222 Democrats Vote to Disregard Constitution

Via Michelle Malkin:

Final vote 222-203 with six not voting. Remember in November.

More from The Hill:

All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP’s effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote.

222 Democrats supported the measure, though, meaning enough to proceed. Three members of both parties did not vote.

Republicans had hoped for the separate vote to get Democratic lawmakers on record on the Senate bill, which includes some provisions on abortion, excise taxes, and other issues that House lawmakers find distasteful.

As this stand, Democrats plan a vote on a rule on Sunday that would make changes to the Senate-passed bill while deeming the original legislation to have passed the House.

That last sentence is the clincher. The House will never have voted on the Senate bill, but will simply “deem” it as passed.

Behold, the Constitution:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. 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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The House will not have voted on the bill. It’s that simple.

But they are simply going to say it’s all good and send it to Obama anyway.

Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation have plans to challenge this in court. They better get ready, because it’s on.

http://jokertothethief.wordpress.com/ Anthony

As bad as they are, I could never see the GOP doing this, yet the media would play it over and over and over. Amazing what politics can do to one’s ethics! So much for upholding our Constitution…
.-= Anthony´s last blog ..Traitor =-.
http://jokertothethief.wordpress.com/ Anthony

As bad as they are, I could never see the GOP doing this, yet the media would play it over and over and over. Amazing what politics can do to one’s ethics! So much for upholding our Constitution…
.-= Anthony´s last blog ..Traitor =-.
http://twitter.com/freedomist/statuses/10704227647 freedomist (Freedomist)

RT @mytweetingthis: 222 Democrats Vote to Disregard Constitution – Remember in November http://bit.ly/cfDJVQ Dems OUT 2010 – NO Coffee Party – Go Tea parties
http://twitter.com/mytweetingthis/statuses/10704196500 mytweetingthis (Some Points of

222 Democrats Vote to Disregard Constitution – Remember in November http://bit.ly/cfDJVQ Dems OUT 2010 – NO Coffee Party – Go Tea parties
Zach M

There is nothing unconstitutional about this political maneuver, as GOP leaders have agreed. It has been used many times by both parties in the past on large issues. Google ‘self-executing rules’ and go to this Republican’s blog if you want to educate yourself:
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/16688
Zach M

There is nothing unconstitutional about this political maneuver, as GOP leaders have agreed. It has been used many times by both parties in the past on large issues. Google ‘self-executing rules’ and go to this Republican’s blog if you want to educate yourself:
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/16688
Zach M

I’ll add though, that it should be unconstitutional. This controversial resolution isn’t worth it for such a watered-down bill. I’d like to see Obama be effective at something, but I don’t really trust him.
Zach M

I’ll add though, that it should be unconstitutional. This controversial resolution isn’t worth it for such a watered-down bill. I’d like to see Obama be effective at something, but I don’t really trust him.
Rohrbaugh

This isn’t the first time that either party has disreguarded the constitution. Fair Tax and term limits. Throw em all out.
Rohrbaugh

This isn’t the first time that either party has disreguarded the constitution. Fair Tax and term limits. Throw em all out.