T Nation

What Constitution?


#1

Now, Bushie is just making up shit as he goes:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/politics/14177032.htm

Basically, only the Senate okayed the bill, but the President signed it anyway, and is now stating that it's law.

Because, I guess, he says so.

(In case you're wondering, the bill was an Omnibus Spending bill that reduces, among other things, the number of people eligible for medicaid and student loans. Yay, compassionate conservatism! There was also this:

"Among those other changes was a provision to save $2 billion by restricting Medicare payments for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and oxygen tanks. Under the Senate bill, government-funded leases for such equipment could last only 13 months.")


#2

From what I read about this last week, there were clerical errors with the bill passed by the House, and a correct bill was given to the Senate. Yes, the House should have to revote on the corrected bill.


#3

No, no, no Neph. There is no such thing as a clerical error in the government -- you're so naive. Everything in the government has a purpose, and the President is behind it all, right down to any Democrats' late mail (they are being punished for daring to have views that dissent from the Neocons).

Bush obviously, in one of his many attempts to destroy the Constitution, take away our rights, starve seniors and eat babies, collaborated with a shadowy cabal of Neocons in the House and Senate, who were working together to attempt to hide the truth (i.e. the baby eating) about this bill from the American people. Their sinister plot was to avoid having the House pass it properly, and the President would just ... sign it. It would sneak in under the radar and we'd lose more rights (don't ask which ones, or how it is causally linked -- that wouldn't be fair).


#4

Did you even read the article?

I am quite positive that it was a clerical error.

However, the administration and its spokespeople are now claiming that the bill is law based on some reeeeeeeally obscure 1890's precedent.

So, it's not the error: it's the continued attitude of "Whatever we do is right, even if a fifth grader could tell you that it's wrong."


#5

Allowing this law to stand sets a dangerous precedent, and will potentially erode our balance of powers even further.


#6

Please explain.


#7

If the House and the Senate don't have to approve the same bill for it to become law, then the House could essentially become irrelevant. It's more complicated than that, but that's the idea.

The bill should have to go back through the House.


#8

It is my understanding it was the same bill with a "clerical error".

If the clerical error has a substantial effect it should go back to the House.

I don't see a clerical error eroding balance of power.

Over the years the executive branch has been steadily losing power and the judiciary has been gaining power.

To pretend this case erodes the balance of power is politically motivated bullshit.


#9

It is.

There are some people who don't want to take it back through the House (since it was difficult to get it passed the first time). That's where the argument is coming from that this sets a dangerous precedent.


#10

Who is to determine when "clerical errors" are significant enough to warrant a re-vote?


#11

Good question. The article refers to a $ 2 billion dollar difference in one part of the bill.

Sounds like a lot of money to me but they would probably spend that in bottled water alone if they called these jackasses together for a re-vote.

In my opinion they should have a re-vote and take the costs for it out of the Houses pay. The fact that this happened should be a huge embarrasement. These fuckers don't even pretend to read the bills they vote on.

I do not see it eroding our Constitution.


#12

Yep. Obviously the "eroding the constitution" talk is political hyperbole, but wrt to matters like these it seems that allowing slight differences introduces ambiguity and subjectivity where there need be none. I like your suggestion: the time it takes to correct this mistake should come out of their pay.


#13

dude, you guys havent the slightest clue.

this bill was over 2000 pages wrong, there was a small error which even the Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid let slide but Pelosi, the nut job she is, wants to make a big deal out of it. Some poor staffer who probably worked 100 hours that week, made a small mistake at the last minute....in a 2000 plus page bill.

as for what the bill actually does...whoever said it was an omnibus spending bill is doesnt know their head from their ass. It was a budget reconcilation bill which absolutely did not cut student aid. In fact it increase Pell grant funding (i believe it increased the grant number from 2,000 to 4500 a year for students). IT DID cut the amount of subsidies that lenders get for giving out the loans...by around 8 billion. So yes, it raised the amount of money that poor kids can get to go to college by reducing democratic instilled subsidies to banks...........THAT's COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM.

As for Medicare, it made it more difficult for you to collect on something that is meant for the poor if you had a house over 450,000 dollars or some obscenely high number like that...again, its common sense, but to liberals.

Overall, there were no cuts made at all, the bill reduced the GROWTH of federal spending by .1%. GOD FORBID. The bill still lets medicare, student loans and all the other entitlement programs by anywhere from 6-7% growth. GROWTH. per year.

damn those mean conservatives.


#14

From the original article:

?The Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 may be something, but it is not law within the meaning of the Constitution,? said Jamin Raskin, an American University law professor.

No one disputes the central facts of the lawsuit: Last December, Vice President Cheney broke a tie vote in the Senate to win passage of a bill that would cut nearly $40 billion over five years by reducing Medicaid rolls, raising work requirements for welfare, and trimming the student loan program, among other changes."

But, of course, that's from the mainstream media and is therefore not to be trusted, right?


#15

Thanks for the info.

The press and the Democrats love to call scaled back spending increases cuts. Drives me crazy.

I am glad you pointed out the truth of the matter.


#16

Harris,

I did read the article and below is an excerpt from it:

"For their part, congressional leaders and administration officials point to an 1892 Supreme Court decision, Field v. Clark, to argue that as long as the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate certify a bill passed, it is passed. In that case, a bill signed by President Benjamin Harrison and authenticated by the leaders of the House and Senate was different from the version printed in the official journals of Congress, known now as the Congressional Record."

I do agree that things like this do look bad -- but in this case it looks bad for the Congress and not the President.

Anyway, if this is what happend -- the "Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate agree that the bill was passed," and this Supreme Court decision has been correctly quoted..............so what's the problem?

Is the problem you are having with this is the fact that it is President Bush doing this? I mean, you say that he is making stuff up -- did President Bush "make up" this Supreme Court decision? I think not..........


#17

its some retarded little paper. I cant help it if some one gets the name wrong.

Its the deficit reduction act, or Budget Reconcilation.

Read any mainstream paper from december, 2005 and they will all refer to it by some combination of those words. Omnibus has MUCH different connotations.

Thanks,

Me


#18

I am in shock from this thread!! Harris actually went two posts without calling somebody a 'motherfucker' or 'asshole'. Harris, you're slipping!

You all realize that we are approaching 9 TRILLION dollars in debt? We do not need to 'scale back' spending, we need to eliminate it. Forty billion compared to 9 trillion?

Cut the budget by at least half, fire all government employees, except military, judiciary and police. Sell everything else to private interests, and I mean everything.

Of course, its really too late for any of that. We'll wind up carting our paper money in wheelbarrows (as in Germany, 1923) and then a gentleman with, perhaps, a moustache, will come along and offer to solve all of our problems.

We sold out our country for 'benefits' and 'social engineering'. Damn shame.


#19

You realize those private interests would include foreigners (like the UAE) you're terrified of?