lot stupider than previously suspected ...

Just take one hard look at the GOP contenders working their base for the nomination ... the most promising is adept at tossing hand-grenades into the public arena and takes pride in the body counts attributed to him.

The wording in the HuffPost

MrSmith1 — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:02:35 +0000

In reply to Correct me if I am wrong, but

The wording in the HuffPost article says: "The measure ... would require Congress to sign off on any new rule estimated to cost more than $100 million" ... "The bill would effectively give either chamber a veto on a regulation because leaders could simply not put it on the calendar for a vote, and the rule would expire after 70 congressional working days."

Even if it is just regulations issued by department heads of Federal agencies, it still seems like an end-run around legislation in order to further gut regulations and agencies meant to help people.

I suppose it is nothing more than an attempt to say, "See? Obama is hampering the economic recovery by stifling free enterprise." But it seems like a rather stupid way to go about it.

Eh, but what do I know?

Correct me if I am wrong, but

Richard Day — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:28:44 +0000

In reply to Taking the REINS

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this just relates to regulations issued by Department heads in the Federal Government.

This does not alter your Constitutional argument, however.

If Congress wishes to override a reg all it has to do is come up with a majority vote in each House and then get the prez to sign the bill into law.

The humor in all of this is that Obama aint gonna sign on and the entire purpose of the House bill is to fix it so that the Prez does not have to sign on!

This is all just one repub joke.

Brilliant, Oxy! Republican

MrSmith1 — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:46:36 +0000

In reply to No law shall be

Brilliant, Oxy!

Republican haiku:

Government is bad

We intend to veto it

out of existence.

No law shall be

Oxy Mora — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:08:41 +0000

In reply to Taking the REINS

No law shall be passed

Against the constitution

Unless we're for it.