Does anyone know what HR 4138: EXECUTIVE NEEDS TO FAITHFULLY OBSERVE AND RE- SPECT CONGRESSIONAL ENACT- MENTS OF THE LAW ACT OF 2014, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDER- ATION OF H.R. 3973, FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW ACT OF 2014
is about? I just can’t quite wrap my head around it?
The first one lets Congress sue the President if he refuses to enforce some silly-ass unconstitutional law they passed to their liking. Nose to the grindstone, and we’ll sue your ass if you don’t do it quickly! Chop chop!
When in office, I’ve noticed that Republicans will either remove the progress made by Democrats by repealing things or de-funding things or giving tax cuts to everyone in sight, if they have the votes, or they will stall and spend time suing and investigating and holding doomed votes 50 times in a row.
When you elect people to government who believe there shouldn’t be a government, it’s not at all surprising that the only things they manage to do while in office are to tear it down, or stick their thumbs in their asses.
Thanks, I thought that’s what it was about, but, though I read a lot of these, it just seemed to odd to be true …
Wait a minute. Why didn’t you two post these? This stuff is more important that news reports that either side will claim is just bias. If you follow the CR and you can grasp the political implications of various bills, you should be keeping us informed.
Not conclusively stupid. The Bible is full of examples of God punishing the innocent along with, or sometimes even instead of, the guilty.
I’m not sure I see the point or how that situation would come up in the first place. Either Congress passes a law, the President agrees with it and enforces it ; or he vetoes it. Or is 4138 supposed to be a “constitution schmonstitution, veto schmeto” type thing ? A stand against executive orders, what ?
Regardless, lawmakers who come up with “meaningful”, tortured acronyms to name their bills oughta be shot.
It’s a stand against Executive Orders, budget allocations, enforcement priorities, and a wholesale power-grab by Congress, or at least the nutball wing thereof.
I am usually on the web to relax. I’ll comment on stuff but I’m not industrious enough (generally) to actively seek out examples.
I do appreciate those who bring the links. We wouldn’t have as much to discuss without them, and we would all be less entertained.
Kudos guys.
Yes! Campfield! /high-five/ I knew it without looking. Fucking mouthbreather.
John McCain Unloads On Senate Republicans: ‘I Haven’t Been Embarrassed This Way’
I didn’t know McCain was still capable of feeling shame or embarrassment.
It’s part of my job to read this stuff, and identify bills that might effect my company (just in case the phalanx of lawyers we employ or retain miss something).
I am not a lawyer, politician, lobbyist, or, obviously, a law clerk or legislative staff, so if a bill isn’t directly related to my industry, I am useless for figuring out the political basis for it. So I really appreciate it when someone can re-assure me, “yes, that is nuts”.
Thank you, and let me know if you ever need the enforcement practices on medical products interpreted.
Well, of course, public schools can always operate at a profit by hiring out their students as kiddie-whores and rent-a-slaves; and most school districts do.
What do you mean, it was only mine?
Game, set, and match.
You need to feed your head.
That’s social ownership of the means of reproduction. Totally different thing.
I suspect it has to do with the Obama administration’s refusing to direct the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General to defend the Defense of Marriage Act when it is challenged before federal courts.
An amazing and just move which opens him up to legitimate criticism about not enforcing an existing law.
But that’s like not enforcing a law upholding slavery. There are some laws so poorly thought-out and indefensible that it is an act of justice to not uphold them.
One attempt down, another 49 to go to catch up with “Repeal Obamacare!!!”