Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is going a step beyond simply pledging to fight efforts to pass the health care bill -- she's openly pronouncing that people should personally declare it unconstitutional and defy it, depending on how it ends up getting passed.To recap, Michele Bachmann, sitting lawmaker in Congress, is advocating open rebellion and revolution against a bill Congress may soon pass into law because...she doesn't like paying for it. An active member of the federal government is preaching the illegitimacy of that government. Process questions aside, she's a government employee actively telling people to not pay taxes and not follow the law. Isn't that, you know, illegal? Can you imagine the calls for resignation from the entire right wing noise machine if a Democrat went to a rally and said the same thing about legislation Bush passed into law?
At a rally at the Minnesota State Capitol on Saturday, Bachmann declared illegitimate the potential route that House Democrats could take to pass the health care bill. She was specifically railing against a parliamentary tactic by which the House could skip voting on the Senate bill by declaring it passed as part of the reconciliation bill. Bachmann pronounced this to be taxation without representation. "They have just started a revolution -- and they did it," said Bachmann.
"But mark my words, the American people aren't gonna take this lying down," Bachmann later said. "We aren't gonna play their game, we're not gonna pay their taxes. They want us to pay for this? Because we don't have to. We don't have to. We don't have to follow a bill that isn't law. That's not the American way, and that's not what we're going to do."
At what point does Bachmann resign in protest from the government she so clearly despises?
At what point is she forced out by a Minnesota public embarrassed to have as representing them?
Posts
6 comments:
Actually, as crazy as she normally is, shes right.
Arthur Fergenson a guy who is a renowned constitutional expert agreed that if they pass this using the rule coined "Slaughter Solution" that it would not be law under the constitution and we the people will not have to be subjected to it.
Quite frankly I go back to my prior points of if this is so great why are they looking for any possible way to pass this OTHER than just flat out voting on it? Because they do not have the support. If they did it would be law already. Instead they are looking at any possible way and the best they can come up with is something that will be tied up in litigation for months if not years in front of the US Supreme Court.
And as is typical when someone is trying to make someone else look like an ass, you left off part of what she said
"If they pass the bill legitimately, then yes, we have to follow the law -- until we repeal it. But if they pass it illegitimately, then the bill is illegitimate, and we don't have to lay down for this...."
Shes stating if passed out right then its legitimate, her beef is with the way they are looking to do it which is potentially unconstitutional.
Um, reconcilitation is completely legit and was used many times when Bush was in office. And the bill has already passed in the Senateby a supermajority.
Pay attention idiot, we're talking about something completely different.
Here I'll throw you a bone
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/House-aide-confirms-Salughter-Solution-never-used-before-87518412.html
And so the response to this is to break the law.
Even if the law was passed without the "Slaughter Rule" she would still say she wasn't going to follow it.
This is a sitting GOP member of Congress saying it is illegitimate because Democrats are in charge of it.
First off you said:
"Even if the law was passed"
Its a bill, not a law
And second as I posted above since you omitted it she stated
"If they pass the bill legitimately, then yes, we have to follow the law..."
You can throw opinion in where you want but I'm sticking to facts. As it stands now the House does not have the votes to pass the Senate bill and are looking at alternatives that are bordering the possibility of being unconstitutional and that's what Michelle Bachmann was referring to in the article you linked. So staying within the context of this blog entry and discussion you're wrong
Post a Comment