« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

(LIVEBLOGGING) No Joke: House GOP To Vote On “Deem And Pass” Budget

By: BigGator5 (Diary)  |  April 1st, 2011 at 01:05 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Holy Hell!! The GOP has brought up HR 1 with a little alteration: If the Senate doesn’t pass this, it becomes law anyway. Turn it to C-SPAN to check out the debate.

In other words: A Deem And Pass Budget

I’m conflicted, I don’t know whether to support this or not right now. However this is bold move to be sure.

Ok, this bill is called “Government Shutdown Prevention Act“. Why didn’t I get the memo?

In short, this bill would send HR 1 to the president for his signature if the Senate also approves some bill to keep the government open (only if it trims say just $1). The House bill is completely contingent on the Senate moving and the president signing it into law to keep the government operating past April 8.

Here’s what everyone is exercised about: there is a clause in the bill that says if the House approves this package it is “hereby enacted into law.” Furthermore, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., muddled things Wednesday at a press conference when he said this bill would become “law of the land.”

So what’s up?

No. This isn’t Nebraska, where they have a unicameral legislature. The phrase “hereby enacted into law” is a seldom-used, but not unprecedented device, which is called “incorporation by reference.” What this essentially does is keep the House from having to reprint all of the original $61 billion bill they passed in February, and gives this measure the force of law if — and only if — the Senate acts.

This can be described as an ignition in a car. Without the ignition, the car can’t go. Without this term of art, the bill can’t potentially become law.

So, it’s not really as “unconstitutional” as some are suggesting.

So it’s Constitutional, gimmicky and has a trigger, but it’s constitutional. Ideas? Thoughts?

A vote on Government Shutdown Prevention Act (HR 1255) will take place around 2:30PM.

(13:40) It’s funny to watch Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (INSANE-CA) invoke the US Constitution in this debate. Now she says Obama has created more jobs than Bush. HA!

(13:48) “Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!” -Democrats. Funny to hear it come from these fools.

(13:50) And we have a first traitor: Louie Gohmert (R?-TX) says he will vote against this bill. Now Democrats are praising him.

(14:05) Vote shortly.

(14:25) Voting on recommit. Should go down.

(14:45) Are people ready for a shutdown? Rasmussen: 57% prefer gov’t shutdown to current levels of spending.

(14:50) Actual vote now. Remember, nothing happens unless the Senate takes action.

(14:55) Passed. 221-202. The upshot of this only just saying they will resend HR 1 to the Senate again. Will post list of Republicans who voted against this.

(15:05) Roll Call!

Amash
Burgess
Chaffetz
Fortenberry
Gohmert (newest hero of the Democrats)
Hanna
Jones
Lungren
McClintock
McCotter (this pisses me off more than anything else)
Paul (and this guy wants to be our President? over my dead body)
Poe
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Sensenbrenner

If your representative is listed above, feel ashame that you voted for them. Then call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and give them a piece of your mind.

(15:35) Statement By Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL-24): “After kicking the can down the road and failing to pass a budget plan, the Democrat-led Congress irresponsibly left us to pick up the pieces. Now it appears Senate Democrats plan on doing it again. The House passed a long-term and responsible budget plan over a month ago, our bill H.R. 1, would reduce year-over-year federal spending by historic levels, defund the government takeover of health care, and stop taxpayer funding of abortion. With a $14 trillion debt our country is facing a fiscal crisis, and inaction from the Senate is simply unacceptable.

“The bill I co-sponsored and voted on today demands the Senate to act before the expiration of the short-term Continuing Resolution, and if it does not, the House passed bill H.R.1 will become law. The Government Shutdown Prevention Act also provides that in the event of a partial shutdown, Members of Congress and the President do not get paid. It’s time to get serious about our nation’s fiscal crisis. The American people elected us to make tough decisions, but it is becoming clearer by the day that Senate Democrats aren’t listening.”

[Cross-Posted On Practical State.com]

BigGator5.net
@biggator5

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Common_Cents

    Wow, damn impressive.

    Every American should be required to watch cspan to get info first hand rather than hear the regurgitated spin from biased talking heads. The difference between the two parties would be eye opening.

    Dems, its for the kids!!! Yeah, they are so freakin childish.

    • http://twitter.com/biggator5 BigGator5

      He’s not the only one. Check out Congress Is Not A Career Act by my Rep.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
        • http://twitter.com/biggator5 BigGator5

          Same. Rep. Gohmert bought the Democrats claim that it was unconstitutional.

          • kestrel

            Rep. Amash considered the bill unconstitutional on the grounds noted at the end of the first piece linked. Here is his explanation. This is different than the grounds on which the Democrats claimed the bill was unconstitutional.

            I don’t know what to make of this bill. I’m not going to bash the Republicans who voted against it. Amash and Gohmert were two of the six Rs who voted against the first CR, as well as the second.

            McCotter is conservative apart from his one big weakness. If you want to pitch into Thad,here’s better fodder.

          • congressworksforus

            And fantastic that he explains his vote.

          • kestrel

            He’s conservative (a freshman), and uses Facebook and Twitter to explain every vote. Here’s a video of him, which, starting at 9:10, describes some of congress’ dysfunctional ways of operating. He and his staff have had adventures trying to track down the text of various bills and amendments being voted on, not always with success. Pretty amazing.

            All three of our freshmen — Amash, Benishek, and Huizenga — are doing a great job.

          • kestrel

            http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/2011/03/congressman-justin-amash-talks-about-congress/

            Too late at night. Good night.

          • aesthete

            I wrote something up about him a while back, and I’m glad that he’s still informing his constituents on new media.

          • kestrel

            I was thinking earlier today that his method of constituent interaction would make a good diary. And too bad that I’m a lazy, unionized chicken-scratch poster and not a diarist. I’m glad you’re on it. :)

            He probably not only saves himself a lot of phone calls and repetitive explaining, but is also keeping his staff well informed via this, so they can actually be informative when answering phone calls, instead of looking like useless money-drains whose function is to obfuscate and protect their boss when someone calls the office.

            Threadjack over. Sorry Gator.

          • http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/ Jason Gillman

            That was from his appearance at the MiCPAC in March.

            What is spooky is some of the loose controls of language and bills in the congress. Amash is verifying much of what our concerns have been.

            From a transparency angle, this is one of the best guys we have in the house. I am not sure there is anyone with as much integrity as well.

            Going forward, he may err occasionally, but our trust should be in his intent toward constitutional rule of law.

    • kestrel

      to become a co-sponsor of Nugent’s bill if he is serious about declining those benefits. Nugent found that congress has made it illegal to refuse certain benefits, hence one could make a show of declining and then, oh, my, what a surprise, have to quietly accept those benefits anyway.

      It reminds me of congress’s auto-pilot pay raises that they’ve instituted so that they get raises automatically unless they vote NOT to get raises. This enables them to avoid criticism for voting themselves a raise. Getting a raise is the default, which they usually just quietly accept.

      This stuff makes me sick. I might be impressed with Landry when I see his name as a cosponsor on this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00981: h/t BigGator

      • kestrel

        Don’t know why the link didn’t work, but you can look at the bill,
        H.R. 981, on Thomas.gov. There are no co-sponsors yet. Or use Gator’s links.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the inevitable lawsuit. Nice links.

    • taylerdog23

      Are you saying that a bill only becomes law if it is upheld in a court challenge?

      Or is this a more nuanced statement re: Deem and Pass?

      Or am I missing something altogether?

      • acat

        Unless someone with standing challenges the constitutionality of a law, the courts are limited in their ability to declare it unconstitutional. The court *can* step in, but .. generally, judicial conservatism (as opposed to Red State conservatism) means not jumping in unless it’s absolutely necessary.

        Consider the War Powers Act, which is very likely not constitutional .. until someone with standing (and who would have standing? Congress?) objects, there will be no judicial action – and so long as it benefits both parties to maintain the fiction that the War Powers Act is okay, the longer the court won’t get involved…

        Mew

        (who will now wait for Gamecock to explain where he’s wrong)

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          means that the exercise today was a gimmick before we fold. I define fold as going under $40B in cuts and not eliminating PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood at least.

  • acat
    • lineholder

      It would almost be worth it to have this issue addressed and resolved, wouldn’t it?

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        The Reid senate will not take the bait, so its mute. But even if he did, Obama would never sign it. But even if he did, political chaos would be too severe for it to await a court resolution.

        More in a bit.

  • renny

    the Dems. seriously considered it as a method to pass O’care in 2009.
    ???

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      that also holds the White House. And in this divided govt environment, it is obviously impossible that a bill with that clause in it would be signed by a president of the opposite party.

      Therefore, this whole exercise today was a totally cynical, un-serious decision by an incompetent GOP leadership.

      Yes, this is the germination of a column that I will write before Noon Sunday.

  • glaucon

    If these guys voted against it, there’s probably a good reason. Boehner and Cantor are severely compromised. We need to look to the true fiscal and Constitutional conservatives, especially when it comes to the budget.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine