Fuck its silent in here.......

[Gilgamesh]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

No, what I'm saying is that this is a solution in search of a problem.  On average, one federal law is struck down per year.  And in fact, the constitution's equal protection and first amendment provisions are used more often to strike down STATE law, rather than federal law. 

Making a congressional researcher and legislative drafter sit down and cite the precise constitutional authority of legislation can also have a disastrous effect on defending federal legislation in court.  For the past 75 years or more, courts have routinely examined the congressional record when considering the constitutionality of legislation.  The United States Government has broad discretion in citing varying provisions of the document justify a particular law's existence before a court.  This would dramatically change it. 

While your response doesn't address the other elements of my critique, I'll just point out why this is becoming a thing with this new Congress (along with circumventing their own deficit rules to write laws that conveniently don't flow with their putative governing philosophy): they are just using this as an excuse to challenge laws they don't like.  It's as simple as that.

For the record, here's the douchecock chomping at the bit to implement the rule, as well as his douchetastic way circumventing some inconvenient constitutional provisions he doesn't like: http://garrett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217020

Garrett's House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution.  Invoking the "general welfare clause" or the "necessary and proper clause" would not be adequate constitutional citations.

Thanks, cockhead.  Why even have those in the document at all, then?  I'm sure the great Congressman Garrett from the Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey is certainly smarter than the fucking authors of the document itself.

It's a waste of time at best and political grandstanding at worst, which is precisely what I expect from this new House majority.

[powen01]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

No, what I'm saying is that this is a solution in search of a problem.  On average, one federal law is struck down per year.  And in fact, the constitution's equal protection and first amendment provisions are used more often to strike down STATE law, rather than federal law. 

Making a congressional researcher and legislative drafter sit down and cite the precise constitutional authority of legislation can also have a disastrous effect on defending federal legislation in court.  For the past 75 years or more, courts have routinely examined the congressional record when considering the constitutionality of legislation.  The United States Government has broad discretion in citing varying provisions of the document justify a particular law's existence before a court.  This would dramatically change it. 

While your response doesn't address the other elements of my critique, I'll just point out why this is becoming a thing with this new Congress (along with circumventing their own deficit rules to write laws that conveniently don't flow with their putative governing philosophy): they are just using this as an excuse to challenge laws they don't like.  It's as simple as that.

For the record, here's the douchecock chomping at the bit to implement the rule, as well as his douchetastic way circumventing some inconvenient constitutional provisions he doesn't like: http://garrett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217020

Garrett's House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution.  Invoking the "general welfare clause" or the "necessary and proper clause" would not be adequate constitutional citations.

Thanks, cockhead.  Why even have those in the document at all, then?  I'm sure the great Congressman Garrett from the Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey is certainly smarter than the fucking authors of the document itself.

It's a waste of time at best and political grandstanding at worst, which is precisely what I expect from this new House majority.

What about the gheys can't git married clause?  They can still use that, right?

[Gilgamesh]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

Also, historically speaking, that is what both branches have done.

Truman and the nationalization of the steel industry.  Jackson and his battles with Chief Justice Marshall.  Congress and every law it has ever passed.

[Brownie]

DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

No, what I'm saying is that this is a solution in search of a problem.  On average, one federal law is struck down per year.  And in fact, the constitution's equal protection and first amendment provisions are used more often to strike down STATE law, rather than federal law. 

Making a congressional researcher and legislative drafter sit down and cite the precise constitutional authority of legislation can also have a disastrous effect on defending federal legislation in court.  For the past 75 years or more, courts have routinely examined the congressional record when considering the constitutionality of legislation.  The United States Government has broad discretion in citing varying provisions of the document justify a particular law's existence before a court.  This would dramatically change it. 

While your response doesn't address the other elements of my critique, I'll just point out why this is becoming a thing with this new Congress (along with circumventing their own deficit rules to write laws that conveniently don't flow with their putative governing philosophy): they are just using this as an excuse to challenge laws they don't like.  It's as simple as that.

For the record, here's the douchecock chomping at the bit to implement the rule, as well as his douchetastic way circumventing some inconvenient constitutional provisions he doesn't like: http://garrett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217020

Garrett's House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution.  Invoking the "general welfare clause" or the "necessary and proper clause" would not be adequate constitutional citations.

Thanks, cockhead.  Why even have those in the document at all, then?  I'm sure the great Congressman Garrett from the Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey is certainly smarter than the fucking authors of the document itself.

It's a waste of time at best and political grandstanding at worst, which is precisely what I expect from this new House majority.

Unless, of course, it's an attempt to limit Congressional and federal power.

Point 1: What Chuck said.
Point 2: Is this the only thing he said on the subject?
Point 4: Political granstanding in Washington? If you swore to never vote for a political granstander, you'd never vote.

As for changing the way the courts look at the Constitutionality of a law, I fail to see the harm. Just because the bill cited one provision in the Constitution does not mean another provision (or legal precedence)  does not also support it.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Just because the bill cited one provision in the Constitution does not mean another provision (or legal precedence)  does not also support it.

In other words, adding such a statement would be meaningless.

[MikeC]

I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

PAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

[Quality Start Machine]

MikeC is absolutely right, Obama hasn't been about "change" at all.

Which is why the health care is so heavily debated - Obama's clinging to the status quo.

[BH]

I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

PAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 

[Bort]

I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

PAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 

You realize that MikeC no more cares about facts or logic than I do whether PenFoe lives or dies?

[BH]

I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

PAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 

You realize that MikeC no more cares about facts or logic than I do whether PenFoe lives or dies?

MikeC is just another uncircumcised belgian twat.

[R-V]

Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

[Bort]

Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

It sounds like something originally written in another language translated through software about 4 times.

[morpheus]

Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I'll take a crack at it.  From http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027412-503544.html :

Upon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

[Canadouche]

Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

It sounds like something originally written in another language translated through software about 4 times.

Here's a translation, in the language of Fascism. 

Wenn es war ein Scheitern der Führung in 2006 zu Obama, dann ist er einer gescheiterten leader. Das ist in seinen eigenen Worten und keinen Körper mehr.

Make sense?

[Eli]

It sounds like something originally written in another language translated through software about 4 times.

I ran it through Google translate from English to Afrikaans, then Afrikaans to Chinese, then Chinese to Hebrew, then Hebrew back to English to see if it helped, and I think it did:

If this failure of leadership in 2006, Obama, and then hy'n failed as a leader. His words, and other body