Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WRONG... If ANYBODY can show me in the United States Constitution where 60 votes is required to pass legislation in the US Senate, I will go along. Except for veto overrides, 51 votes is ALL that is needed to pass any bill. Reid can FOOL people by saying "60 votes are required" but most of us know he is a LIAR as is anybody who says this.
51 votes are needed to pass the bill, but 60 are needed to stop a GOP filibuster. Now what Reid could do is force it through using Reconciliation, or force the GOP's hand on the filibuster and basically make them read through the Phone Book in order for them to stop a vote.
Show me in the Constitution where they can enact this bill. Because it's not there. This bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They need to work on the real problems with healthcare and stop trying to CONTROL every Americans life.
Show me in the Constitution where they can enact this bill. Because it's not there. This bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They need to work on the real problems with healthcare and stop trying to CONTROL every Americans life.
Oh please, the bill isn't even remotely Unconstitutional. As far as trying to control every American life? More, made up garbage. This bill offers nothing of the sort, and simply offers those without health insurance another option.
WRONG... If ANYBODY can show me in the United States Constitution where 60 votes is required to pass legislation in the US Senate, I will go along. Except for veto overrides, 51 votes is ALL that is needed to pass any bill. Reid can FOOL people by saying "60 votes are required" but most of us know he is a LIAR as is anybody who says this.
60 votes are not needed to pass a bill. 60 votes are needed to end debate. without 60 votes fillibustors will stop bills and nominations
Oh please, the bill isn't even remotely Unconstitutional. As far as trying to control every American life? More, made up garbage. This bill offers nothing of the sort, and simply offers those without health insurance another option.
...and all for the low low price of a couple trillion dollars, and 2,000 pages of new laws, regulations, mandates and tax increases.... Yippee!
60 votes are not needed to pass a bill. 60 votes are needed to end debate. without 60 votes fillibustors will stop bills and nominations
And well they should, any legislation that will cost hundreds of billions a year should take 60 votes, hell, maybe any legislation that raises taxes should require 60 votes.
This was posted in another forum. I couldn't of said it better myself.
Unless you can quote article and section of the constitution that makes it constitutional, it is unconstitutional. That is the way our constitution was set up.
With regard to our liberties, unless it is specifically prohibited, we are allowed. With regard to the government's powers, unless it is specifically allowed, it is prohibited.
That is the way our government was set up.
Maybe you need a refresher as to what congress is allowed to do. Look up Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The government does not have any power and authority not specifically named in the constitution. That is why we have an amendment process. We needed an amendment to ban liquor, and then another to repeal the ban.
Of course, principles of federalism and strict constructionalism have long been dead in this country. From our very inception, there have been despicable individuals that have tried to erode the meaning of our constitution. Are you one of these anti-liberty individuals?
Oh please, the bill isn't even remotely Unconstitutional. As far as trying to control every American life? More, made up garbage. This bill offers nothing of the sort, and simply offers those without health insurance another option.
I am not sure which of the uninsured masses you are talking about but they will have to pay for a plan like all of us. If you are 55 and uninsured the bill being discusses says you can buy into Medicare. The operative word for all these plans is "buy."
Show me in the Constitution where they can enact this bill. Because it's not there. This bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They need to work on the real problems with healthcare and stop trying to CONTROL every Americans life.
Well, this thing is being poured over by tons and tons of lawyers...many of whom would LOVE to grind this thing to a halt for whatever reason.
With that said, whether I was for it or against it, I would suspect that if it really were unconstitutional that the experts would have nailed that down already.
I am one of those *crazy* people that knows what he knows and knows when he is in over his head on a topic. I'd sooner argue constitutional law than give someone an oncology treatment regimen. So, what's your educational background? This is difficult stuff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
