PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Mark Levin's law firm to file suit on Slaughter Rule


petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:40 AM
If the Slaughter Rule is enacted then Mark Levin's law firm has already stated they will be the first to file suit. It appears there are legs to filing suit.


‘Slaughter Solution’ could face legal challenge
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html


If even 1 court decides to hear the case the whole shabang of health care gets put on hold.

This will be the first of many, many legal challenges I assume.

Brainiac
03-17-2010, 11:42 AM
Good for him. The way the Obama administration is pulling every trick in the book to try to jam this thing through, it's nice to see a legal challenge to it.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 11:42 AM
Good.

Calcountry
03-17-2010, 11:43 AM
Orange? Why dont' you call Levin and tell him how fuggin stupid he is about the constitution?

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:48 AM
The Senate bill and its text would not come before the House in the ordinary way for an up-or-down vote but would be passed indirectly. While this procedure has been used before, the Supreme Court has said in past cases that repetition of an unconstitutional process does not make it constitutional.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html#ixzz0iSPUMG5d

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:50 AM
The constitutional questions about the process intensified Monday thanks to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by former U.S. appeals court judge Michael McConnell, now a professor at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.


The “Slaughter solution,” he wrote, “may be clever, but it is not constitutional.”


“To be sure,” he continued, “each house has the power to make its own rules. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.” He cited the line-item veto as his primary precedent on the grounds that it disregarded the constitutional procedure for enacting laws.


Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin agreed that, under the precedents, “the House has to step up and take responsibility for passing the same text as appears in the Senate bill.” But, he said, “if they do that, then the precise mechanism (two bills or use of a self-executing rule) isn’t as important. One of the purposes of requiring passage of the same bill by both Houses of Congress is to prevent congressmen and senators from attempting to deny responsibility for the laws that they pass by sending the president different bills.”

I'm sure these guys know nothing about law and the Constitution.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 11:50 AM
Orange? Why dont' you call Levin and tell him how fuggin stupid he is about the constitution?

Orange is a joke.

blaise
03-17-2010, 11:54 AM
You guys are crazy. The nation's problems will be solved when Obama unveils his March Madness bracket. It's gonna be so cool!

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:55 AM
You guys are crazy. The nation's problems will be solved when Obama unveils his March Madness bracket. It's gonna be so cool!



Obama makes his NCAA picks
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0310/the_bracket_43fb575e-613e-4e65-863b-209378bb2865.html

notorious
03-17-2010, 11:56 AM
You guys are crazy. The nation's problems will be solved when Obama unveils his March Madness bracket. It's gonna be so cool!

Can he use the Slaughter Rule to jam N. Carolina back into the tourney?

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 11:57 AM
You guys are crazy. The nation's problems will be solved when Obama unveils his March Madness bracket. It's gonna be so cool!

I like the way he comes down the stairs off Air Force 1. He doesn't even hold the railing or anything!

:whackit:

blaise
03-17-2010, 11:59 AM
I mean, the Baracket! So cool! I hope he gets a guest spot during the Final Four doing color commentary!

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 11:59 AM
If the Slaughter Rule is enacted then Mark Levin's law firm has already stated they will be the first to file suit. It appears there are legs to filing suit.


‘Slaughter Solution’ could face legal challenge
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html


If even 1 court decides to hear the case the whole shabang of health care gets put on hold.

This will be the first of many, many legal challenges I assume.

Good News! Pete thanks! I was wondering about a legal challenge to such a ridiculous scheme.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 12:00 PM
Good News! Pete thanks! I was wondering about a legal challenge to such a scheme.

He will be one among many to challenge this. The courts are going to have to listen to the argument. Particularly given the unpopularity of the bill by the People as well as in the Congress. If this was widely accepted throughout Congress and the population it would never be heard.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 12:01 PM
I mean, the Baracket! So cool! I hope he gets a guest spot during the Final Four doing color commentary!

I know, me too. He's so cool the way he slouches in his chair and holds a bucket of popcorn! I like to watch him eat it. Gosh he is soooooooo cool. It's cool having a cool president.

blaise
03-17-2010, 12:03 PM
I know, me too. He's so cool the way he slouches in his chair and holds a bucket of popcorn! I like to watch him eat it. Gosh he is soooooooo cool. It's cool having a cool president.

It really is. I'm so glad MTV wanted me to vote for him.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 12:07 PM
It really is. I'm so glad MTV wanted me to vote for him.

He's so cool. And he's black, too. Black people are cooler. He was cool when he sought out radical professors in college. He was cool in college. Now he's cooler, though. He's real good at basketball too, and shit.

http://barackobamasblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/obama_youth_04.jpg

orange
03-17-2010, 01:43 PM
Orange? Why dont' you call Levin and tell him how fuggin stupid he is about the constitution?

Mark Levin may know something about the Constitution but it doesn't prevent him from going off on wild turkey shoots like this one. His foundation has lost more suits than he's won, I'd guess.

One thing he does not know is obvious - HE DOES NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL RULE THAT THE HOUSE WILL USE. He also doesn't know anything about how it will play out from there. He's railing against a hypothetical FOR HIS AUDIENCE. And he certainly knows them.

He has put up a draft of his intended suit already. The flaw is obvious - a giant gaping hole filled only with supposition.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Complaint.pdf

11. 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).

12. 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.”

13. In or about March 2010, the Rules Committee of the House proposed a rule to the
full House establishing the terms and conditions pursuant to which certain legislation would be
considered by the House (the “Rule” or “Slaughter Rule”). The Rule provided that, upon
adoption by the House on a vote of the yeas and nays of one bill (the “Reconciliation Bill”), an
entirely different bill, H.R. 3590 (the “Senate Bill”) would be “deemed approved” by the House.

14. In or about March 2010, the House approved the Rule.

15. In or about March 2010, the House approved the Reconciliation Bill. The House
has never voted on the Senate Bill.

16. The President has stated his intention to sign into law the Senate Bill upon
presentment to him.

17. At the time of the filing of this action, the President is presently intending to sign
the Senate Bill or has signed it. Plaintiffs have at all times relevant to the filing of this
Complaint acted with dispatch, consistent with the gravity of the issues involved for our country
and its government.

18. Concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, a courtesy copy has been sent to
the White House to the attention of the Counsel to the President.

I've highlighted the important parts. Line 11 there points out that the President must be submitted the same Bill passed from both the House and Senate to sign. Fine, no problem there.

Line 17 is the problem. He assumes the two Bills submitted to the President are not going to be the same. Poppycock. Obama will not be signing "the Senate bill," as in "the CURRENT Senate bill." He will be signing the new, improved Senate bill which matches the House bill he will be signing. There will be a world of activity between Lines 14 and 17 that Levin doesn't - and can't - even hint at.

Not as important but still germaine - Line 12. There WILL be recorded votes on the Bills, both House and Senate, which end up on the President's desk.

orange
03-17-2010, 02:03 PM
Mark Levin:

“I cannot predict if we would win or lose -- this is not as simple as some would have you believe -- but I want to put the marker down right now and make it clear to members of the House of Representatives who think the quickest way to pass this is to adopt a rule that assumes that they voted on an underlying bill when they didn’t -- that is going to be challenged if they do it,” Levin said on his nationally syndicated radio show Tuesday evening.

...

Levin, a former top attorney in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration who currently serves as president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.

“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/62939

petegz28
03-17-2010, 03:32 PM
Mark Levin:

“I cannot predict if we would win or lose -- this is not as simple as some would have you believe -- but I want to put the marker down right now and make it clear to members of the House of Representatives who think the quickest way to pass this is to adopt a rule that assumes that they voted on an underlying bill when they didn’t -- that is going to be challenged if they do it,” Levin said on his nationally syndicated radio show Tuesday evening.

...

Levin, a former top attorney in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration who currently serves as president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.

“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/62939

No shit. No one is going to predict the outcome of the SCOTUS. That hardly makes a point. Keep fishing.

orange
03-17-2010, 03:36 PM
Keep fishing.

I can't. Obama banned fishing. Didn't you hear?

petegz28
03-17-2010, 03:40 PM
I can't. Obama banned fishing. Didn't you hear?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Fact is, you seem to be more about the Dems winning as opposed to what they are trying to pass. I have pretty much chalked you down to that level anyway. Your constant defense of them is very telling.

Calcountry
03-17-2010, 05:32 PM
You guys are crazy. The nation's problems will be solved when Obama unveils his March Madness bracket. It's gonna be so cool!L M F A O.

Calcountry
03-17-2010, 05:38 PM
Mark Levin may know something about the Constitution but it doesn't prevent him from going off on wild turkey shoots like this one. His foundation has lost more suits than he's won, I'd guess.

One thing he does not know is obvious - HE DOES NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL RULE THAT THE HOUSE WILL USE. He also doesn't know anything about how it will play out from there. He's railing against a hypothetical FOR HIS AUDIENCE. And he certainly knows them.

He has put up a draft of his intended suit already. The flaw is obvious - a giant gaping hole filled only with supposition.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Complaint.pdf
11. 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).

12. 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.”

13. In or about March 2010, the Rules Committee of the House proposed a rule to the
full House establishing the terms and conditions pursuant to which certain legislation would be
considered by the House (the “Rule” or “Slaughter Rule”). The Rule provided that, upon
adoption by the House on a vote of the yeas and nays of one bill (the “Reconciliation Bill”), an
entirely different bill, H.R. 3590 (the “Senate Bill”) would be “deemed approved” by the House.

14. In or about March 2010, the House approved the Rule.

15. In or about March 2010, the House approved the Reconciliation Bill. The House
has never voted on the Senate Bill.

16. The President has stated his intention to sign into law the Senate Bill upon
presentment to him.

17. At the time of the filing of this action, the President is presently intending to sign
the Senate Bill or has signed it. Plaintiffs have at all times relevant to the filing of this
Complaint acted with dispatch, consistent with the gravity of the issues involved for our country
and its government.

18. Concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, a courtesy copy has been sent to
the White House to the attention of the Counsel to the President.
I've highlighted the important parts. Line 11 there points out that the President must be submitted the same Bill passed from both the House and Senate to sign. Fine, no problem there.

Line 17 is the problem. He assumes the two Bills submitted to the President are not going to be the same. Poppycock. Obama will not be signing "the Senate bill," as in "the CURRENT Senate bill." He will be signing the new, improved Senate bill which matches the House bill he will be signing. There will be a world of activity between Lines 14 and 17 that Levin doesn't - and can't - even hint at.

Not as important but still germaine - Line 12. There WILL be recorded votes on the Bills, both House and Senate, which end up on the President's desk.If the Senate bill is changed, then the Senate must vote on again, 60 votes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you are an elitist liberal radical leftist attorney.

Calcountry
03-17-2010, 05:42 PM
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Fact is, you seem to be more about the Dems winning as opposed to what they are trying to pass. I have pretty much chalked you down to that level anyway. Your constant defense of them is very telling.Exactly what this is all about at this point. Winning one for the home team(demoncrats).

banyon
03-17-2010, 05:43 PM
If the Slaughter Rule is enacted then Mark Levin's law firm has already stated they will be the first to file suit. It appears there are legs to filing suit.


‘Slaughter Solution’ could face legal challenge
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html


If even 1 court decides to hear the case the whole shabang of health care gets put on hold.

This will be the first of many, many legal challenges I assume.

This is true only if a stay is granted, which would be extraordinary and I doubt it would be granted; I don't think they could meet the injunctive burden they'd be required to show to obtain it.

Second, I wonder who their plaintiff is who has standing to challenge the suit.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 05:53 PM
Judge Napolitano was saying on Fox this afternoon, he doesn't think the SC would take it because they repect the independence of each branch.

Who would the plaintiff be? How bout a class action suit by the Americans opposed to the bill?

petegz28
03-17-2010, 06:11 PM
Judge Napolitano was saying on Fox this afternoon, he doesn't think the SC would take it because they repect the independence of each branch.

Who would the plaintiff be? How bout a class action suit by the Americans opposed to the bill?

Well that's just stupid. I guess we just don't need a Constitution since Congress can piss all over it all they want and the SCOTUS would never do anything about out of "respect".

banyon
03-17-2010, 06:13 PM
Judge Napolitano was saying on Fox this afternoon, he doesn't think the SC would take it because they repect the independence of each branch.

Who would the plaintiff be? How bout a class action suit by the Americans opposed to the bill?

That's not what I mean by legal standing. Being politically opposed does not get you standing. That gets you in the ballot box, otherwise it's politically injusticiable and a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.

alnorth
03-17-2010, 06:27 PM
That's not what I mean by legal standing. Being politically opposed does not get you standing. That gets you in the ballot box, otherwise it's politically injusticiable and a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.

Interesting question. Would a member of congress (specifically, someone in the house) have standing? I honestly dont know, I'm just asking.

If not, it would probably just simply be someone who wants to be uninsured in 2014 and does not want to pay a higher income tax. I doubt they would have to wait until someone actually has to file a return in 2014, do they? Is there anything scheduled to happen right away in 2010 or 2011 that would adversely impact anyone?

banyon
03-17-2010, 06:37 PM
Interesting question. Would a member of congress (specifically, someone in the house) have standing? I honestly dont know, I'm just asking.

If not, it would probably just simply be someone who wants to be uninsured in 2014 and does not want to pay a higher income tax. I doubt they would have to wait until someone actually has to file a return in 2014, do they? Is there anything scheduled to happen right away in 2010 or 2011 that would adversely impact anyone?

Here's a recent case hilighting the difficulties of standing (and you can see how it cuts both ways politically):


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-463.ZS.html

The syllabus summarizes it decently:

Held: Respondents lack standing to challenge the regulations still at issue absent a live dispute over a concrete application of those regulations. Pp. 4–12.

(a) In limiting the judicial power to “Cases” and “Controversies,” Article III restricts it to redressing or preventing actual or imminently threatened injury to persons caused by violation of law. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555 . The standing doctrine reflects this fundamental limitation, requiring that “the plaintiff … ‘alleg[e] such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 . Here, respondents can demonstrate standing only if application of the regulations will affect them in such a manner. Pp. 4–5.

(b) As organizations, respondents can assert their members’ standing. Harm to their members’ recreational, or even their mere esthetic, interests in the National Forests will suffice to establish the requisite concrete and particularized injury, see Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 , but generalized harm to the forest or the environment will not alone suffice. Respondents have identified no application of the invalidated regulations that threatens imminent and concrete harm to their members’ interests. Respondents’ argument that they have standing based on Burnt Ridge fails because, after voluntarily settling the portion of their lawsuit relevant to Burnt Ridge, respondents and their members are no longer under threat of injury from that project. The remaining affidavit submitted in support of standing fails to establish that any member has concrete plans to visit a site where the challenged regulations are being applied in a manner that will harm that member’s concrete interests. Additional affidavits purporting to establish standing were submitted after judgment had already been entered and notice of appeal filed, and are thus untimely. Pp. 5–8.

(c) Respondents’ argument that they have standing because they have suffered procedural injury—i.e., they have been denied the ability to file comments on some Forest Service actions and will continue to be so denied—fails because such a deprivation without some concrete interest affected thereby is insufficient to create Article III standing. See, e.g., Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 572, n. 7. Pp. 8–9.

(d) The dissent’s objections are addressed and rejected.

The Lujan case cited within this syllabus is the primary case on this topic.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 06:40 PM
Orange is a joke.

This.

banyon
03-17-2010, 06:40 PM
If the Senate bill is changed, then the Senate must vote on again, 60 votes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you are an elitist liberal radical leftist attorney.

This is not true. The Senate can certainly originate legislation and they have already passed it. The House does have to vote on the Senate Bill though, before it can be sent to the President (absent reconciliation of minor budgetary items).

banyon
03-17-2010, 06:41 PM
This.

You're going to throw in with SHTSPRAYER for the one-liner lame insults vs. actual discussion on the merits, eh? You should really strive for better.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 06:43 PM
You're going to throw in with SHTSPRAYER for the one-liner lame insults vs. actual discussion on the merits, eh? You should really strive for better.

Theres no point debating with Orange. When he asked for facts in a previous debate I listed some and he just ignored them.

orange
03-17-2010, 06:46 PM
This.

Want to bet me clown avatars that this Levin case ever succeeds?

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 06:46 PM
And it's no coisidence all these lawsuits are happening. Levin is a neo-con but I applaud him for this. It's funny we can't convict people from the previous adminstration for the biggest lie in US history because it would tear the nation apart but it's ok to bribe people in congress to pass a bill thats not even good according to those voting for it, which certainly will tear the counry apart.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 06:47 PM
Want to bet me clown avatars that this Levin case ever succeeds?

No I doubt it will pass.

Direckshun
03-17-2010, 06:48 PM
Pete the moderate has now officially transformed into Pete the follower of rightwing AM radio.

orange
03-17-2010, 06:49 PM
No I doubt it will pass.

I Win!

For billay:

http://weeksaway.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/clown-shoes.jpg

LMAOLMAOLMAO

orange
03-17-2010, 06:51 PM
Theres no point debating with Orange. When he asked for facts in a previous debate I listed some and he just ignored them.

When? Point them out - I'll be happy to crush you again.

Direckshun
03-17-2010, 06:51 PM
No I doubt it will pass.

But orange is a joke nonetheless, I guess! Even though I'm pretty sure he's right!

FYP

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 06:55 PM
I Win!

For billay:

http://weeksaway.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/clown-shoes.jpg

LMAOLMAOLMAO

Those aren't my size.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 06:55 PM
When? Point them out - I'll be happy to crush you again.

The whole Fed giving money to Saddam thing.

orange
03-17-2010, 06:56 PM
The whole Fed giving money to Saddam thing.

What "facts?"

The Fed never gave money to Saddam.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:01 PM
What "facts?"

The Fed never gave money to Saddam.

The US never gave him weapons either.

orange
03-17-2010, 07:07 PM
The US never gave him weapons either.

Those are YOUR WORDS not mine. And it's entirely irrelevant to the

SIMPLE IMMUTABLE FACT THAT THE FED DIDN'T SEND MONEY TO SADDAM!

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:14 PM
So they gave weapons but not money? Hmmm.

orange
03-17-2010, 07:15 PM
Theres no point debating with Orange. When he asked for facts in a previous debate I listed some and he just ignored them.



... and as for me "not responding" - you couldn't possibly have missed:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6558411&postcount=145

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6558425&postcount=146

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6558874&postcount=154

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6579360&postcount=175

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6579725&postcount=179

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6579857&postcount=182

...

Here, maybe these will fit you better:

http://www.themagicshop.com.au/images/P/clownshoes2.jpg


p.s. So they gave weapons but not money? Hmmm.

The FEDERAL RESERVE gave neither.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:17 PM
... and as for me "not responding" - you couldn't possibly have missed:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6558411&postcount=145

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6558425&postcount=146

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6558874&postcount=154

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6579360&postcount=175

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6579725&postcount=179

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6579857&postcount=182

...

Here, maybe these will fit you better:

http://www.themagicshop.com.au/images/P/clownshoes2.jpg

You dismissed the sources saying they weren't legit.

orange
03-17-2010, 07:34 PM
You dismissed the sources saying they weren't legit.

Dude...

145 there is a DIRECT LINK to your source - Auerbach's book. You can read it on Amazon. You will see that it makes no claim that the Fed sent money to Saddam. Far from discrediting it, I used it to directly discredit Ron Paul (you).

146 there links DIRECTLY TO REP. GONZALES' TESTIMONY. The testimony that Auerbach based his book on. Again, NOTHING about the Fed sending money to Saddam. It also links an article which spells out where Saddam's dollars actually came from.

The other posts continue to elaborate on it in great detail. But I can only post them - whether you read them or not is up to you.

Clearly, you never read these.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:37 PM
So the US gave them weapons but no money?

What would happen if the fed admitted to giving money to Saddam?

orange
03-17-2010, 07:46 PM
So the US gave them weapons but no money?



Nope, wrong again. I NEVER said that. In fact, if you look at the articles you'll see that it was the Dept. of Agriculture pushing dollars to Saddam.

BUT NOT THE FED.


You must mean this one:

Drogoul’s “‘off book’ BNL-Atlanta funding to Iraq began in 1986 as financing for products under Department of Agriculture programs.”2 The loans allegedly had been authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Since Drogoul told the committee he was merely a tool in an ambitious scheme by the United States, Italy, Britain and Germany to secretly arm Iraq in their 1980-88 war, the testimony was politically contentious and unproven. He was sentenced in November 1993 to 37 months in prison and he had already served 20 months awaiting his sentencing hearing.


The Department of Agriculture programs that - according to YOUR OWN LINK above (#176) - "Treasury and Federal Reserve officials voted to stop the aid entirely," and "Treasury and the Fed, however, find it hard to believe that Iraqi Central Bank officials and others were not aware of kickbacks," and "Edward W. Kelley Jr., one of the governors of the Federal Reserve Board, repeatedly opposed additional credits for Iraq."

No, that can't possibly be what RP meant - since it's diametrically opposite of what he said.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:52 PM
Nope, wrong again. I NEVER said that. In fact, if you look at the articles you'll see that it was the Dept. of Agriculture pushing dollars to Saddam.

BUT NOT THE FED.

We know from 2003-2004 the fed sent money to Iraq too.

http://www.ictmag.info/politics/more-evidence-that-the-fed-sent-money-to-iraq/

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:58 PM
So if we gave Iraq money in 2003-2004 why wouldn't the fed give them money in the 80's when we were fighting with Iran and supplying Iraw with weapons? Also the fed prints the money are you telling me they had no idea where the money was going? If so you've just laid an awesome case of more transparancy being need for the fed.

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2010, 07:58 PM
We know from 2003-2004 the fed sent money to Iraq too.

http://www.ictmag.info/politics/more-evidence-that-the-fed-sent-money-to-iraq/

This is the beginning of that article:

"Yesterday, I quoted an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for squad eld who aided with fault of the agent Reserve to exhibit that there strength be whatever foundation for Daffo Paul’s questions to Ben Bernanke most the agent Reserve’s questionable shipment of money to Iraq.

Here is whatever more information."

What?

orange
03-17-2010, 07:59 PM
We know from 2003-2004 the fed sent money to Iraq too.

http://www.ictmag.info/politics/more-evidence-that-the-fed-sent-money-to-iraq/

You never read these things before you post them anything, do you?


"The FRS play transport the money a month after Saddam went into hiding (but daylong before he was captured), so the money probable did not go to Saddam."

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:59 PM
....in October, 1990, at the time of the Persian Gulf conflict, there was an unpublicized case in the Chicago Federal District Court (No. 90 C 6863). The Illinois Bank Commissioner sought an injunction against the Federal Reserve Board to stop them from turning over certain bank records to the House Banking Committee. The records were those of the Chicago branch of Italy's largest [bank], Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, owned in part by the Vatican.

Called BNL, it had records of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and his secret private joint business dealings with his partner, an American. A close crony of the Federal Reserve, Chicago Federal District Judge Brian Barnett Duff, ordered the return of any records from the Banking Committee, then headed by a Democrat,Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D., Texas).

The House Banking Committee was an intervening party-litigant in the controversy. Judge Duff so opposed the House Banking Committee's efforts to get those records, that the Judge would not listen to the Committee's attorney; did not want the attorney in the Judge's courtroom, the Judge calling him an 800 pound gorilla showing no respect for the court.

In May, 1991, right after the War ended in the Persian Gulf, the case ended up in the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago; a court dominated by Judges tied to the major banks and cronies of the Federal Reserve.

orange
03-17-2010, 08:00 PM
This is the beginning of that article:

"Yesterday, I quoted an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for squad eld who aided with fault of the agent Reserve to exhibit that there strength be whatever foundation for Daffo Paul’s questions to Ben Bernanke most the agent Reserve’s questionable shipment of money to Iraq.

Here is whatever more information."

What?

English is not the writer's first language, that's my guess. Or second.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 08:01 PM
You never read these things before you post them anything, do you?


"The FRS play transport the money a month after Saddam went into hiding (but daylong before he was captured), so the money probable did not go to Saddam."

In 2003-2004 the money didn't go to Saddam and I never claimed it did. Now you're dodging. Why would we give Iraq money in 2003-2004 but not in the 1980's when we were fighting with Iran?

orange
03-17-2010, 08:02 PM
So if we gave Iraq money in 2003-2004 why wouldn't the fed give them money in the 80's when we were fighting with Iran and supplying Iraw with weapons? Also the fed prints the money are you telling me they had no idea where the money was going? If so you've just laid an awesome case of more transparancy being need for the fed.

We gave them money in 2003-2004 to prop up the Coalition Authority. There was this little "war" thing - you might have read about it seen the pictures in the paper.

orange
03-17-2010, 08:04 PM
In 2003-2004 the money didn't go to Saddam and I never claimed it did. Now you're dodging. Why would we give Iraq money in 2003-2004 but not in the 1980's when we were fighting with Iran?

Whether we did or didn't, it wouldn't have come from the Fed.* It would have been sent through some GOVERNMENT AGENCY.



* Except in the sense that ALL U.S. CURRENCY is distributed by the Fed, wherever it may end up.

orange
03-17-2010, 08:17 PM
I think your ictmag source sums it all up perfectly:

In fact, I don’t undergo anything most money laundering, take trafficking or terrorist networks. But I strength be healthy to surmisal who could ready road of that category of information: the Fed.

http://www.ubeem1.co.uk/images/xubeem69a.jpg

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2010, 08:30 PM
I think your ictmag source sums it all up perfectly:

In fact, I don’t undergo anything most money laundering, take trafficking or terrorist networks. But I strength be healthy to surmisal who could ready road of that category of information: the Fed.

I dare anyone to tell me what the writer was trying to say.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 09:02 PM
...
Art. I Sec. 7
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.”

orange
03-17-2010, 09:06 PM
...

That is referring to overriding a President's veto.

It has nothing to do with the current bill. Unless you think Obama's going to pull a fast one and veto it.

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2010, 09:12 PM
That is referring to overriding a President's veto.

It has nothing to do with the current bill. Unless you think Obama's going to pull a fast one and veto it.

If he's planning to enjoy a second term, he would be wise to consider it.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 09:58 PM
That is referring to overriding a President's veto.

It has nothing to do with the current bill. Unless you think Obama's going to pull a fast one and veto it.

I just posted that in general to the Slaughter Rule topic because a bill has to pass both houses.

I just watched a Beck video with Judge Napolitano on this issue, as well as Obama's continuous use of executive decree when something won't pass in congress. So he then goes to Executive Directive or to the EPA, Fed agency. They had a whole chart of each time something didn't pass with him resorting to such things. Then there was talk about a private progressive meeting that someone recorded on their cell accidentally. No recordings were allowed. Schumer and Reid were there. They were all discussing how to change Constitutional principals with a simple majority vote. They're commies acting like the Allende govt in Chile. That's subversion and overthrow of the US govt. They're treasonous criminals!

Velvet_Jones
03-17-2010, 10:22 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding this thread because I am in awe over the sound of how awesome Obama is. Fap fap fap fap fap.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 10:25 PM
If the Slaughter Rule is enacted Mark Levin will literally feed his own shit to his regular audience, but he has been doing that for years.

blaise
03-17-2010, 10:42 PM
I wonder if Slaughter realizes that she might finally cost herself a seat she's been holding a death grip on for years.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 10:44 PM
I wonder if Slaughter realizes that she might finally cost herself a seat she's been holding a death grip on for years.

Dude, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. This bill will pass. We will get fucked. Hopefully the people that vote for it make it the last vote of their political career.

blaise
03-17-2010, 10:49 PM
Dude, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. This bill will pass. We will get ****ed. Hopefully the people that vote for it make it the last vote of their political career.

There's a bunch of people in that part of NY state that just pull a lever for her because she's been there for so long. I doubt a bunch even know what she's about at all. This is probably the most half of them have heard from her in 15 years. I would guess more are going to react negatively toward her than before.

cookster50
03-18-2010, 06:11 AM
Not going to read every post here, so if this has been said, tough luck. I heard one radio host call it the "Slaughter the Constitution" rule. Thought that was kind of funny.

Amnorix
03-18-2010, 06:15 AM
Who would the plaintiff be? How bout a class action suit by the Americans opposed to the bill?

I'd think the Republicans in the HOuse could file suit.

Doubt you could use the class action approach, but I'm no expert on those.

Amnorix
03-18-2010, 06:17 AM
That's not what I mean by legal standing. Being politically opposed does not get you standing. That gets you in the ballot box, otherwise it's politically injusticiable and a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.

Possibly so, but while the branches of Congress can set their own rules and procedures, I htink that if they use a rule or procedure that DOES violate the Constitution (and I"m not saying this does), then that would be justiciable. Question is who the plaintiffs would be, and I'm thinking perhaps those in Congress who oppose the measure.

Amnorix
03-18-2010, 06:23 AM
Billay -- you might want to give up. You're getting killed here...


ROFL

Calcountry
03-18-2010, 04:19 PM
This is not true. The Senate can certainly originate legislation and they have already passed it. The House does have to vote on the Senate Bill though, before it can be sent to the President (absent reconciliation of minor budgetary items).I should have said, if the Senate bill is changed by the House before passage(that is why they want it already deemed passed), then it goes back to the Senate as is the case in after a reconciliation committee.

If the House takes an up or down vote on the currently passed version of the Senate bill, as is, as it now stands, AND they pass it, then of course, it must then be presented to the President for signing or vetoing.

This whole slaughter rule, I believe, has been a clever ruse to build momentum. At the last minute, the house will just pass the Senate bill and the Pres will sign it, and that's it. game over. It's law.

Calcountry
03-18-2010, 04:27 PM
Possibly so, but while the branches of Congress can set their own rules and procedures, I htink that if they use a rule or procedure that DOES violate the Constitution (and I"m not saying this does), then that would be justiciable. Question is who the plaintiffs would be, and I'm thinking perhaps those in Congress who oppose the measure.I am certainly no attorney, but this is a political issue. The wind is blowing pretty damned hard against this shit passing, so, despite whatever legal loophole, or proceedure you brilliant people are capable of pulling out of your collective hats to save your beloved presidents ass, WE THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THIS FUGGING SHIT PASSED!!


Keep pushing us into a frontier mentality, we may have to resort to and old form of justice.

God forbid, and God save America.

Chocolate Hog
03-19-2010, 01:54 AM
Billay -- you might want to give up. You're getting killed here...


ROFL

Is that why Orange continues to dodge the question?

orange
03-19-2010, 02:22 AM
:rolleyes:

orange
03-20-2010, 01:13 PM
2:39 PM ET -- Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: How the vote tomorrow will work.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz says what will now happen is first a vote on the reconciliation package followed immediately by a vote on the Senate bill. They had wanted to do this all along, she said, but thought they had to do Senate bill first. The parliamentarian has now ruled it's ok to do reconciliation first.

2:21 PM ET -- Democrats say no deem and pass.

Two Democratic lawmakers tell the Huffington Post that the party will not use the controversial measure known as deem and pass to get health care into law.

Rep. Eliott Engel (D-NY) said the House will vote on the Senate bill first before it considered a separate package of reconciliation changes. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) confirmed.

petegz28
03-20-2010, 04:24 PM
Sounds like Levin and Co. scared the shit out of them and they are finally starting to listen......a little.

Taco John
03-20-2010, 04:28 PM
Sounds like Levin and Co. scared the shit out of them and they are finally starting to listen......a little.

This is a distinct possibility given the make-up of the court.