Wouldn’t Laugh At Prospect of Constitutional Review of “Deem-Pass”

Yesterday, I posted a few thoughts about this “Deem-Pass”.  Which brought out an interesting reply from another Blogger.  Normally, I would post a counter-comment and move on.  However, this reply from “The Other Mike” is worth taking a moment and just writing a more visible and open reply.

Mike – I’ve visited your blog.  And I’ve read your “About” page, so I’m pretty sure there’s absolutely no chance of me being able to change your mind.  You make it abundantly clear that you are as far left as the scale will go.  However, unlike what I’ve seen elsewhere, I will not disparage you simply because your opinion is in contrast wth mine.  Neither will I lower myself to using profanity to basically tell a person to go F off.   What I do intend to do, is write a response which demonstrates your comment and observations are easily refuted.

Mike – you say it is Unconstitutional for Congress to discuss legislation with SCOTUS.  Second, you also say any “hypothetical” challenge would have no standing before the Court.  And third, you remind everyone that this procedure has already been used, by the Republicans, with no objection.

Let’s start with an easy one – no standing?  First, to deny standing means the plaintiff has no grounds for suing.  No standing – hhhmmm, as the states are going to be under federal mandate to fund certain aspects of the bll, and as citizens will face imprisonment for not having insurance, I’d say both the state and the individual can show thy will directly affected by this legislation.  So much for “No Standing” part of your argument.  Also, go back and read my post “God bless Virginia and Idaho”.  There’s already been action taken – to which I’m sure, the Attorney Generals for those states know if their concerns merit a lawsuit.

Second, it is not “Unconstitutional” for one branch to seek the opinion of another branch.  The reference you made is about the Court speaking on it’s own.  Also, the reference is about decorum and protocal.  Something the President blithtly ignored when he chose to use the State of the Union to reprimand SCOTUS.  That wasn’t unconstitutional – just a breech of good manners.

Now – about SCOTUS and legislation.  Seems your whole argument ignores the greatest showdown between a President and SCOTUS, which took place during the 30s.  When SCOTUS struck down the Frazier-Lenke Act (relief of farm debts) and invalidated the NRA petroleum code, what did the hero of the Left decide to do?  Afterall, the Court was standing in his way and the most effective way of clearing any obstruction of his vision was to go after the Court.

Hence, he started looking at pushing for an amendment which would a) limit the Court’s jurisdiction, b) require 2/3 consent to nullify Congress legislation, and C) expand the Court.  So, in the end, without even discussing his legislation with any leader of Congress, he presents the “Judicial Branch Reorganization Act of 1937” to the press.  Almost like he considered it a fait accompli.  (his proposal was to add one more justice for each justice who was over 70-1/2 years old – had nothing to do with trying to “pack the court” with like-minded judges).

Well, that really stirred up the American people.  See, they did care about “the process” and they it for what it was – tampering with the fundamental structure of our government, to achieve a politcal goal.  Something akin to what we’re seeing today – (do away with voting on legislation, if that’s what it takes to get it enacted).

Which brings me to your third point – it’s been used before.  Yes it has.  And I just a post about that very point.  It’s only a few posts below the one you commented on.  And I show that it was used in 2006 to correct a clerical error.  Now that is far apart from what’s happening today as the moon is from here.

But… if you would read that post (or perhaps already have, and chose not to allow this to sway you from throwing out the “they did it first” argument).  The main part of the article is this – both Pelosi and Slaughter signed on to a lawsuit by Ralph Nader, to oppose the Republican’s use of deem-pass to correct the clerical article.

Now, I’m pretty sure they felt they had standing.  And the exact reason they were upset is the same reason we’re upset today.  The Constitution is clear on what steps must be taken before a bill can be presented to the President.  Nothing’s changed, except the political party in control.

Perhaps it is time for people to stop defending an unconstitutional process simply because of ideology.

Old-Man-Tex

Share

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. I think a return post may be in order in this case; I look forward to writing it, and must say that I enjoy this kind of friendly sparring.

    • Mike – I do believe I’m going to be looking forward to this as well. We both know the ground rules – no disparaging remarks and no profanity. In other words, I don’t call you a “Pin-Head”. And we both know we’re not going to be able to change the other’s mind.

      Old-Man-Tex

      • Profanity I don’t care about at my place, but I’ll respect your rules while I’m here, of course.

        As to changing each other’s minds – well, I do believe in the perfectability of humanity, so I might get to you… Just kidding 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: