Mr. President: There is No 'Shot Clock' in the Constitution

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
President Obama and his sycophantic supporters have made the argument ad nauseum, that since the House failed to pass a certain Senate bill, within a certain amount of time, that President Obama was free to act on his own to unilaterally "fix" the immigration problem. Conservatives, however, keep bringing this "Constitution" thingy into the argument.

Where in the Constitution does it say that any particular piece of legislation passed in the Senate must be voted on in the House within a certain amount of time, or the President gets a free pass to write his own legislation? Moreover, all the faux indignation and self righteous intonation of "two whole years", "seventeen months*", or "514 days", since the Senate passed an immigration bill, completely overlooks the fact that the House did pass a number of immigration reform bills which Senator Harry Reid (Dimbulb- Searchlight) refused to bring up for a vote in the US Senate. The fact that your opponents will not necessarily vote on a bill they disagree with,  also does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you please.

Even though there is no "shot clock", "pass them or else" time limit on Senate bills, you'd think that sooner or later, the US Senate might get around to actually passing a budget. The Senate hasn't passed a budget since 2009. (That's 1851 days for all you anally retentive, math impaired Democrats). Where was the indignation over this?  Beuller?   Beuller??

And yet, and yet...mirabile dictu! I have not heard a single Republican leader tell us that because the Senate has failed to pass a budget in over five years, that they get a free pass to impose their will upon the nation!

We now return you to the relentless coverage of rioting in Ferguson by those protestors who believe that nothing says 'I want to see justice done' like burning down someone else's business and stealing someone else's stuff.


* We'll forgive math impaired Democrats for not knowing that "two years" and "seventeen months" are not the same!


Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

No comments:

Post a Comment

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.