Wednesday, March 17, 2010
But, but, says Rot, the Slaughter House rule is great!
Just as Rot starts pulling hard for socialized medicine, Gallup finds, for the first time, that A less than D. It's a theorem: the moment Rot starts favoring someone (like Mac) or something (like Obamacare) -- it goes down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I support you too, Tecs!!
Marc Levin explains some fine constitutional points to Herr Rot:
The Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of the Constitution of the United
States mandates that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States. . . .”
U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2.
But, but -- says Herr Rot -- specific clauses in the actual Constitution (as opposed to chimerical clauses in the penumbras thereof) never apply. Right.
A law is enacted in conformance with this constitutional mandate only if “(1) a
bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of
Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed
into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).
Who is Clinton?
Article I, section 7, clause 2 further provides: “But in all such cases 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.”
Ah, that old piece of paper, again.
Tony Blankley chimes in: Should she follow through on her threat, however, the product would not be a law, but a nullity -- an aborted, inert thing. It would be, in essence, an attempted congressional putsch against the Constitution.
Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, says Rot.
Post a Comment