Skip to content

It’s the Procedure AND the Substance, Stupid!

17 March 2010

From the exclusive with Bret Baier today:

Obama said the the debate over the deals “ends up being a little frustrating is because the focus entirely is on Washington process.”

With all due respect – and that’s not much, incidentally – the focus is on both process and substance.  The only reason the anticonstitutionalist leadership in Congress believes it must resort to anticonstitutional procedures is because Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Emanuel all know that SB3200 is rejected by a very large majority of Americans and a suitable number of congresspeople precisely because of what’s in the bill.  That we know about.  And there may be a great deal more in there that we would reject if we knew about it.

A great deal of the Constitution deals precisely with process, and it’s too bad that the President – who swore to protect and defend the Supreme Law of the Land against all domestic enemies – admits to being unconcerned about how things are done in Washington.  I, for one, care tremendously how things are done as well as what is done.  And now, apparently, Chuck-U Schumer is interested in ignoring the plain meaning of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the very specific procedural requirements in Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, in order to claim that the rules each house of Congress adopts for its proceedings supersedes the Constitution’s procedural provisions.

Sound procedure, and hewing to procedural rules established a priori, is a sine qua non for the maintenance of trust.  But process ain’t what all the fuss is about.  It’s both process and substance, stupid!

qb

P. S.  Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation have prepared a lawsuit in the event the Slaughter Rule is used to “pass” SB3200.  May his tribe increase.

P. S.  Let’s just start with a two-sentence addition to the McCarran-Ferguson Act:

“Nothing in this statute shall be construed to prohibit the marketing or sale of insurance products across state lines.  No State government shall adopt any law or regulation that abridges the right of its residents to purchase insurance products from providers located in another State, or that imposes discriminatory and/or anti-competitive burdens on providers located in another state.”

Advertisements
7 Comments leave one →
  1. 19 March 2010 10:40 am

    qb,

    Procedural sauce for the goose and gander? Whatever happened to the procedurally fastidious Republican threat of the “nuclear” option? Or the Republican use of reconcilliation as well as their formulation of the “deeming” procedure? Or the Constitutionally fastidous declaration of war against Iraq?

    Blessings!

  2. 22 March 2010 11:59 am

    Coop, feel free to advance an actual *argument*. But forgive me if I won’t be holding my breath. qb

  3. 22 March 2010 3:34 pm

    Touche, sour grapes, and nyaa, nyaa, nyaa. Didn’t see “arguments” from you when Bush, Cheney, and their congressional allies were thumbing their noses at constitutional substance and procedure.

    So, can we agree on this? “Congress shall have power to . . . declare war.” Thus making Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Desert Storm, OIF, OEF, and beaucoups of covert stuff unconstitutional–despite what the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Blessings!

  4. 22 March 2010 5:24 pm

    Tell ya what, Coop: I’ve only been blogging since late ’05, so feel free to castigate me for things I didn’t say prior to that, if you wish. But you’d have to admit it’s kinda silly.
    —–

    Now, here’s the text of the 9/14/2001 resolution. Do with it what you will:

    107th CONGRESS
    1st Session

    S. J. RES. 23

    JOINT RESOLUTION
    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

    Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

    Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

    Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

    Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
    (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, THE CONGRESS DECLARES THAT THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5(B) OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION (emphasis qb’s).
    (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
    Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

  5. 23 March 2010 5:30 am

    qb,

    Easy big fellow. Authorization is not declaration. My point being that Congress gave up being fastidious in the early days of the Republic. And with regards to war with Jefferson at Tripoli. Stretching the literal, “original” meaning of the Constitution has gone on since the beginning. Parliamentary maneuvers and manipulation, end runs around rules of procedure, and logrolling are nothing new–all parties have used them. “Politics is the art of the possible,” as Bismarck put it, reworking Cicero. Relax. The Republic is safe. The marketplace is safe. (Ask your broker.) If nothing else, take solace in the fact that your Congressman got himself noticed. Whatta country!

    Blessings!

  6. 23 March 2010 1:43 pm

    Therefore, we should just turn our heads and accept it? Not this qb. It may take incremental, baby steps of governmental self-discipline, but the sooner we start, the shorter the road home.

    Plus, here’s a bonus: the Constitution actually gives us a way to change it where we need to. Imagine that!

    qb

  7. 23 March 2010 9:31 pm

    Assuming the Constitution is Holy Writ can get one into trouble. Even assuming Holy Writ is Holy Writ can get one into trouble. Prudence, lad, prudence. Even members of Jefferson’s own party swallowed hard, raised taxes, by voting to buy Louisiana without “constitutional” permission. The prudent thing to do and a huge grant of power to the national government with all its unintended consequences–and boons.

    Blessings!

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: