House Dems charge GOP with skipping one of its new rules

[babylonsister]

I love it; throw their crap back in their collective faces.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/143607-house-dems-charge-gop-with-skipping-its-own-rules


House Dems charge GOP with skipping one of its new rules
By Russell Berman - 02/11/11 04:53 PM ET


Democrats are accusing the young House Republican majority of violating one its most cherished new rules: the requirement that all legislation include a citation of its Constitutional authority.

In a letter sent Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) urged the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), to refrain from bringing up a bill prohibiting federal funding of abortion because it “was introduced without a valid statement of constitutional authority as required under the new House rules adopted in January.”

snip//

A spokesman for the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), said the required statement of constitutional authority was filed when the measure was introduced. “Everything’s been done according to the rules,” the spokesman, Andrew Wimer, said.

snip//

The Democrats say the statement is insufficient. “The statement submitted by Mr. Pitts does not identify any specific provision in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to enact his legislation,” wrote Waxman and Pallone, the two senior Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee. “Indeed, it is impossible to divine any constitutional basis for Mr. Pitts’s bill from his statement.”

Waxman and Pallone said Upton should make Pitts reintroduce his bill with a proper statement. Noting the GOP crafted their new rules “with great fanfare" in January, they wrote: “That would send a strong signal that the committee is serious about the requirement that the constitutional basis of legislation be clearly stated before legislation can be considered in committee.”

[FSogol]

1. Haw-haw

[tekisui]

2. I wondered how long it would be until they slipped up on that stupidity.

Keep on them, Dems!

[Angry Dragon]

3. Rub their nose in it

[bluerum]

4. Can't say this surprises me. Predictable really. But I did think that it would take longer.

[FBaggins]

5. Clever... but probably not that persuasive.

Ignoring the fact that it's a silly rule to begin with... you wouldn't need a constitutional justification to stop doing something that you're doing.

[babylonsister]

6. Does it matter, and when have rethugs been persuasive about

anything? Like I said, throw their rules in their faces. Sounds good to me.

[SlimJimmy]

7. If the repubs consider a fetus a person, then the following would apply...

Article VII

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[phylny]

10. If the repubs consider a fetus a person,

then I would expect insurance companies to be compelled to allow people to purchase life insurance once conception is confirmed. If I'd been permitted to do that, having miscarried three fetuses, I would have had a nice nest egg.

They cannot have it both ways.

[SlimJimmy]

11. So, using that logic, how then can a person be charged with the murder

of a woman *and* the unborn fetus?

[phylny]

13. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

My thought is that if a fetus is a person, when I found out I was pregnant the first time, I should have been able to buy life insurance. That pregnancy lasted 12.5 weeks, and I would have collected because the fetus died.

My third pregnancy would have meant more life insurance money for me, because I miscarried twins. So, if a fetus is a person, I should be able to deduct an exemption when I find out I'm pregnant, and buy life insurance for the fetus.

[SlimJimmy]

14. If someone kills a pregnant woman, the person is charged with the

murder of the woman and the murder of the fetus. Is the fetus a person under that scenario? If so, then why doesn't a fetus have the same legal standing under our constitution per the bill of rights? I understood your point the first time around. But, apparently, you didn't follow mine. Any thoughts?

[Me.]

8. LOVE...IT

Hoist on their own...well you know even if they don't.

[applegrove]

9. LOL!

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R

[beac]

15. K&R! Nice to see their own feces being flung back in those monkeys' faces. n/t