"They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.

[Twana J]

Nope. You have not understood - the Senate took an existing bill that HAD been started in the House, and changed the wording

From GovTrack:

GovTrack's Bill Summary
This is the Senate's health care bill. The bill started off with text regarding an unrelated matter but the Senate is co-opted this bill as a vehicle for passage of their reform and changed the text in whole to the health care bill. They do this because the Constitution requires all revenue bills to start in the House, and their health reform plan involves revenue. So they have chosen to work off of a bill that started in the House, even if that bill is unrelated.

Here is it's progress:

Introduced Sep 17, 2009
Passed House Oct 08, 2009
Passed Senate with Changes Dec 24, 2009
House Agreed to Changes Mar 21, 2010
Signed by the President Mar 23, 2010

This is the Senate's health care bill. The bill started off with text regarding an unrelated matter but the Senate is co-opted this bill as a vehicle for passage of their reform and changed the text in whole to the health care bill. They do this because the Constitution requires all revenue bills to start in the House, and their health reform plan involves revenue. So they have chosen to work off of a bill that started in the House, even if that bill is unrelated.

This is a Senate Bill . as it states in the first line . Let the lawyers decide but you were wrong . Heres how they got it to pass . Tell me this is not dishonest

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as "gut and amend" and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...it-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=all

 

[MikeC]

You've written up how it happened right there - the bill STARTED in the house - it WENT to the Senate - the Senate then rewrote it ENTIRELY - as your extract shows.

The Bill then passed back to the house who accepted the changes.

The lawyers won't tell me I'm wrong - just like the SC didn't consider this as unconstitutional - I repeat - the Bill STARTED IN THE HOUSE. That is all that is required for it to be constitutional - the subsequent changes do not alter that.

It is legalistic, and the bill certainly is "the Senate's bill" in that they wrote the text - but the constitution does not concern itself with that - only where the bill STARTED. AFAIK in the system you have over there the existence of the bill is the #, not the contents - the contents can be amended, and in this case the amendments were extreme!!

HR (House Resolution) 3590 STARTED in the House - even if it then had it's meaning changed in the senate.

Call it legalistic trickery if you like - I would agree with you - but it is not unconstitutional.

You may choose to call it dishonest, but the process is apparently well enough known in your Govt to have a name, and the SC didn't consider it a problem.

I have capitalised "started" a lot - because that is the issue you are arguing.

Your system allows that a bill can start in the house, be completely rewritten in the senate to mean something completely different to it's origin, and still count as having STARTED in the house.

 

[Joe Newman]

CT'ers have many legitimate and rational points of view, and even points of fact.

Evidence, please.

 

[Pete Tar]

Evidence, please.

I didn't say that. MikeC did.

 

[Joe Newman]

I didn't say that. MikeC did.

Right you are. That's a weird one. Don't know how that happened. Must have been dazed by the idea that somebody here was saying something positive about cters.

 

[Twana J]

You've written up how it happened right there - the bill STARTED in the house - it WENT to the Senate - the Senate then rewrote it ENTIRELY - as your extract shows.

The Bill then passed back to the house who accepted the changes.

The lawyers won't tell me I'm wrong - just like the SC didn't consider this as unconstitutional - I repeat - the Bill STARTED IN THE HOUSE. That is all that is required for it to be constitutional - the subsequent changes do not alter that.

It is legalistic, and the bill certainly is "the Senate's bill" in that they wrote the text - but the constitution does not concern itself with that - only where the bill STARTED. AFAIK in the system you have over there the existence of the bill is the #, not the contents - the contents can be amended, and in this case the amendments were extreme!!

HR (House Resolution) 3590 STARTED in the House - even if it then had it's meaning changed in the senate.

Call it legalistic trickery if you like - I would agree with you - but it is not unconstitutional.

You may choose to call it dishonest, but the process is apparently well enough known in your Govt to have a name, and the SC didn't consider it a problem.

I have capitalised "started" a lot - because that is the issue you are arguing.

Your system allows that a bill can start in the house, be completely rewritten in the senate to mean something completely different to it's origin, and still count as having STARTED in the house.

It is Tyranny .

 

[MikeC]

Oh right - sorry - that makes it all perfectly clear!!

 

[Bill]

It is Tyranny .

Just because you don't like that doesn't make it tyranny. The bill followed the procedures set up by our laws, the house had the chance to reject changes made by the Senate, instead the bill passed both houses in a final form, was signed by the sitting president and was vetted by the Supreme Court.

 

[Twana J]

Just because you don't like that doesn't make it tyranny. The bill followed the procedures set up by our laws, the house had the chance to reject changes made by the Senate, instead the bill passed both houses in a final form, was signed by the sitting president and was vetted by the Supreme Court.

It was passed by using a trick . It was passed by one party (the Democrats) and at the time was very unpopular . They had to lie to get it passed . It passed in a lame duck session of congress , It was deemed a tax when we were told is wasn't and only on that was it upheld by The Supreme court . Not exactly vetted by the supreme court . basically crammed down the throats of the American people . Its is a disaster it is not affordable whatsoever . It is TYRANNY it was against the will of most Americans .

 

[Twana J]

Oh right - sorry - that makes it all perfectly clear!!

Does it make it right ?

 

[MikeC]

"Gut and Amend" is a well established procedure - albeit certainly a controversial one - eg see this article from 2002 referring to California State legislation

It has been used on all sorts of bills probably hundreds of times over the history of the USA.

The popularity or otherwise of legislation is not a measure of tyranny - y'all are apparently proud of having a "representative republic" that some people think isn't a democracy - well it means your representatives decide what gets passed - not Gallup polls.

the only way you can change that is to change your constitution to give some other form of government.

It is still not tyranny just because you don't like it.

 

[Bill]

It was passed by using a trick . It was passed by one party (the Democrats) and at the time was very unpopular . They had to lie to get it passed . It passed in a lame duck session of congress , It was deemed a tax when we were told is wasn't and only on that was it upheld by The Supreme court . Not exactly vetted by the supreme court . basically crammed down the throats of the American people . Its is a disaster it is not affordable whatsoever . It is TYRANNY it was against the will of most Americans .

No it was passed by using a perfectly legitimate process. The house had to chance to reject the changes and chose to let the language stand. Americans elected the officials that put it in place and apparently aren't concerned enough about it to change the make-up of the Senate you seem to think tricked people or put a new president in office at the last election. You can rant all you want but the facts and the election don't back you up. I'm going to guess tyranny is just a word to you and you've never had the chance to live someplace where martial law was in place and military police were a common sight on the street because your definition of the word seems to be extremely liberal.

 

[Twana J]

"Gut and Amend" is a well established procedure - albeit certainly a controversial one - eg see this article from 2002 referring to California State legislation

It has been used on all sorts of bills probably hundreds of times over the history of the USA.

The popularity or otherwise of legislation is not a measure of tyranny - y'all are apparently proud of having a "representative republic" that some people think isn't a democracy - well it means your representatives decide what gets passed - not Gallup polls.

the only way you can change that is to change your constitution to give some other form of government.

It is still not tyranny just because you don't like it.

Do you have a example of any Major bills in The United States where this tactic was used ?

 

[solrey]

I'm going to guess tyranny is just a word to you and you've never had the chance to live someplace where martial law was in place and military police were a common sight on the street because your definition of the word seems to be extremely liberal.

That's what I was thinking. I've seen tyranny first hand during 3 months in Liberia under Samuel Doe. Twana doesn't know from tyranny.

 

[Twana J]

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others

There's nothing illegal about gut-and-amend. Whether it's ethical is another matter. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/prop-zero/Gut-And-Amend-Legislation-California-131151328.html

So who cares if its unethical ?

 

[Twana J]

That's what I was thinking. I've seen tyranny first hand during 3 months in Liberia under Samuel Doe. Twana doesn't know from tyranny.

Id like to avoid tyranny . Do you think it just happens overnight ? Maybe we arent there yet but we are heading that way . Tyranny In America would be tyranny for the world

 

[Twana J]

That's what I was thinking. I've seen tyranny first hand during 3 months in Liberia under Samuel Doe. Twana doesn't know from tyranny.

Im sure it was much better after he left .

Doe's forces were defeated. He was captured and overthrown on 9 September 1990. Following his capture, he was tortured before being executed, and his body was dismembered and eaten by his captors.

 

[solrey]

Id like to avoid tyranny . Do you think it just happens overnight ? Maybe we arent there yet but we are heading that way . Tyranny In America would be tyranny for the world

Often tyranny does happen "overnight" as in the case of Liberia when Samuel Doe led a coup against a constitutional democracy. Indeed, after Charles Taylor took control of Liberia he began his own reign of tyranny. You might be able to quote a definition of tyranny but you obviously have not seen it in action or have a practical idea of how it actually manifests.

 

[Bill]

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others

There's nothing illegal about gut-and-amend. Whether it's ethical is another matter. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/prop-zero/Gut-And-Amend-Legislation-California-131151328.html

So who cares if its unethical ?

From the example you chose the ACA has nothing to do with tyranny. It was passed by a legally elected government within the the frame work of United State Law. As has been stated before: just because you don't like that doesn't make it tyranny.

 

[solrey]

Im sure it was much better after he left .

Doe's forces were defeated. He was captured and overthrown on 9 September 1990. Following his capture, he was tortured before being executed, and his body was dismembered and eaten by his captors.

You know nothing about Liberia. It was actually far worse under Taylor who is currently doing 50 years for war crimes. Even to this day, Liberia is still trying to pick up the pieces and rebuild some form of normalcy.

 

[Twana J]

Often tyranny does happen "overnight" as in the case of Liberia when Samuel Doe led a coup against a constitutional democracy. Indeed, after Charles Taylor took control of Liberia he began his own reign of tyranny. You might be able to quote a definition of tyranny but you obviously have not seen it in action or have a practical idea of how it actually manifests.

Nor do I want to either . Im sure it manifest in many ways depending on the country . What was the tyranny Under British rule ? Im sure it was nothing like Liberia ?

 

[Twana J]

You know nothing about Liberia. It was actually far worse under Taylor who is currently doing 50 years for war crimes. Even to this day, Liberia is still trying to pick up the pieces and rebuild some form of normalcy.

I know as much as Google lets me about Liberia . Sounds tyrannical beyond my imagination . But For a third world nation in Africa Im sure its quite common .

 

[Bill]

I know as much as Google lets me about Liberia . Sounds tyrannical beyond my imagination . But For a third world nation in Africa Im sure its quite common .

Wow! You are either extremely uninformed or you just love broad generalizations.

 

[Cairenn]

I hate it when folks in free countries like the US and the UK start waving the 'flag of tyranny' when the government does something they don't agree with. The amount of freedoms we have are basically unavailable elsewhere. The UK is not as free as the US is. The only areas with more 'freedom' are areas where 'freedom' comes with a gun or other weapon enforcing it. Of course that is only freedom for the person with the weapon.

 

[Twana J]

I hate it when folks in free countries like the US and the UK start waving the 'flag of tyranny' when the government does something they don't agree with. The amount of freedoms we have are basically unavailable elsewhere. The UK is not as free as the US is. The only areas with more 'freedom' are areas where 'freedom' comes with a gun or other weapon enforcing it. Of course that is only freedom for the person with the weapon.

Large Employers Reducing Benefits Due to Obamacare

 

[Twana J]

Wow! You are either extremely uninformed or you just love broad generalizations.

Would you like me to list the many other nations In that part of the world that have or had tyrannical leaders ? It those who think everything is fine all the time who wind up when its too late living under a tyrant .

 

[Bill]

Would you like me to list the many other nations In that part of the world that have or had tyrannical leaders ? It those who think everything is fine all the time who wind up when its too late living under a tyrant .

But For a third world nation in Africa Im sure its quite common .

I'm sure you can list lots of things you look up, I'm just not sure you know anything beyond the names and dates you can look up. Your knowledge of tyranny and oppression seems to extend as far my side isn't getting its way. Please stop reinforcing the uninformed American stereotype, it makes the rest of us look bad.

 

[Twana J]

I'm sure you can list lots of things you look up, I'm just not sure you know anything beyond the names and dates you can look up. Your knowledge of tyranny and oppression seems to extend as far my side isn't getting its way. Please stop reinforcing the uninformed American stereotype, it makes the rest of us look bad.

You already look bad because you failed to recognize what is really coming and the truth . It is Lurking around the corner and your petty insults mean youve lost the argument . Who did you vote for last election ?

 

[MikeC]

Do you have a example of any Major bills in The United States where this tactic was used ?

Sure - ACA.

apart from that you might like to research the several hundred such bills each year since 2009:

The totals for each year are:
2009 - 723 bills (108 of which were from an extraordinary session)
2011 - 418 bills
2013 - 464 bills

 

[Bill]

You already look bad because you failed to recognize what is really coming and the truth . It is Lurking around the corner and your petty insults mean youve lost the argument . Who did you vote for last election ?

Again you're talking about tyranny without any real understanding of it. Even the definition you used citing Plato and Aristotle shows you don't have a real understanding since nothing has been enacted illegally. I don't see how it matters since it doesn't change the fact that the ACA was enacted legally and not by the efforts of a tyrant but I voted Gary Johnson for president. I'm just not letting the facts be swayed my political views.

Edit: BTW I'm not being petty. This is an international forum and you really are embarrassing.

 

[Bill]

Sure - ACA.

apart from that you might like to research the several hundred such bills each year since 2009:

The totals for each year are:
2009 - 723 bills (108 of which were from an extraordinary session)
2011 - 418 bills
2013 - 464 bills

Do you know a source that goes back through the Bush Administration.

 

[MikeC]

I suggest looking at this paper on "The shell bill game" as a good primer for how the system works, and the legality and practice of "gut and amend"

It also lists some fairly important Federal legislation that has used the process including:

....Affordable Care Act, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and even the Tax Reform Act of 1986,..."

 

[Joe Newman]

Just because you don't like that doesn't make it tyranny.

He's right, you know. There's no need to label it inaccurately.

 

[Joe Newman]

Americans elected the officials that put it in place and apparently aren't concerned enough about it to change the make-up of the Senate you seem to think tricked people or put a new president in office at the last election.

Oh, I would imagine that there's going to be something of a shakeup in the next elections as folks experience the effects of Obamacare. The dems are saddled with this albatros and it is showing signs of being the grift that keeps on giving.

 

[Bill]

Oh, I would imagine that there's going to be something of a shakeup in the next elections as folks experience the effects of Obamacare. The dems are saddled with this albatros and it is showing signs of being the grift that keeps on giving.

You may be right about that but we Americans seem to believe that the problem is the other person's representative and the status quo ends up standing. Combine that with politicians protected by gerrymandering and I see little hope for any real change.

 

[Joe Newman]

I hate it when folks in free countries like the US and the UK start waving the 'flag of tyranny' when the government does something they don't agree with. The amount of freedoms we have are basically unavailable elsewhere. The UK is not as free as the US is. The only areas with more 'freedom' are areas where 'freedom' comes with a gun or other weapon enforcing it. Of course that is only freedom for the person with the weapon.

The idea that the US is a still as free a country as it has traditionally been is as off base as it being a tyranny. But there is no question that our liberties are being eroded in many ways and the apparatus for marital law and the police state that people are concerned about is coming into place bit by bit.

The overheated rhetoric of an AJ is unfortunate in that the hyperbole obscures the very real deal that is taking place bit by bit. The frog isn't boiled yet, but it's in the pot and the temperature's rising. Were something to occur to cause a large scale civil disturbance there's no question that the apparatus is in place to deal with it in a draconian fashion.

 

[Joe Newman]

You may be right about that but we Americans seem to believe that the problem is the other person's representative and the status quo ends up standing. Combine that with politicians protected by gerrymandering and I see little hope for any real change.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I was only referring to a round of throw the bums out. To be sure it would just be a new set of bums put in or watch the well-meaning non-bums be bummed by the system, which is rotten to the core. So I agree with you re the lack of change.

 

[MikeC]

You may be right about that but we Americans seem to believe that the problem is the other person's representative and the status quo ends up standing. Combine that with politicians protected by gerrymandering and I see little hope for any real change.

Hard to argue with - especially with a relatively hide-bound system like the US - with an entrenched constitution that is virtually worshiped when it suits someone, and a massive electorate of vastly differing constituencies.

Smaller counties have occasionally managed substantial change - eg New Zealand has gone from bi-cameral Westminster parliament to unicameral (about 1951 I think), then to mixed-member-proportional (MMP) which has really persisted off many of the 2 previously dominant parties - but also some of the "new" parties that have gained representation who don't like that OTHER "new" parties can help the "other side" become government with coalitions....so they are looking at "fixing the problems" with MMP.......which are only problems when it doesn't suit THEM!

 

[Twana J]

Sure - ACA.

apart from that you might like to research the several hundred such bills each year since 2009:

The totals for each year are:
2009 - 723 bills (108 of which were from an extraordinary session)
2011 - 418 bills
2013 - 464 bills

I said major bills Mike . Give me a example of 1 ?

 

[Twana J]

Again you're talking about tyranny without any real understanding of it. Even the definition you used citing Plato and Aristotle shows you don't have a real understanding since nothing has been enacted illegally. I don't see how it matters since it doesn't change the fact that the ACA was enacted legally and not by the efforts of a tyrant but I voted Gary Johnson for president. I'm just not letting the facts be swayed my political views.

Edit: BTW I'm not being petty. This is an international forum and you really are embarrassing.

No I think most outside your apologist bubble around the world would agree with me . Look up the approval ratings of our government should also tell you something . Insurance and Finance Hmm ?