Pelosi asks President to “respect Constitution” on pork bill while gutting minority caucus rights for Republicans.
By paulseale Posted in Congress — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
According to National Review Online Pelosi made a comment regarding the President "respecting the Constitution" after Bush threatened to veto Democrat's pork laiden emergency defense bill.
At a news conference today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked President Bush to "calm down with the threats...there's a new Congress in town."
She was asked about the President's promise of a veto to the war spending bill that calls for a timeline for withdrawal.
"I wish the president would take a deep breath and respect our constitutional role," she said.
Keep in mind this is coming from the party who is seeking to exploit priviledged communications within the executive branch and who will make the rules for the minority party even more draconian after Easter recess.
Statements like the above from Nancy Pelosi coupled with laws which bribe our representatives to vote for defeat lead me to believe that America is in a dark time. What it comes down to is you can give them what they want and agree with them or be labeled as being "disrespectful of the Constitution" or breaking the law; or both.
Remember folks, elections have consequences.
I may not understand everthing 100% since I live here in SW Missouri and I do not live there on the Hill, but from what I understand - yes.
Like some cheese with that whine?
She wants the President to tone it down, after these cynical dishonest, corrupt, lying, seditious democrats have spent literally years falsely accusing President Bush and the VP of every crime and offense under the sun?
Laugh in her face.
Turnabout being fair play. Never Mind.
Care to point out the republicans trying to stop a war by losing it ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
to restricting the rights of the minority party, not the non-binding time-table. Sorry for the confusion.
Just judging by results.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What Constitution is Pelosi reading?
...I can't read it. Something about it being in Russian.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
It's all that breathing thingy! The words have gotten so distorted between each breath they've become wholly unrecognizable.
What was once thought to have clear meaning and purpose, and what was accepted precedent for nearly two-hundred years, apparently has no meaning or standing other than what is defined by the Court of Political Correctness™ under the guidance of the most current public opinion poll or the latest ACLU brief.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Then focus about a foot beyond. After about 30 seconds things start to pop out.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"After about 30 seconds things start to pop out."
And then, on the very next breath, one is immediately reduced to scratching their head in disbelief, totally befuddled. Pnumbras?.... Eminations?.... Fairness?.... Social Justice?.... International Law?
That really was very good!.... "30 seconds."
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
If you cross your eyes hard enough, you'll find a Privacy Provision in the Bill of rights. You know, the one that Roe v. Wade is based on - I've never been able to find it in the constitution, not it turns out I _was_ reading it wrong. It's good to know, after all these years that the SCOTUS wouldn't really base a ruling on an "unwritten law".
Now, I could only find the phrase "separation of church and state"; all I've ever found was a provision banning *Congress* from establishing a state religion. I just know theres something in there prohibiting creches in front of the local city hall...
It must be there, because it is well established that the Second Amendment has no other meaning.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Some elements of the current regime might not fully appreciate it but it aims high.
It’s very telling about the former Soviet Union that this must be spelled-out... in writing... in the constitution.
1. Human dignity shall be protected by the State. Nothing may serve as a basis for its derogation.
2. No one shall be subject to torture, violence or other severe or humiliating treatment or punishment. No one may be subject to medical, scientific and other experiments without voluntary consent.
But, you’re absolutely right about having “lofty” goals. The preamble reads like one, long uninterrupted LeftistTalkingPoint.™
Apparently, the former KGB is unimpressed.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
and the American public one again rolls over and allows this to go on. Until the "silent majority" starts taking a stand, this hypocrisy will continue. These people are gleeful over the shredding of anything that stands in their way. They no longer stand for anything protecting the American people. We
are just pawns on a checkerboard to be moved at their will because we simply stand by and watch and write a check to support them. It is nuts!!
We will get what the people asked for when they didn't cast
their votes and stayed home in rebellion. I for one am deeply
concerned for the welfare of the people of this country. Anything goes when it comes to getting a vote. Ms. Pelosi
could not have spoken louder.
The "silent majority" has gotten ambivalent so I don't expect much more than reaction politics for a long time to come.
My hope is that a sane conservative voice who preaches(and acts) "inclusively" will create a majority again.
Ironic that she would say something like that about a bill where she is trumpeting a blatant violation of our constitution. Perhaps she has failed to read Article 2, Section 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Not only is she playing games with the House rules, but the way the Constitution is working now is more or less the way it's supposed to work. "Constitutional role" ... she must be playing for the camera, because she can't possibly be as stupid as she sounds.
--
See the Academy
Anger first comes to mind. Apparently, BDS was the controlling factor. Pelosi made an entirely predictable emotional response directed at President Bush, because he clearly and plainly told the Democrats to "Go Pound Sand."
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
clearly she believes her constituents are. Considering her background as a businesswoman, she probably isn't very different from Leonora Helmsley.
that she can't be?
" because she can't possibly be as stupid as she sounds."
Promoting bill after bill, that helps no one except the enemies fighting our nation leads me to believe she can be.
as 'first female speaker' has gone to her big head. Lefties can whine about our saying it all they want, but she is acting like she was just elected queen of the planet.
News flash, Nan; if the Speaker was supposed to be able to trump the President, Newt would have gutted everything Clintonian.
all those alleged conservatives who think divided government is a great thing. Great work guys. Hope you're happy.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
visiting Syria, a House and Senate signaling to the enemy with timetables what they must do to defeat us; and a decidedly non-libertarian majority in both houses of congress. Nice work. Have a doobie.
great post streif
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Then we kill this ridicules idea that us libertarians are switching camps and siding with liberals because Republicans are getting so much more evil and draconian.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
also that their is a growing movement to such bans here on Tobacco Road!
In fact, I will be devoting one of my Charlotte Observer op-eds soon to a conservative defense of libertarian private proerty rights as sacrosanct and the one main key to Liberty.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I assume these new rules are in addition to the already suspended regular order that has not been seen in this "new" congress? I was under the impression these "special" rules were only needed to pass the critical "first hundred hours" collection of bunk.