Mr. President: There is No 'Shot Clock' in the Constitution

President Obama and his sycophantic supporters have made the argument ad nauseum, that since the House failed to pass a certain Senate bill, within a certain amount of time, that President Obama was free to act on his own to unilaterally "fix" the immigration problem. Conservatives, however, keep bringing this "Constitution" thingy into the argument.

Where in the Constitution does it say that any particular piece of legislation passed in the Senate must be voted on in the House within a certain amount of time, or the President gets a free pass to write his own legislation? Moreover, all the faux indignation and self righteous intonation of "two whole years", "seventeen months*", or "514 days", since the Senate passed an immigration bill, completely overlooks the fact that the House did pass a number of immigration reform bills which Senator Harry Reid (Dimbulb- Searchlight) refused to bring up for a vote in the US Senate. The fact that your opponents will not necessarily vote on a bill they disagree with,  also does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you please.

Even though there is no "shot clock", "pass them or else" time limit on Senate bills, you'd think that sooner or later, the US Senate might get around to actually passing a budget. The Senate hasn't passed a budget since 2009. (That's 1851 days for all you anally retentive, math impaired Democrats). Where was the indignation over this?  Beuller?   Beuller??

And yet, and yet...mirabile dictu! I have not heard a single Republican leader tell us that because the Senate has failed to pass a budget in over five years, that they get a free pass to impose their will upon the nation!

We now return you to the relentless coverage of rioting in Ferguson by those protestors who believe that nothing says 'I want to see justice done' like burning down someone else's business and stealing someone else's stuff.


* We'll forgive math impaired Democrats for not knowing that "two years" and "seventeen months" are not the same!

Update: (Of sorts) Through some glitch in Disqus (?) some of your comments come to me as

Proof Positive: Herr Präsident: Es gibt keine 'Schuss Clock "in der Verfassung

Just in case you were wondering how my headline translates into German...

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Conservative Black Tea Party Leaders at Presser

A refreshing view of race and its implications from some "persons of color".

H/T Last Best Hope

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Lady Cincinnatus

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the BP Government Shakedown

This is good stuff!

"I am the resident Constitutionalist here, and I am profoundly offended when the government exceeds the bounds imposed on it by the Constitution"

-Judge Andrew Napolitano

As a bonus, there's a catchy little tune at 5:25!

More at the blog prof
Cross posted at Lady Cincinnatus, Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

Hare Brained on the Constitution

"I don't worry about the Constitution to be honest with you..." -Congressman Phil Hare, (D-IL)
...or anything else he's not familiar with!



I am sure glad that this boneheaded weasel is a white guy, because maybe we can criticize all the stupid and un-Constitutional things he says about Obamacare without being called a "racist" for a change?

This guy cares very little about the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold, can't tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, truth be told, and cares little about his ignorance as well! He claims to have read the health care bill three times!!! Too funny! He claims to have read and understood 2000+ pages of Obamacare three times, but can't seem to find time to read the Constitution even once? Yeah. Right!

What is it about Illinois that attracts such low caliber men to public office? I take that back. What is it about Illinois that elects such low caliber men to public office?

H/T Wizbang
Cross posted at Say Anything

The More You Know...

Remember that NBC public service series, "The More You Know"? That was my impression this morning sifting through all the potential horrors of the Obama care Debacle.

The more you know, the less you like it.

I seldom do linkarounds. In fact, I've never done a "linkaround", but I'm making an exception today.

Five Reasons Why Obama Care is worse than you thought.

“The Way To Tyranny By The Central Government”

"we have to confiscate money from healthy to pay for everyone"

Here's Your Change: Taxes, Fines, Taxes, Penalties, Taxes, Jail, Taxes, Skyrocketing Prices, and Taxes

IBD lists 20 different ways that America has lost freedom today

Ten Obama Promises about Health Care that expired this Morning

Cross posted at Say Anything

Separation of Home Church and State

Over at the Blog Prof, he had a story about a local home church that held Bible studies in residential areas since most of the residents live in residential areas!

The city of Gilbert, Ariz., has ordered a group of seven adults to stop gathering for Bible studies in a private home because such meetings are forbidden by the city's zoning codes.

The issue was brought to a head when city officials wrote a letter to a pastor and his wife informing them they had 10 days to quit having the meetings in their private home.

...There had been no complaints about the meetings, which had been rotating among members' homes before the officer wrote the letter and ordered the group to "terminate all religious meetings … regardless of their size, nature or frequency," because he noticed signs about the meetings.

The town interprets its law so that "churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings and potluck dinners," ADF said.

First of all, having hosted a home church before, I am quite sympathetic to those who wish to do the same.
It is not solely a Constitutional question, but one of the degree to which local ordinances come into conflict with the Constitution.

In my case, we probably had twenty to thirty members on a weekly basis. Many of these were married, but figure one car per couple or family and a few single people who may or may not "carpool" and you have a potential parking and congestion problem typically not found in residential neighborhoods.
We tried to be courteous and not intrude on the neighbors any more than possible, but on Sunday mornings, there were a dearth of parking spots around my house.
When I lived in Ohio, some of the neighbors would throw a big bash two or three times a year, that would consume virtually every on street parking space. So long as they didn't block my driveway, I didn't mind, but had I been expecting company or if this occurred on a weekly basis, I might not have been so understanding.

We have freedom of speech protected by our Constitution, too. But would you want one of your neighbors out on his lawn exercising his free speech at three in the morning? Every morning? With a bullhorn?

Noise ordinances along with parking and zoning ordinances sometimes conflict with the absolute exercise of the First Amendment. I get apoplectic when a Home Owner's Association tells a veteran he can't fly a flag in front of his own home (or because it violates some color scheme by not being "earth toned"). And I am extremely sympathetic to home churches and Bible studies. Rotating the meetings among various members homes was the path we took as well.


And while there seems to be little doubt that Gilbert, AZ. has gone far beyond what the Constitution,common sense, and reason would allow, still there is a basis for some restrictions. But if there is a "separation of church and state", should the "state" be singling out the church for religious activities, while not restricting secular activities in the same community? Sounds like you'd need a permit for a Tupperware party in Gilbert, AZ! Cub Scouts and Brownies could be an endangered species as well!

Update: Reasonable accommodations should be set for all activities, not merely religious ones. If someone were to host a Fantasy Football league in the same home on a weekly basis (because Joe has the 60" plasma!) reasonable restrictions can be made for parking, public safety, etc. Singling out religion here, makes the Gilbert, AZ rulings clearly un-Constitutional.

If you need me, I'll be out on my front lawn. With my bullhorn!

Cross posted at Say Anything

Democrats to the Slaughter

Would you buy a used Constitution from this woman?

WASHINGTON — President Obama, beginning his final push for a health care overhaul, called Wednesday for Congress to allow an “up or down vote” on the measure, and sketched out an ambitious — and, some Democrats said, unrealistic — timetable for his party to pass a bill on its own within weeks.

Irony is lost on Obamanites. President Obama calls for a "straight up or down vote" on health care. Sounds reasonable enough. On the surface. What does the Democrat controlled House of Representatives think of a straight up or down vote? It's to be avoided at all costs! Let me introduce you to the "Slaughter Rule" (named after Louise Slaughter, not what's going to happen to the Democrats in November!)

The Slaughter Rule would allow the House to simply "deem" that the Senate bill had been passed, so that they could hang amendments on it, like Christmas tree ornaments, to make it more palatable to its members and their constituents back home.
Unfortunately, if they pass the Senate bill without an up or down vote, the bill goes to the President's desk for signing and all those amendments could all sit unused, because the tree will have already been hauled off by the administration (it is March after all!)There is no guarantee that any bill that is passed along with the Senate bill will have any binding effect. How could it? The health care bill will be law, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Anything passed by the House after that will most likely be ignored by the Senate and the President, who will have already gotten what they wanted! Any House member that falls for this Constitutional "bait and switch" should be voted out of office!

“With the Slaughter Solution, House Democrats have exposed themselves as willing to abandon the most fundamental element of legislating – a transparent, up-or-down vote— in order to achieve a unpopular partisan objective. This is highly disturbing and in some ways, dangerous. The American people do not want this health care bill and they certainly don’t want the democratic process turned on its head in an effort to pass it over their objections.”

-Rep. David Dreier (R-CA)

“The public has been outraged by a lack of transparency in this bill. If the majority and the Speaker can just deem this bill passed in the rule -- that means no one has the right to even vote on it in the House and to see their level of support. That is certainly unprecedented in a bill of this size and scope.”

-House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, R-VA.

Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 7:

“the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.”

So, Obama wants an up or down vote, the Constitution calls for an up or down vote, and the House of Representatives, under Nancy Pelosi, toys with the idea of subverting an up or down vote.

November can't come soon enough!

Cross Posted at Say Anything

Ninth Circuit Court Upholds "Under God" in Pledge

Yes. That Ninth Circuit court! The most liberal, the most overturned court in the land and in a two to one decision, the Ninth Circuit, sometimes held in derision as the "Ninth Circus" court turned down atheist Michael Newdow's attempt to have "Under God" removed on the basis of "separation of church and state".

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

Could this be yet another sign of the Apocalypse? The Ninth Circuit making a common sense ruling?

Cross posted at Say Anything