Republicans take a dump on the constitution

[LongDono]

Why is that republicans wave the constitution around like they own it only when they are the ones taking peoples rights away the most and passing something in the house that really dose nothing other than say "if the senate fails to pass  by XXX then it shall become law."
That is not a perfect quote but you get the idea. I can't remember word for word, nor can I remember the date but I thought it was just about...... no it WAS the biggest mockery of the United States congress in history!

I WILL find the link to this later, but for those that already know about this tell me what you think. 

Also for those that do not know a bill must pass the house, AND senate to have a chance at being law. After those two bodies the president must sign it, however it is possible that if you get enough votes you can over ride any veto.
Republicans seem to think that because they say "it will become law even if it fails in the senate" that it will become law by only passing the house. I honestly feel every single member of the house that voted yes for this bill should have to explain why. If I remember right the republicans said at the start of their rule over the house that for a bill to be brought up it must have a constitutional base. This bill took a big dump on the constitution, so I think republicans just lost all credit. Don't you?

I will find a link to this later, and fix my post up to make more sense.

[johannhowitzer]

Partisan much?  Talk about individuals, not political parties.  "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  Though I understand the need to sometimes talk about people in groups, drawing a big line down the middle of a body of government isn't helping, no matter who does it.

I'm curious mostly about this:

Why is that republicans wave the constitution around like they own it...

"Waving the Constitution around" - by this do you mean referring to it when it seems to be violated?  If so, good, everyone should practice that.  If they did, maybe we'd have had an Amendatory Convention by now - something every single state in the Union has requested, and Congress has failed to act upon.  That in itself mandates a revolt, since it is the government taking power out of the hands of the people, circumventing the Constitution at its most fundamental level.

And this:

...when they are the ones taking peoples rights away the most...

Which rights?  Which bills/representatives/senators were involved?  Are said "rights" provided for by the Constitution, including its Amendments?  Which part of the Constitution provides them?

Meanwhile...

Let me provide you with an interesting example of a violation of the Constitution: a specific example of "legislation from the bench" - members of the judicial branch usurping the power of the legislative branch by bending an existing part of the Constitution or established law beyond its original intent.  (Some instances of this may in fact have been beneficial in the short term, but there is something called DUE PROCESS.  Governmental structure cannot be circumvented just because some lone wolf thinks his principles are more important.)

In 1973, the Supreme Court "extended" the intent of Section 1 of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Bolded the section pertinent to the case; this is known as the clause of Due Process.  The Supreme Court decided that making abortion illegal qualified as a "State depriving persons of life, liberty, or property."  Disregarding all issues of morality or principle (PLEASE do not make this thread about abortion!), judicial precedent was here taken beyond its intended purpose.  There was in fact no law at the time either allowing for or prohibiting abortion, and thus this issue should have been decided by the United States Congress.

Of course, the judicial branch has the unenviable task of applying the existing law to specific cases, and due to the limits of human language, no matter how verbose the laws are made, there will always be grey areas.  This means that some people no doubt think the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade was within their purview, but the jurisdictional controversy over the case shows that it should have been denied appeal and stayed in the northern district of Texas.

Structure of government must be maintained at nearly any cost.  If someone is "waving the constitution around," good!  It will speak for itself more often than not, and if someone's ignoring or violating it, they need to be called on it.

[LongDono]

Sorry I don't have much time.
I have no issue with waving the constitution around and using it to justify things, just take time to read the thing and don't treat it like a holy book. Also if you choose to do that then don't turn around and do something that goes against what the constitution said. ( without question this was done, it is not even possible to debate once I post the link to the bill. )
The "rights" thing also is ment as things such as "workers rights" public or private. (Aka unions) Take away a companies right to screw this country up or make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns and they go crazy about rights, and yet when it comes to workers they not only don't care but for the sole reason of being elected again they try to hurt the middle class. Ohio is a nice example. ( I am sure you know what I am talking about, now the only question is if you agree or think it is up to debate. Also I should have been mroe clear on "rights" )


Also know this, I don't hate the republican party for what it stands for, only what those in office do with thier law making powers. Also I am not a democrat, I am an indepent that believes in people trying to form thier own ideas and staying away from just one line of thought.
Will be back later.

[johannhowitzer]

You still haven't said what rights you're talking about, only made a vague reference to "workers' rights."  Is it their right to peacefully assemble?  Their right to trial by jury?  What specific part of the Constitution do you believe is being attacked by Republicans in their attempts to "hurt the middle class"?

I consider myself a political independent, non-affiliated.  Unless corruption is involved, I believe all political parties have the same goals (in most cases), they just disagree on how to achieve them.  We all want to eliminate poverty, prevent foreign invasion, provide children with proper education, etc. - even Libertarians, who generally push for small government and less subsidization, want these things... they just believe the private sector is capable of providing for most of them.

[LongDono]

Bargining rights I was talking about. People join a union so they can't be taken advantage of so when you take away rights from a union you take the workers rights. I don't know if it can by definition be called a "right" but it has been called that.
Also in the bush years I hardly need to remind you of the invasion of privacy that took place?
Sorry I am keeping this short and I will be able to check in and talk now and then, but I am busy for the rest of today so no real time to find links or go into detail. I thought I would have more time.

[OldTrees]

The bill referred to in the OP is "The Government Shutdown Prevention Act" bill.
http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/Floor_Text/XML_362-INTRO_xml.pdf
The bill has 2 parts if passed into law (note it is not law yet)
1)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.
2)The Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, respectively, shall not disburse to each Member or Delegate the amount of his or her salary and the President shall not receive a disbursement of basic pay for any period in which—
there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution; or
the Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

In short this bill if passed into law by the senate (because the house has introduced it) then
This year the Senate will have agreed to accept the H.R. 1 bill if they do not introduce a budget bill of their own by April 6, 2011.
And members of Congress and the President will not be paid during periods that the Government is not being funded.

This is not unconstitutional because:
Part 1: If the Senate passes this (which I highly doubt will happen but is required for it to become law) then they will have voted approval of H.R. 1 unless they submit a budget bill of their own by April 6, 2011.
Part 2: The Congress is in charge of making laws about funding the government and halting salaries is funding related.

Please be very wary of partisan sources the are prone to lie or indulge in self deception when it is advantageous.
This bill would set a dangerous precedent that in itself is not unconstitutional but can and has been framed as something that is unconstitutional. Such framing of it in the future could be used to justify truly unconstitutional legislation like the Republican Representatives opposed to the bill would claim. The motives of the Democrat Representatives are less clear but I assume there is some of this on their side as well as some partisan fighting motivations.

I assume you are referring to Wisconsin when you are referring to the "right" to collective bargaining? I would like it if you would illuminate me where these legislative violations of the ability for workers to collectively bargain with their bosses are specifically. I have not read the bill yet but I have not heard any accurate violation of the workers ability to collectively bargain. Although I have seen lots of inaccurate claims.

[I have not finished reading it yet but here is the bill: http://www.votesmart.org/billtext/33622.pdf
The amendments do not make it easy to read. I will get back to reading it another day.]

The final thing you brought up is the Bush years and the antiterroism response by our government. Here I will agree with you. Although many of those things did get blown out of proportion by Libertarian and Democrat propaganda, there was a foolish trade of some liberty for some security. However I am not sufficiently informed on the Patriot Act to be certain of this.

[LongDono]

Oh wow thank you alot Old trees.
When I have more time I will edit some of your information into the opening.
I have a date with destiney right now, ok her name is holly but thats besides the point.

[Neopergoss]

The final thing you brought up is the Bush years and the antiterroism response by our government. Here I will agree with you. Although many of those things did get blown out of proportion by Libertarian and Democrat propaganda, there was a foolish trade of some liberty for some security. However I am not sufficiently informed on the Patriot Act to be certain of this.

I disagree that this has been blown out of proportion. I am not aware of anyone blowing it out of proportion, while I am aware of many people not taking it seriously enough. If you don't believe me, maybe you should inform yourself about the Patriot Act and various executive power grabs. Some of the worst of these anti-terror policies, such as assassinations, are already starting to spread to American citizens. Read about Gulet Mohammed, Bradley Manning, or Anwar al-Awlaki for examples (note that in al-Awlaki's case there are a lot of unsubstantiated rumors about him, but if the evidence is so good there's no reason he shouldn't be tried in court). This was the first thing I thought of when he mentioned "shredding the constitution."

I also take issue with the claim that such policies actually make us safer. The war on terror is self-perpetuating: by bombing and invading Arab countries and slaughtering countless innocents, we radicalize millions, creating new terrorists for us to fight against. It also doesn't help that we break into people's houses in the middle of the night and ship them away to prison -- indefinitely and without charges.

Unfortunately, this is no longer a uniquely Republican problem. During the Bush years, Democrats raised Hell about it. What's happened, though, is that Obama has embraced the same despicable policies, making them bipartisan. If anything, he's made things worse. Now Democrats are the first ones to try to defend things like indefinite detention. Republicans might alternatively offer praise for these policies or hypocritically criticize Obama for them. In general, though, they aren't talked about at all anymore.

[OldTrees]

The final thing you brought up is the Bush years and the antiterroism response by our government. Here I will agree with you. Although many of those things did get blown out of proportion by Libertarian and Democrat propaganda, there was a foolish trade of some liberty for some security. However I am not sufficiently informed on the Patriot Act to be certain of this.

I disagree that this has been blown out of proportion. I am not aware of anyone blowing it out of proportion, while I am aware of many people not taking it seriously enough. If you don't believe me, maybe you should inform yourself about the Patriot Act and various executive power grabs. Some of the worst of these anti-terror policies, such as assassinations, are already starting to spread to American citizens. Read about Gulet Mohammed, Bradley Manning, or Anwar al-Awlaki for examples (note that in al-Awlaki's case there are a lot of unsubstantiated rumors about him, but if the evidence is so good there's no reason he shouldn't be tried in court). This was the first thing I thought of when he mentioned "shredding the constitution."

I also take issue with the claim that such policies actually make us safer. The war on terror is self-perpetuating: by bombing and invading Arab countries and slaughtering countless innocents, we radicalize millions, creating new terrorists for us to fight against. It also doesn't help that we break into people's houses in the middle of the night and ship them away to prison -- indefinitely and without charges.

Unfortunately, this is no longer a uniquely Republican problem. During the Bush years, Democrats raised Hell about it. What's happened, though, is that Obama has embraced the same despicable policies, making them bipartisan. If anything, he's made things worse. Now Democrats are the first ones to try to defend things like indefinite detention. Republicans might alternatively offer praise for these policies or hypocritically criticize Obama for them. In general, though, they aren't talked about at all anymore.

Maybe I heard excessive propaganda during that period then. The main detail that was blown out of proportion was the duration of the "emergency powers". The actual bill does have a sunset clause even if it was extended. It is much easier to force the government not to renew something than to get them to remove something. The actual events that the government did with those powers were not blown out of proportion. Although there were events I was told of that I could not find evidence of.

Again you are accurate that while it increased our security it also increases the threat for an uncertain effect on our safety. This is a common characteristic of increasing defenses.

But you are entirely correct that it is not a right or left agenda but rather a big government agenda which both parties support in one way (social Conservative) or another (fiscal Liberal).