NoBamaCare - Page 13
Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 229

Thread: NoBamaCare

  1. #121
    Obama care is a joke, a very bad joke. Call your US Senators and tell them to vote no or look for a new job!

  2.   
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by SFC Stu View Post
    Obama care is a joke, a very bad joke. Call your US Senators and tell them to vote no or look for a new job!
    No Doubt!

    This stinking Cloture vote could come as early as 1:00 EST Monday 12/21/2009 about 5-1/2 hours from now at the time of this writing...

    Call & Fax At Minimum Both Your U.S. Senators, at their Local & D.C. offices...

    Vote No On Cloture Of Senate H.R. 3590 (AKA: ObamaCare)

    Contact Your Scum Sucking Socialist Senators, Tell Them Judgment Day Is Coming For Them...
    U.S. Senate: Senators Home

    How do these people fricking sleep at night? (when they are not voting of course)

    Bipartisan? - My Eye...

    All Debates & Amendments Broadcast on CSPAN - More B.S.

    All Amendments & Legislation Available In Their Entirety At Least 72 Hours before a vote? - More B.S.

    Where does the Constitution Authorize Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance?

    NOWHERE

    Phone the United States Capitol switchboard today at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.


    CAll & FAX:
    Senator Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas 202-224-4843 202-224-4843
    Senator Ben Nelson, Nebraska 202-224-6551 202-224-6551
    Senator Olympia Snowe, Maine 202-224-5344 202-224-5344
    Senator Lieberman 202-224-4041 (Voice) 202-224-9750 (Fax)
    Senator Mary L. Landrieu 202-224-5824

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  4. #123

    An ugly finale for health-care reform

    An ugly finale for health-care reform
    An ugly finale for health-care reform - washingtonpost.com

    Or juvenile: Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) taunting the GOP with a "Party of No" poster on the Senate floor.
    **********************************

    I'd like to apologize for Ms Stabenow's actions on the senate floor. This is not a proper way to represent Michigan, the residents of Michigan Ms Stabenow represents, or the United States of America.
    Semper Fi

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by ricbak View Post
    An ugly finale for health-care reform
    An ugly finale for health-care reform - washingtonpost.com



    **********************************

    I'd like to apologize for Ms Stabenow's actions on the senate floor. This is not a proper way to represent Michigan, the residents of Michigan Ms Stabenow represents, or the United States of America.
    Send her a message...

    Nowhere In The Constitution Is Congress Authorized To Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance...

    WE THE PEOPLE CAN READ SENATOR.

    NOT A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN ISSUE; A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE...

    YOUR FIRED SENATOR!

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Send her a message...

    Nowhere In The Constitution Is Congress Authorized To Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance...

    WE THE PEOPLE CAN READ SENATOR.

    NOT A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN ISSUE; A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE...

    YOUR FIRED SENATOR!
    Done... And added a note for Discussion on Michigan's ResistNet Page..
    And Send links to friends around the state and country...
    Semper Fi

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Send her a message...

    Nowhere In The Constitution Is Congress Authorized To Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance...

    WE THE PEOPLE CAN READ SENATOR.

    NOT A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN ISSUE; A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE...

    YOUR FIRED SENATOR!


    Nowhere In The Constitution Is Congress Authorized To Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance...

    True but then again when in recent history have the traitors in congress cared what the constitution said?
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Nowhere In The Constitution Is Congress Authorized To Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance...

    True but then again when in recent history have the traitors in congress cared what the constitution said?
    Sad but very very true HK! We need to focus on the problems at hand which involve both parties. This is no longer a DEM vs. REP issue. Both parties seem to not have our best interest at hearts anymore. Vote them out!
    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

  9. #128
    YouTube - TV Ad: Harry Reid Failed!

    YouTube- DumpReid



    Disgusted with Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid?
    Well, we at the Tea Party Express sure are, and we've dedicated ourselves towards defeating Reid in the upcoming 2010 congressional campaign. Here's our brand new TV ad to "Defeat Harry Reid" - please watch it and share it with at least 3 other people:
    To help get this ad broadcast on every Nevada TV station morning, noon and night, please make a donation to our "Defeat Harry Reid" campaign - HERE.
    Our goal is to raise $100,000 for this campaign in the next 3 days. We've already raised the first $25,000, so please make a contribution of any amount from as little as $5 to the maximum allowed $5,000.
    To meet our fundraising goals to "Defeat Harry Reid" we need 325 more people to make a contribution of $100 or more.
    If you prefer, you can mail in a contribution to the "Defeat Harry Reid" campaign:
    Our Country Deserves Better PACATTN: Defeat Harry Reid Campaign770 L Street #1020Sacramento, CA 95814

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. #129

    SCOTUS Already Ruled Federal Health Care Mandates Unconstitutional

    SCOTUS Already Ruled Federal Health Care Mandates Unconstitutional...

    Here's some ammo; blog it to the ends of the earth... send it to the media, send it to your two Senators, Representative, Acting President Obama...

    Make Them Famous!
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

    In this 1994 dated document from the CBO, they found no precedent for the government to impose a duty, such as a health insurance mandate, on individuals as members of society.

    Spread this around, profusely, immediately if not sooner...

    Gonzales v. Oregon (formerly Oregon v. Ashcroft) (04-623) | LII ...
    See Oregon v. Ashcroft , 368 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004).

    Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002)
    US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Walters v. Conant, 540 U.S. 946; ...... 27 , 2002)

    LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268 U. S. 5 (1925) -- US Supreme Court ...
    Linder v. United States. No. 183. Submitted March 9, 1925. Decided April 13, 1925. 268 U.S. 5. (...holding that the federal government overstepped its power to regulate medicine.)

    LAMBERT V. YELLOWLEY, 272 U. S. 581 (1926) -- US Supreme Court ...
    Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 US 581 (1926) ... Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926). Lambert v. Yellowley. No. 47. Argued April 30, 1926. Decided November 29, 1926

    If you find more case's post them here...

    I'm not asking you Senator, Representative, President. I'm telling you! Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not expressly grant Congress the power to regulate health care. Therefore any version of federal health care is unconstitutional! This is the most important point people need to be making with their politicians. Contact them to tell them they are violating the Constitution!

    Obama's Individual Health Care Mandate is Unconstitutional

    Executive Summary: Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional:
    http://www.heritage.org/research/leg...s/lm0049es.cfm

    December 11, 2009
    Obama's Individual Health Care Mandate is Unconstitutional
    by Brian Darling
    The Senate is debating the future of American health care, yet one very important issue has yet to get a full and fair debate. Is the individual mandate that forces citizens to purchase health care insurance a constitutional power of the federal government? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) wouldn't even take this question seriously. But conservatives who respect the idea that the constitution maps out a federal government with limited powers would answer with a loud -- "Hell No."
    The Heritage Foundation and the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ)recently released legal analysis calling into serious question the constitutionality of the Congress's plan to force all citizens to purchase health insurance. These conservative institutions argue thatthe unprecedented idea, a mandate that all Americans be forced into a contractual agreement with a private party for health insurance, is not a constitutionally permissible activity by the federal government. My sources tell me that this issue will be raised during the Senate debate on ObamaCare very soon and may open another front in the war against ObamaCare.
    The Heritage Foundation argues that the federal government has never required all Americans to buy any good or service. The individual heath insurance mandate is truly unprecedented.
    An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented -- not just in scope but in kind -- an unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.
    One of the goals of our Founding Fathers was to set up a federal government with limited powers. Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress powers and some powers "remain beyond Congress's reach."
    Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service and, as this paper will explain, no decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power.
    The proponents of expansive federal power hang their hat on the "Commerce Clause" for Congress's authority to mandate health care insurance for citizens.
    Proponents of the individual mandate are contending that, under its power to "regulate commerce&...among the several states," Congress may regulate the doing of nothing at all! In other words, the statute purports to convert inactivity into a class of activity.
    Voting is not mandated, but under this precedent, one could argue that the federal government could force citizens to vote against their will. Under the big government line of reasoning, the federal government could have tossed aside Cash for Clunkers, the failed government program to give away billions in subsidies to spur the purchasing of cars, and mandate that citizens buy a car from an American car company of their choice. Would this precedent allow the feds to say that you shall buy insurance and you shall buy it from a certain company? If this mandate is allowed to stand, it would "be the first use of the Commerce Clause to universally mandate an activity by all citizens of the United States."
    The most common argument used to justify a federal mandate to purchase health insurance is the talking point that states are allowed to force individuals to buy car insurance before they are allowed to drive. "There is a fundamental constitutional difference between the inherent police powers of the states and the enumerated powers of the national government." Not to mention that driving is a voluntary activity, therefore you don't have to have auto insurance if you don't have a car. Something I didn't realize until I read the paper is that "states require drivers to maintain auto insurance only to cover injuries to others." The analogy between a state mandating auto insurance for those who drive and mandatory health insurance for those who choose not to purchase it is not a good one for the three reasons mentioned above.
    Some, like Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, don't think this mandate is a big deal. Others like Hans von Spakovsky at NROnline think the mandate is a dangerous precedent.
    If Congress can impose a health-insurance mandate, then there is no limit to what Congress can do, and the Constitution's limits on congressional power will have essentially been eliminated. As Will Rogers once said, with Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke. Unfortunately, none of us will be able to laugh over this pending abuse of power.
    There are thousands of reasons to hate the Senate version of ObamaCare, yet the issue over the constitutionality of the mandate has yet to receive serious consideration. Lovers of small, limited government hope that sanity prevails with the 100 elites making decisions about the future of health care right now in the United States Senate, yet we have minimal confidence that they will end up doing the right thing. Maybe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's new compromise, dropping the public option with a limited expansion of Medicare, will not convince enough of his caucus to pass ObamaCare and America will receive a temporary reprieve from those in Congress who love big government and hate private enterprise.
    The bottom line is that if a Senator raises a constitutional point of order against the individual mandate or a Senator requests that the Courts review the issue, then the Senate will finally debate one of the fundamental questions that the Senate, and the House for that matter, should consider every time they review a piece of legislation. Is the legislation permitted under the United States Constitution? Many would argue that the invididual mandate in ObamaCare fails to pass that test.
    Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.


    National health care nullification – As of October 2009, five states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state. [9]Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payor system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010. [10]

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...n/health-care/

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...nullification/


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. #130

    Make Sure You Don't Have Any Weapons Nearby When You Read This...

    Need Another Reason To Fire Harry Reid ?

    We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare - Erick’s blog - RedState

    The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels

    Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST

    If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of (Anti-Gun & Unconstitutional) Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”
    It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.
    It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.
    On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
    Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
    To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
    Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “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.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
    Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
    Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.
    How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.
    Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:
    DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”
    The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.
    Senator DeMint responded:
    DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
    DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
    That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.
    To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:
    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.
    UPDATED: A number of people on our side are saying I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue. I hope they and you, after reading this, will read this response to that criticism.
    For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.

    ————————————————————————————- 7:30 PM
    PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
    not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the senator from south carolina.
    DEMINT
    mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    without objection.
    DEMINT
    parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?
    7:31 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    it does.
    DEMINT
    further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    that would require a two-thirds vote.
    DEMINT
    i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he
    referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?
    7:32 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.
    DEMINT
    i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions
    and rules changes?
    i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because
    there were rules changes included in them?
    7:34 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the chair would like to check that for a future answer.
    DEMINT
    okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of
    the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced
    under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding
    rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the
    bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but 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 is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate
    rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this
    bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?
    7:38 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.
    DEMINT
    okay. mr. president –
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.
    DEMINT
    mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “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 the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?
    7:39 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    it is quite common to do that.
    DEMINT
    i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
    this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that
    it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.
    7:40 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.
    7:41 PM
    DEMINT
    is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    yes.
    DEMINT
    and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    that is correct.
    DEMINT
    then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

    Any questions why ObamaNation Senate Bill H.R. 3962 AKA: ObamaCare can not be allowed to pass in anyway, shape or form?

    The Time For Closet Conservatism is over!

    Make Them Famous!
    U.S. Senate: Senators Home

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast