Irreconcilable Differences: Governing Against the Will of the People and the Constitution
March 11th, 2010
As Americans carry on with their combined and heroic efforts to battle their way out of the economic doldrums which are increasingly bolstered (if not impeded) by those in power, new and fascinating developments continue to emerge--much like fish turdles bobbling to the surface. The Democrats, in an incessant stream of ethics violations, have been very busy little piggies these past few years, it would appear, in their self-proclaimed efforts at cleaning out the "swampland" that is Washington, DC.
The President, along with Harry Reid, had promised a "new beginning" in presidential relations with the American People. But over time, and since the Inauguration was "consummated," the Citizenry has become a bit weary of playing the Bride to Obama's Groom. In fact Nancy Pelosi, at the inception of the Democrat's legislative takeover of Congress, had proclaimed that the Liberal Democrats would usher in "a new age":
"And in so doing, we keep our promise to drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C., to let sunshine disinfect the Congress. We have promised the highest ethical standard, and we will deliver it, in an open and honest government."
So what happened, Madam Speaker? One can only guess that the "swamp land" proved too much of a temptation to the "better Swines of their nature," and that Congress simply could not resist the opportunity to hog-wallow in the dankest and most putrid mudfests on the continent. This proclaimed drainage, in fact, only tainted further, and Congress, in turn, has become infected by a truer "Swinish Pandemic" than any the populace might ever have suffered. This can be seen by the continually worsening outrage of excesses that the 111th Congress has drunkenly borne, while graciously allotting the resultant hangover to the nation's citizenry to bear. The array of Democrats at odds with ethical compunction goes from the bottom-most purveyors to the very tip-top--even to the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
The CBO Has Detected B.O. in This Bill
We have also been treated to the rather unsurprising revelation that the CBO's initial deficit estimates were "a bit low"on the President's budgetary deficit figures. In fact, virtually every original dollar figure estimate that the Administration has put out for "its take" on the "New Deal" (which we shall now call the "New Bill") has turned out to be "overly conservative" in each of its gross underestimations. The new projections by the CBO, which currently assumes no other social programs will be passed, states that the "New Bill" figure is about $ 1.2 Trillion higher than prior estimates for the next 10 years.
As a result, I have consulted with our staff to take a serious look at a possible new business enterprise of manufacturing wheel barrows. This, as a result of what promises to be a shortage of wheeled cart-like constructs that will be in clear demand for hauling around the bushels of dollars (which will be needed) in order to go grocery shopping and the like--"Cash and Carry," as it were. Assuming we still can afford electricity, an electric model is also in the offing for the non-tree hugging folks.
But as our riches and our rights are continually drained away, we at least have the solace of that age-old recreational act of "fishing"--well--OK, at least for a little while longer since His Majesty "The Fisher King" has decreed that he will now exert efforts at controlling if not curtailing the art of " angling." One supposes breathing is next in order to wipe out our Carbon Dioxide proliferation. ( The trees are going to be really pissed!)
Our Globe Is, Like, Really Cool...
We would be remiss if we did not also report that the "Global Warming Data Hoax," which was revealed about 14 days ago, has finally been reported by the American Media..,well sort of, anyway. A news report from the NY Times titled "Climate Scientists starting to Fight Back" has indicated that the Scientists, in essence, have "had enough of the abuse that has been heaped upon them just because of a few central lies" (paraphrased) and will now be mounting an aggressive effort to strike back. Their preferred weapon of retaliative choice? Well...umm..."admit their mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way that they work ." Ouch! Now that's just not fair! Please, oh please, don't hurt us with your truthful data...
If I may, dear, dear bright fellows of Science Fiction-- your prescribed method of fighting back sounds painfully like you have not learned your lessons as of yet. You propose to fight back with a weapon that you threw down and left rusting in the snow long, long ago. That weapon will not function any longer. Why not choose a newer, sleeker weapon in an effort to shore up the "actual data" which was, in fact, at odds with the prior fiction? The updated research should try to prove that the globe is now cooling and that we must ready ourselves for what could be the true tragedy.
This, my egalitarian egg-headed friends, could enrich you beyond the dreams of avarice, even while the President has recently reasserted his aims at battling Global Warming via new taxation. Just think of the energy, fossil fuel, agricultural and food processing companies which might come your way in order to fight the scourge of climate change that is Global Cooling. Shortened growing seasons, humans freezing in moderate climes--why the golden scientific dividends could be staggering in the riches that would be produced....Hey! just saying--if you intend to continue your fouled research, you at least need to change the story around a bit--maybe make a movie--2013 perhaps? Or we can bring in Geneticists who can program our genes to grow us a plush coat of fur and increase our blubber. Just think of the fashion implications--not to mention the boost in government research grants.
Rahm Gets Physical with His Massa
However, as the Climate Grifters and Scient-agonists now palpitatively muse over the possibilities of Global Cooling, we find a new menace in our midst. Just when we thought it safe to begin showering again without fear of being brutalized by some psychopathic silhouette wielding a pointy instrument, the news comes out about a new and comparably terrifying shower scene--if not for different reasons. Rahm Emanuel, whose penchant for foul language and dead fish gift arrangements is well known, has emerged yet again. This time the President's Chief of Staff allegedly undertook a naked confrontation on the forcibly retiring Rep. Eric Massa "while Massa was showering."
Massa described the aggressive event with the thoroughly naked Emanual as Emanuel was poking Massa in the chest and denouncing Massa for his "missing" vote. We can only assume that Emanuel used his finger for said "poking," as the Administration continually seems to degrade in its efforts to have its way. However, leaving the musings of one old and classic horror film, we cannot help but draw additional correlations to a newer horror genre.
Septic Legislation, The "End" Result
This new genre is most commonly known to the American people as the Healthcare Bill. This particularly suspenseful realm reminds us of any one of several even more terrifying horror movies than the last one mentioned. The abomination that is the Healthcare Bill can be likened to the frighteningly grotesque beast that amazingly survives all manner of seeming deaths. No matter whether we burn it up, beat it to the point of mangling it, chop it up and throw it into the sea, melt it in molten lava--even cram it into a spacecraft and launch it into the sun...IT KEEPS COMING BACK ! They should call this particular bill "The Michael Myers Commemorative Healthcare Bill" in its dogged determination to never, ever leave its poor victims alone.
There appears to be no known cure for this wretched idea of socially rationed medicine that the world has adopted to the ultimate chagrin of each of its citizens. The word that appears to be oozing out now is that the Senate Bill will be voted on by the House and...Viola! Obamacare is born! But wait, not quite so fast. You see, the Democrats in the House do not like the Senate Bill, so, therefore the Senate Bill must be "doctored." Typically, the House would amend the Senate Bill, vote on it and then send it back to the Senate for a passing vote as a result of the House changes; however, in this case the changes that the House would make would never be passed through the Senate, and the Senate no longer holds a Super Majority (due to Senator Scott Brown) So the Dems have a bit of a quandary, it would appear.
If the House alterations to the Bill are never passed by the Senate then, hmm... surely the Democrats can find some way to subvert the 234 year old historical process of legislation...Eureka! New twist; old idea! They will follow an unconstitutional route around the rules to get the thing passed at the bidding of the "Messiah Himself" (so how could it be wrong)? If you can't pass it naturally, then you can now take the Democratic equivalent of a "laxative" in the form of Reconciliation and force it through--may not come out in the typical method, but by golly it will come out. Indeed, it is striking that whether by laxative or by Reconciliation the results, in this case, will be indistinguishable.
Non-Budgetary Reconciliation is Unconstitutional
Reconciliation is a relatively new process in US History. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was passed as a budgetary facilitating measure that actually eased Senate voting contentiousness with regard to budgetary, tax and other spending measures. Therefore, in a point of clarification, the Budgetary Reconciliation Act was never intended for any type of legislation other than spending, tax and budget changes or reforms. Prior to this 1974 Act, spending measures required the same 2/3 of a majority vote as any law.
Now, however, with regard to any spending measure, the Senate would only require a simple majority of 51 votes or more making it immune to Filibuster. The problem here is that any major healthcare ( or any other type) of non-budgetary legislation doesn't fall within the parameters of the 1974 Budget Act. As a result of this fact--the current implication of trying to pass the Senate Bill via Reconciliation with House alterations in lieu of a New Senate vote is unconstitutional and could subject members in authority to various disciplinary corrections were the effort at reconciliational passage actually to be made.
A Byrd in the Hand...
The Byrd Rule, which has been much bandied about of late, simply provides a test to determine whether an item within the budgetary Reconciliation process could be considered "extraneous" by way of six rules--each pointing to the budgetary process rather than any specific changes in law. "Extraneous," in fact, seems to be the non-existent crack that they wish to slip through and use budgetary reconciliation in order to pass new law. Senator Byrd has addressed the meaning of the 1974 Reconciliation Act in a letter published in the Washington Post of 2009. Within the letter, Sen. Byrd plainly states that the intent of the 1974 Act, which he helped pass, clearly limited its scope to budgetary processes only.
Ladies and Gentlemen, intent within legal circles is beyond massive when establishing both lawfulness and Constitutionality. The facts and language within the 1974 Act, in addition to the Byrd Rule make it very clear that Reconciliation regarding non-budgetary legislation--such as healthcare--is unlawful and therefore cannot be used--except by risk of legal proceedings against such authors at some future point--in addition to repeal due to unconstitutionality. In addition, at last count no less than 17 States' Attorney Generals have signed on to the eventuality of a Federal Lawsuit, by the States, in which the constitutionality of government-forced healthcare will be challenged as unlawful--assuming it were to pass.
And then there is also the possibility that the President and the Senate, after promising to alter the bill to meet House specifications via Reconciliation, will then think better of that fact due to the above explanations. The Bill would then immediately go to the President--over the howls of protests from the House--and be signed into law by the President. This would be the only legal way to pass the Healthcare Bill as it stands.
Courage Is Fear in Action
There are many Democrats, in fact, who are reportedly frozen with fear as to the implications of angering Speaker Pelosi and the Powers-that-Be, were they to vote against the Bill in support of their constituents. These reports point to a number of member Democrats simply going along with the vote rather then being left out in the cold by the Democratic Party Power Brokers with little support.
To these weak-kneed individuals, we need only point out a number of other Americans of similar representative position who also faced a crisis of being left out in the cold, as well--but with far different ramifications. In fact, rather than being left out of committees or cut off from Congressional dollars as a result of their actions, these individuals had a far heftier price to pay.
During the time of the of the American Revolution, these "politicians" were ordered by their "estranged Authorities" to stand down from their efforts or suffer capture and hanging at risk of Treason to the King. Some were, in fact, pursued, caught and executed. Thomas Jefferson was nearly captured at one of his estates but was able to race away into the forests even as the British Enemy came upon his home. History has also noted Benjamin Franklin declaring "we shall hang together or we shall hang separately" at his signing of the Declaration of Independence.
So, to those Politicians who are afraid of their vengeful, grumpy Leaders--at risk of the rights and the Liberties of the American people--which seem more and more in peril--we, your humble constituents, can only point out--as one of your esteemed colleagues once stated: "We feel your pain."