Gibbs Stammers on Pending Legal Challenge from Mark Levin

Listen to this nonsense.

The CEO of the United States, sworn to defend the Constitution, is standing behind an argument that it is OK to work around the Constitution because it has been done before. Obama is arguing that it is OK for him to break his oath because others have as well. Obama's spokesman hints that he may do it again.

Do it again over immigration no less. Obama will step out of his constitutional obligation to give citizenship, equal to yours, to those that have, like Obama, have also broken the law.

Is that not an argument to take this action to The Supreme Court to stop any future offense to the Constitution?

Obama is admitting he is willingly and knowingly ignoring constitutional requirements because the same offense was done before and not enforced by law. That is an audacious claim that can be made by any lawbreaker at any time for any crime.

That argument can break the Constitution itself. It makes a mockery of law and the citizenship that many millions of us have sworn to fight for and defend.

The Constitution of the United States was not written to assist politicians to govern by fiat. It was written to protect us, US citizens, from the type of politicians that would step outside of the law.

The Constitution belongs to us. It was created to protect us from the likes of Obama and Pelosi and Reid.

If Obama breaks the covenant between those elected to govern and those of us who trusted them to govern under our constitution with the argument that it has been done before, allow this citizen to remind our rulers and masters that something else has been done before. It was an American Revolution. It was a disgusted citizenry that had enough. Had enough yet?

Obama not worried about "procedure" in House or Senate

Republicans Will Force Vote on Slaughter Rule
by Connie Hair Human Events
03/17/2010

Rep. Parker Griffith, M.D. (R-Ala.) switched parties recently to escape the far-left policies of the House Democratic leadership. The newly-minted Republican is set to lead efforts to force an up-or-down vote on a resolution requiring an up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill.

This is hand-to-hand fisticuffs, parliamentary-style, as minority Republicans battle the 76-seat Democrat majority on procedure while Democrats battle the American people on substance.

If passed by the House, the resolution would prohibit Speaker Pelosi from implementing the “Slaughter Solution” scheme by which House Democrats seek to “deem” the Senate health care bill as passed without an actual vote on it in the House.

Republicans cannot force a vote on the actual resolution but they can force a vote on having a vote. Given the toxic political climate on Capitol Hill right now -- and people nationwide paying more attention than ever to parliamentary process through the internet, cable news and talk radio -- the vote on whether or not to vote on the resolution could have political consequences for Democrats.


Proposed text:

RESOLUTION

Ensuring an up or down vote on certain health care legislation.

Resolved, That the Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that provides for disposition of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590, an Act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unless such rule or order provides for—

(1) at least one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, or their designees; and

(2) a requirement that the Speaker put the question on disposition of the Senate amendments and that the yeas and nays be considered as ordered thereon.