Impeachable Offense(s)???

[twyacht]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/

KUHNER: Impeach the president?


The 'Slaughter Solution' would violate the Constitution

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.

Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.

Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

***

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
President Thomas Jefferson

Note this from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having formed in nature of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted."

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it."

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

[Woody]

May the lawsuits begin, and it is time to knock those commies off their self made high horse. Since I believe he is not even eligible to be president, to the way acorn intimidated the vote, anything he signs is null and void.
Congress has become a dirty diaper. I can hear George Soros laughing at us all the way from China.

[tt11758]

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Herein lies the problem.  While this says no court is bound to enforce it, it stops short of saying that any court is barred from enforcing it.  In other words, the way I read it, according to the letter of the law, the court still has the final determination of enforcement, even if the law is found to be unconstitutional.

I hope I'm wrong, but if the libs can find ambiguity in "shall not be infringed"............................

[fightingquaker13]

Herein lies the problem.  While this says no court is bound to enforce it, it stops short of saying that any court is barred from enforcing it.  In other words, the way I read it, according to the letter of the law, the court still has the final determination of enforcement, even if the law is found to be unconstitutional.

I hope I'm wrong, but if the libs can find ambiguity in "shall not be infringed"............................

And here you are right. The only real, defining, and enduring principle of Con. law, as defined by the Court, is that 5 is a bigger number than 4. This is not to be cynical, its just that the justices (generally, sober, serious and principled folks) arrive on the Court with their own views of what is Constitutional or not. If 5 agree, its the law, if only 4, it's not. This is no different than Congrees (minus the sober and principled part) where 50% +1 makes the law. The thing is, that the law means what those who have authority says it means. To quote Justice Holmes "The Court isn't final because its infallible, its infallible because its final". Sad truth is, the Court is very leery of directly challenging another branch's authority, particularlly over procedural stuff. Basically its a "you don't tell me how to do my job and I'll extend the same courtesy" kind of deal. I would not look to the Court for relief.
FQ13

[twyacht]

Since BHO had the class to mock and diminish the SCOTUS, at his last State Of The Union Speech, BHO's credibility is already at lame duck status.

"Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment."
Mike Huckabee

The REALITY, of what a "community organizer" with a bunch of Marxist, Socialist, comrades, will chalk his legacy to Jimmy Carter status, and a big " OOOOOPPPPPPS" when looked at by historians.

[Sponsor]

[pops1911]

Well now they are saying it will be a vote since Pelosi has enough votes now. This would get rid of the 'Slaughter Rule' for this go-round. Isn't it amazing that we have gone from a 60 vote majority to pass legislation to 51 votes, to 'demon pass' & now back to 51. And everyone breathes a sigh of relief that they are going to vote - rather than deem.....What ever happened to the proper way to pass a bill? They do a short-cut & then threaten to give an edict & everyone is happy when they go back to a simple majority!!! This is not the way it is supposed to work!! We are a Republic, not a democracy!!!!!!!!!!! (I thought!)