Tugboat1988
01-09-2008, 02:19 PM
Constitutional Processes on bills
Article 1, Section 3: the senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, and each senator shall have one vote.
Article V: ...and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of it equal suffrage in the senate.
OH, I see. The senate is made up of two senators that vote in the senate as representatives of the state from which they come from, and Amendment XVII changed only the way senators are appointed (err, elected). They still represent the State and the contract of Union that binds the State.
OH, the contract of Union...humm. Enabling Act providing for admission of (state) on an equal footing with the original States.... yes.
Required to adopt the Constitution which is dependent upon the Bill of Rights.
The Senate is supposed to check bills against the contract of Union because it represents the State.
Requires that the state constitution, and thereby their laws, are not repubnant to the US Constitution or the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
And requires that all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of the Enabling Act, whether passed by the legislature or by Congress, are repealed by authority of the agreement of Union. So, the Enabling Act voids much of the act itself, but it does not void the requirement of the State and it’s subdivisions from abiding by the U. S. Constitution.
Well then, the senate failed to do its Constitutional requirement to monitor a bill thereby guarding against acts or parts of acts that are repulsive to the contract of Union.
But wait, there is a safety valves, but it's usually just as undependable. Article II, Section 3: ...he (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The first test would to take care that the law is constitutional. If not, he should faithfully veto the bill.
OH MY! Three points of failure, isn't there? Let's count them. 1)the senate failed to catch a bill that was repulsive to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. 2)the State legislatures did not react, complain, or call the bill void by the authority of the agreement of Union. 3)the President of the United States did not take care to see that the bill he signed was faithfully executed. 4)and the American public is so greatly dumbed down that it has no clue.
Which politician understands this, and would abide by it? Hummmm?
Article 1, Section 3: the senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, and each senator shall have one vote.
Article V: ...and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of it equal suffrage in the senate.
OH, I see. The senate is made up of two senators that vote in the senate as representatives of the state from which they come from, and Amendment XVII changed only the way senators are appointed (err, elected). They still represent the State and the contract of Union that binds the State.
OH, the contract of Union...humm. Enabling Act providing for admission of (state) on an equal footing with the original States.... yes.
Required to adopt the Constitution which is dependent upon the Bill of Rights.
The Senate is supposed to check bills against the contract of Union because it represents the State.
Requires that the state constitution, and thereby their laws, are not repubnant to the US Constitution or the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
And requires that all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of the Enabling Act, whether passed by the legislature or by Congress, are repealed by authority of the agreement of Union. So, the Enabling Act voids much of the act itself, but it does not void the requirement of the State and it’s subdivisions from abiding by the U. S. Constitution.
Well then, the senate failed to do its Constitutional requirement to monitor a bill thereby guarding against acts or parts of acts that are repulsive to the contract of Union.
But wait, there is a safety valves, but it's usually just as undependable. Article II, Section 3: ...he (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The first test would to take care that the law is constitutional. If not, he should faithfully veto the bill.
OH MY! Three points of failure, isn't there? Let's count them. 1)the senate failed to catch a bill that was repulsive to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. 2)the State legislatures did not react, complain, or call the bill void by the authority of the agreement of Union. 3)the President of the United States did not take care to see that the bill he signed was faithfully executed. 4)and the American public is so greatly dumbed down that it has no clue.
Which politician understands this, and would abide by it? Hummmm?