I just got back from the barber. Your objecting to something that is common practice and has routinely been practiced for years is essentially an acquiescence to the practice. You cannot now object; because, it is happening in Health Care legislation, which you strongly oppose.
You can talk to an attorney about filing a legal suit, and pursue the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, but I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court elected to hear the case; because, its would be such a waste of time, which get us back to the Republican's primary intent to obstruct/stall the bill using parliamentarian procedure. LOL Regards, LelandJ On 12/22/2009 01:52 PM, Publius Maximus wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Perhaps you could explain the difference between a >> parliamentary rule change and a procedural clause. I think >> the procedural clause is simple saying the language of the >> reference legislative clause cannot be change, or some such. > > BS. It's a rule, meaning unless Republicans should then become the > majority party have 60 votes they cannot change one jot or tittle of > the law established by this bill. Why? Because it takes a super > majority to alter such rules. Which means they'd need at least two > votes: one of 60 votes changing the rule back to the normal simple > majority. Then the majority vote to change the law. > > You're being obtuse because you want this outrage to happen. You just > aren't being honest enough to say so. > > Where in the Constitution does Congress have the right to mandate > citizens purchase some product or face jail? > > Nowhere. But they're doing it anyway. > > And they're changing the rules to make it nearly like passing an > amendment to undo it. And they're paying any price to any Senator by > way of bribes and kickbacks and federal favors to secure it. > > All over a bill that wasn't even made public until very recently, but > they're forcing a vote on within the next two days? > > This is change you can believe in? > > Give me a f***ing break. > > This is the sleaziest, most corrupt, most tyrannical Congress and > administration we've ever had. It's a tragedy. > > - Publius > >> >> I really don't understand Senate and House parliamentary >> rule well enough, or the context in which (R) Senator DeMint >> is attempting to challenge them to form any kind of judgment >> on this one, but I do know that the Republicans are trying >> to stall a vote on the Health Care legislation specifically >> by using parliamentary procedures, so I think that is what >> this is all about. >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> >> On 12/22/2009 12:47 PM, Publius Maximus wrote: >>> Get a clue, for a change, Leland. >>> >>> DeMint calls out the specific RULE the bill itself SAYS it's amending >>> by number, and the idiot at the gavel (who looked clueless on may >>> occasions) still insisted it was changing a procedure, not a rule, in >>> order to duck the real question, which had to do with the why-for of >>> 60 votes. >>> >>> It ought be offensive to you, no matter whether it's a rule or a >>> procedure. Reid makes your favorite punching back, Tom Delay, look >>> like some smiley gay square dancer in red pants. >>> >>> Oh wait, Delay made himself look that way. But you get my point. >>> >>> - Publius >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Based on my understanding of the video you provided, >>>> regarding Senator Jim Demint's, (R), objection, the >>>> legislation would not change parliamentary rule. It is a >>>> parliamentary procedure, and such clause are very common in >>>> Senate and House legislation. >>>> >>>> Of course, if there were any challenges in the future >>>> regarding the matter, it would be up to the Supreme Court to >>>> rule whether the procedure violated the constitution or no. >>>> If the Supreme Court ruled the procedure was a >>>> parliamentary rule change, or the procedure was >>>> unconstitutional, the clause would be stricken, and have no >>>> effect as law. Don't ask me the difference between a >>>> parliamentary rule change and a procedural clause, as I >>>> haven't a clue. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> LelandJ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/22/2009 10:42 AM, Publius Maximus wrote: >>>>> http://bit.ly/52i1OA >>>>> >>>>> - - - >>>>> Now this will piss you off. Apparently hidden inside the Senate >>>>> version of ObamaCare is a provision that ensures that any future >>>>> Congress can not change or repeal this monstrosity: >>>>> >>>>> "...there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s >>>>> under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.” >>>>> and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of >>>>> representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or >>>>> conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this >>>>> subsection.” >>>>> - - - >>>>> >>>>> This explains why they're giving away the farm to bribe that magic #60. >>>>> >>>>> It's so wrong, on so many levels, I don't even know how to express my >>>>> outrage. >>>>> >>>>> - Publius >>>>> >>>> >>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
