Dodds bill offends me because...

[bullimiami]

The idea that the need to pass a law to affirm that something which is a constitutional guarantee is followed is offensive.
The fact that they allow a rogue executive branch to break their oaths of office to uphold that constitution is offensive.

What I would like to see is a congressional hearing and impeachment charges for their refusal to obey the laws and constitution they swore to uphold.
What I would also like to see is this brought up to the SCOTUS fo force a ruling from them as to if we have a constitutional democracy or a monarchy.

What good is a law when the constitution, the higher authority, already states it plainly.

[mmonk]

1. That is the proper way to handle it.

The constitution was voted on long ago at the constitutional convention.

[LSK]

2. 51 - 49

And then theres reality.

[bullimiami]

3. 51-49 also means that anything coming out of congress can be vetoed.

[LSK]

4. and new spending cannot be passed

[bullimiami]

5. the thing with spending is both bush and congress are going to have to

comprimise.
a budget must be passed and it takes both the bill and signature or a veto override.

congress has plenty of power on all new budgeting to exert a lot of control.

[LSK]

6. and right now we are working with a budget bill passed last year

[bullimiami]

7. exactly. congress' only real power if they dont have a vetoproof majority is

that they control the money and its always a year behind.