HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » McConnell falsely claims ...

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:05 PM

McConnell falsely claims new bills passed by the House are 'unconstitutional'

Source: American Independent



By Josh Israel -May 22, 2020 1:22 PM

It's likely another excuse to block House-passed legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell claimed on Thursday that any legislation passed by the House of Representatives under its new temporary work-from-home system could be unconstitutional.

The House adopted a 45-day emergency rule earlier this month allowing members to designate a colleague to cast their votes on the floor during the pandemic.

In remarks from the Senate floor on Thursday, the majority leader expressed frustration with the safety measure.

"The Constitution requires a physical quorum to do business. Normally both chambers may presume one. But any House member has a right to demand an in-person attendance check," he explained.

Read more: https://americanindependent.com/mitch-mcconnell-house-bills-unconstitutional-remote-voting-coronavirus-senate-congress/



-snip-

Okay #Moscow Mitch, you have 7 little fascist senators in your caucus that are going to be voted out of office, and you presently have a House bill sitting on your desk called the Hero's Act........which is mandated by the constitution, whatever constitution you are reading, well it's full of crap.........and I think its time to start the phone calling to those senators that are going to lose there seats........after all 40 million human beings need that Hero's Act and they ( those seven senators) are getting a $174,000 a year pay check paid for by taxpayers, and we the taxpayers want that Heroes Act legislation passed, (those are are tax dollars, we need help) ...........and no matter how you try to spin your libertarian BS and create deflection .............it will not work........you cannot make up your own rules ........................you somewhat got away with your crap twice............but not this time............maybe you should re-read this little factoid............

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/144/1/

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Politico this week that McConnell was wrong. "Remote voting by proxy is fully consistent with the Constitution and more than a century of legal precedent, including Supreme Court cases, that make clear the House can determine its own rules," the California Democrat said."

26 replies, 3233 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply McConnell falsely claims new bills passed by the House are 'unconstitutional' (Original post)
turbinetree May 22 OP
Evolve Dammit May 22 #1
Midnight Writer May 22 #2
LastLiberal in PalmSprings May 23 #19
Maven May 22 #3
47of74 May 22 #4
duforsure May 22 #5
bigtree May 22 #6
BigOleDummy May 22 #7
calimary May 22 #8
bucolic_frolic May 22 #9
Thekaspervote May 22 #10
kyburbonkid May 22 #11
warmfeet May 22 #12
Hong Kong Cavalier May 22 #13
smb May 29 #24
marble falls May 22 #14
roamer65 May 22 #15
TomSlick May 22 #16
smb May 24 #21
TomSlick May 24 #22
smb May 29 #25
TomSlick May 29 #26
Capt. America May 23 #17
Marcuse May 23 #18
area51 May 23 #20
Brainfodder May 25 #23

Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:08 PM

1. Move to Moscow. They will give you a hero's welcome. Traitor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:14 PM

2. Perhaps the Court can rule on this from their remote locations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnight Writer (Reply #2)

Sat May 23, 2020, 10:16 AM

19. Moscow Mitch keeps grabbing more power.

He's grabbed the power of the president by not letting a bill be voted on "because the president would veto it."

He's grabbed the power of the SCOTUS by declaring a bill "unconstitutional," which is not his role.

What a turtle-faced shit hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:18 PM

3. This thread should come with a "GRAPHIC" warning. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:31 PM

4. Mitch McTraitor should go fuck himself

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:33 PM

5. How stupid

McConnell proves again how stupid he is not knowing the Constitution. No wonder him and trump are such close buddies. Birds of a feather.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:38 PM

6. McConnell unconstitutionally denied President Obama a hearing on his Supreme Court nominee

...denied the president's authority under Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.

" (He) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Notwithstanding the Senate's responsibility to 'advise and consent,' the sole power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, under the Constitution, lies with the President.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:49 PM

7. Moscow Mitch

Is running some pretty vicious attack ads targeting Amy McGrath already. I live in the Louisville Metro area and haven't seen a one from her yet. I watch very very little tv so that isn't totally unsurprising in and of itself though. He's painting her as an extremely liberal leftist. Amy is anything but that but ole Moscow has a pretty good firm making them I must admit. If you can spare an extra buck or two , sending it her way wouldn't hurt.................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:52 PM

8. Look at those bloodshot eyes.

He is sheer ugliness. Outside and inside.

Especially inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 03:57 PM

9. Merrick Garland, Act II

Torch the Constitution with gasoline this time.

Don't just ignore your duties, proclaim yourself the Supreme Court and rule on aspects of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 05:14 PM

10. Turtle is going back to Kentucky come Nov!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 08:00 PM

11. God help us ...

Help us Kentuckians boot this guy once and for all. We've been so close. I'm ashamed to share the same zipcode with this Federalist society infatuated wing nut prick. Old pumpkin head, turtle face has got to go if we are to ever return to a normal progressive society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 08:08 PM

12. Tar and feathers used to be a thing.

Where did this fine tradition go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 08:29 PM

13. I look forward to reading his obituary. Hopefully from something self-inflicted

The world won't be a better place until he's no longer in it.

And no, that's not a threat to him. I just hope that he croaks soon.

I never thought this way under Dubya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hong Kong Cavalier (Reply #13)

Fri May 29, 2020, 07:28 AM

24. A Quote I'd Love To See In Moscow Mitch's Obit

"You know there are worse ways to go, but I canít think of a more undignified one than autoerotic asphyxiation."
--The X-Files, "Clyde Bruckmanís Final Repose"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 08:32 PM

14. When has Constitutionality ever bothered Moscow's Mitch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 09:43 PM

15. Moscow Mitch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Fri May 22, 2020, 09:56 PM

16. As much as it pains me to say this, Moscow Mitch may have a point.

Article I, Section 5(1) provides:

"...a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

A good argument can be made that the only things either house can do in the absence of a quorum are adjourn until a quorum is present and compel truant members to appear.

The counter argument is in the next sentence, Article I, Section 5(2):

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . ."

My conclusion is that the more specific rule concerning a quorum would control over the general rule-making provision, otherwise there would be no purpose for the specific quorum provision, which would be reduced to mere surplusage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #16)

Sun May 24, 2020, 05:51 PM

21. The Only Point He Has Is On Top Of His Turtle Head

"...a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

i.e. the House may require absent members to teleconference in. End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smb (Reply #21)

Sun May 24, 2020, 06:37 PM

22. I take "end of discussion" to mean you are not interested in the counter argument.

That being the case, I will not set it out.

If you want to hear the counter argument, let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #22)

Fri May 29, 2020, 07:33 AM

25. If I Want To Read Illogic, I'll Subscribe To il Doofus' Twitter Feed

Obviously, a clause that says the House may require members to attend in such manner as the House decides addresses a different issue (indeed, a completely non-intersecting issue) from a clause that says the House sets the rules for its proceedings -- the former pertains to members who are not participating in the proceedings; the latter pertains to members who are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smb (Reply #25)

Fri May 29, 2020, 11:24 PM

26. In my years of practicing trial and appellate law,

when someone claims an asserted position is obviously true, the matter is hardly obvious.

I quoted Article I, Section 5(1): "...a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

Under this provision, a majority of the house constitutes a quorum. Absent a quorum, the only actions the house may take is to adjourn from day to day and to compel the attendance of the truant members.

I also quoted Article I, Section 5(2): "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . ."

The longstanding definition of "quorum" is the minimum number of a body that must be present for the conduct of business. The question is whether Section 5(2) allows a house to determine by rule that a quorum can be met by proxy or virtual attendance contrary to the usual meaning of "quorum."

It seems to be an interesting question of constitutional history and construction, the final determination of which is hardly obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Sat May 23, 2020, 12:40 AM

17. Please Kentucky fire this man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Sat May 23, 2020, 08:58 AM

18. Each House "may provide" the "Manner" by which "Attendance" is compelled.

ď...and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Sat May 23, 2020, 10:11 PM

20. Confederate "Moscow Mitch" sez what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Original post)

Mon May 25, 2020, 03:36 AM

23. Endlessly punchable face spews what?

K&R

We all know he is awful in human form, 'nuff said in about 50 other posts involving this asshole over time?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread