Congress has lost its mind...
 

Check out the latest bill from the buffoons in Congress and take it to its logical conclusion then find a rock to hide under

Congress wishes to confer upon itself the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions that render acts of Congress unconstitutional.

This can't be happening.

I keep repeating myself, but I have to say it again: our government is going insane.

At what point do the citizens start to take a stand against these changes?

All the Supreme Court has to do is declare the act unconstitutional.

:D

Congress has no mind to loose. A new paper published in that august scientific monograph The Journal of Irreproducible Results, reports the findings of a team of evolutionary biologists who have made public the findings of a 20 year study that they conducted on the life form we call "Congress," scientific name Congressia multistupidia. The study shows that Congress has devolved into a colonial life form with no central nervous system or brain, much like the jelly fish. It can also sting like the jelly fish when it feels threatened. This explains much. ;)

Politics serves the purpose in America that the Catholic Church did in Europe in Medieval times. It is the place that wealthy family send their lesser sons, and now daughters, to keep them from screwing up the family business.

Just as our best and brightest no longer become teachers, so it is in politics.

(Perry5, to save you the trouble ... that's poli meaning many and tics meaning blood sucking parasites.)

I think perry5 should run for a congessional position.

That is so true.

1) Are we positive he isn't already there?

2) Does anyone remember 3/4 years ago, which state had all of its geniouses get together and pass the resolution that - currently they don't want to, but they reserve the right to secede from the union if they choose? This was only a couple of years ago, somewhere in the southwest.

Maybe they should team up with these folk. In fact, I'd prefer they did, since I like the beaches in South Carolina.

Maybe they should team up with these folk.

The religious right want to form their own nation? If that means they'll stay out of my government, I'll donate money to help them along.

I feel bad for the rational people who will have the misfortune to suffer the invasion.

or "reinforcement."

...peacekeeping force

Actually, I feel bad for the people who will see them as reinforcements, too.

Just like I'd feel bad for crackheads if I saw a massive migration of dealers heading to them.

True. Where was that comment syc made about the kool-aid?

I looked at the proposed act as well as the relevant part of the Constitution. I don't get it. The Constitution seems clear about what the court can get involved in and nowhere is there any part that could even be stretched to insinuate that Congress can veto the court.

Of course, since the law affects the court, maybe they hope the entire court will recuse itself and G.W.B. can cast the deciding vote.

This is mindless grandstanding for the rabid fundies who are pissed off about church-state separation and the "I'm not really a racist" bigots who never got over desegregation.



The act states:

The passage of the Constitution cited is:

The Christians wanting to move to South Carolina and take over is not that new an idea. The Free State Project wants people to move to New Hampshire to turn it into a constitutional republic.

I rather like the idea of a xtian state. It gets them all in one place.

Follow that with a little "strategic" bombing and...

The insanity continues.....



http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...:@@@L&summ2=m&

Originally posted by OnyxCougar The sponsors of that bill are some of the biggest dumbasses America has to offer.

Note that that's from Feb. 2003, and was primarily a comment on the chickenhawk mentality.

That's right, sponsoring a bill to nothing less than re-enacting the draft... simply to make a political point. Beestie's point holds.

LMAO So obviously true I'm sorry I didnt see it myself.

Member how I wrote to my congressman? This is the reply from Senator John Edwards.....

How very efficient of him, to have a form letter response that works both for people who oppose AND support the draft.

Or who are even just looking for information about it

Re: Congress has lost its mind...
 

Come on, with dubya running the country, is this a surrpise AT ALL!!

This is the same man that after a drunken binge (AT THE AGE OF 40 MIND YOU!!!) had a vision that Jesus told him he should run the country...YEAH that's the straight jacket candidate that was voted in!

So his cronies in the house and senate, WHATEVER they do, doesn't surprise me ONE BIT...

Oh by the way, senate bill 89....house bill 163 are trying to re-institute the draft by June 2005...

It basically is.......


'There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services'.


Yeah so ANYTHING that this current regime puts out of it's foul mouth, YEAH that suprises me!!

:eek:


Later :rattat:

You and UT are acting like people who have never written to their congress critter before.

[Fletch]It's all form letters these days.[/Fletch]

It's true, the only letters I've sent my congressman are form letters. :) I should make them ambivalent too:


Dear Congressman So-and-So,

Thank you for attending legal sessions to represent me. I appreciate seeing you on C-SPAN.

During the upcoming session, several issues are slated for debate which I care deeply about. When the time comes, I trust that you will give serious thought to these issues, carefully consider the circumstances and ultimately make a choice that's in the best interest of our nation.

Again, thank you for your representation, and be assured I will keep in touch.

Sincerely, Loyal Voter

Confused
 

Soo.. aren't the Checks and Balances in our government the very foundation of it? If this passes, I'm leavin this damn country. No reason to stay if it's gonna get f****ed up this bad and theres nothing the other branches can do about it.
See ya'll in australia.

Trust me it isn't much better.
Beaches are good though.

And the sharks,...er,....dolphins are way bigger.;)

a'ight, I'll play devils advocate on this one.

In an age of judicial activism, a federal court can write de-facto law; for good or for ill, this is what happened in Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, [insert case here]. The opinions of 5 people sitting on the Supreme Court can alter the rule of law for 300 million people, in 50 states.

Should there not be some measure of oversight to that power? A 2/3 vote of congress is extremely difficult to get, on any matter. The only time congress would be able to exercise this power would be in cases of egregious action by the court, where the vast majority of both parties were in disagreement with the ruling of the court.

Say for example that Dubya gets to stack the court, and the court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade in all cases, even where the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Seems fairly easy to get a 2/3 vote from congress to overturn that ruling. Without this bill, you would have to get your fingers sticky in the guts of the constitution to enumerate and specify a privacy right that extends to abortion.

All this does, essentially, is lower the bar from constitutional amendment to veto override. It seems like an appropriate check of judicial power.

-sm

Hmm.
 

But if i'm not mistaken, the Judicial Branch ( the Supreme Court) has no power to take any action on its decisions. It has to rely on the other segments of the government to do its bidding. So, this would pretty much bring the Courts down to the level of a whining little brother who can't do jack and no one listens to him (noone being Congress).

Aren't the henchmen of the Supremes the lower courts, who do have the power to enforce those decisions. They can jail your ass for contempt (even well earned contempt), leaving you no recourse. I don't think you can even appeal a contempt order, but I may be wrong on that.:eek3:

And once Congress has the power, will the President want it too?

Of course he will, so will Radar.;)

The president will want whatever he's told he wants by corporate America. Radar just wants to kill 'em all.;)

bump...

U.S. House restricts ethics probes
You just gotta read this article - There is no difference in these people they are all the top dogs when it comes to corruption greed and power-grabbing.

Interesting thread ... LMAO at Clod's form letter.

What happened about the original bill?

Demoncrats call that "transparency"....:rolleyes:

:lol2:

You bet your life it is.

That is just rich. What a bunch of wankers.

The phrase "Gadarene swine" occurs to me.

Democrats Split on Stimulus as Job Losses Mount, Deficit Soars

To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Benjamin in Washington at Mbenjamin2@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aIHpsBT0JHFc

According to the front page story in the Washington Post today, we have only spent 14% of the stimulus package that was already passed. Seems like we should spend the remaining 86% of the money before they ask for more.

Yea, I have heard some other numbers as well. It is hard to say but suffice it the majority has not been spent. And yet how many more jobs were lost last month? The pipe dream of this program putting people back to work has been a big fat lie by Obama and the Dems.

Everyone knew it would take some time to work, and jobs always lag behind the economy. Give it time Merc. This recession is going to be deep, and long. They have said that from the beginning. I would bet though, that had there been no stimulus, the economy would be much worse, and even deeper.

I'm going to pay off my credit card by getting another card, and borrowing twice as much as I owe. Then I'm going to give a lot of that money to some guys who came to my door, asking if they could pave my driveway, and somehow my debt will get paid.

I don't know. All I know is, during the 30s when the banks failed, we went into a full-on depression that lasted for years. Hoover did nothing, and it got much worse. FDR did big stimulus projects, and it got better. Then when he stopped the stimulus, it got worse again, so he started it back up and got better again. Seems pretty logical to me to do the same thing again. But back then we didn't have 24 hour news cycles, and people didn't have the attention span of a gnat, so they allowed it time to work.

World War II stopped the depression, all FDR did was prolong it till he could get us into war.

Prolong it? Bullshit. FDR made life better for millions of Americans until the war put everyone to work.

...And you'd be at one with Hitler. Now fuck off and go fuck yourself, hard, dry and deep, until you've Amadou Diallo'd this kind of crap your filthy bigoted mind, you miserable, sick son of a bitch and tertiary-syphilis case. It'll still work even five years on.

There was absolutely no sweetness nor light in your soul back in 2004. Why are you alive? Are you still alive?

As you may be marginally aware, there's been some thoughtful new looking at that idea. There are those -- students of economics, note well -- who disagree and can say why: the jobs were Joe-jobs and temporary at that. Do you read history? I do. And that's why I argue with you so often.

You read it, my family and I lived it. They're rewriting history with bullshit assumptions and you're buying into it.

My family lived through it too Bruce. Roosevelt's socialist bullshit was just as unconstitutional and harmful as the 21st century socialist are doing.

Oh yeah, Roosevelt really fucked things up. Guess that's why we lost the war and became a second world, backwater, country. Get real.

Where are the hundreds of thousands of job we were promised? Where are all the "shovel ready" jobs?

Merc, everyone knew it was going to take time for all the money to get out there. There have certainly been jobs saved, millions I imagine. I have heard numerous people on TV (governors and company executives) who have said they would have had to fire even more people if it hadn't been for the stimulus money. The 2nd phase is coming, and that is where the jobs will come in. I understand your frustration, I'm frustrated too. But be happy more people didn't lose their jobs, because they could have. We could very well have been in a full blown depression right now if we hadn't taken action.