<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: House Republicans&#039; Constitutional Ignorance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 02:56:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13777</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:46:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13777</guid>
		<description>Michale -

Actually, to be fair, this Congress is a lot like other Congresses.  The House passes all sorts of wacky ideas, and they go to die an ignoble death in the Senate.  But then, that&#039;s the way it&#039;s kind of set up, I guess.  Pelosi passed like 400 bills that Harry Reid never got around to, for instance, and that was Dem v. Dem....

I don&#039;t believe you have any quotes from top Dems though, &quot;hoping&quot; for a shutdown, unless you define that term awfully liberally (pun intended).

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michale -</p>
<p>Actually, to be fair, this Congress is a lot like other Congresses.  The House passes all sorts of wacky ideas, and they go to die an ignoble death in the Senate.  But then, that's the way it's kind of set up, I guess.  Pelosi passed like 400 bills that Harry Reid never got around to, for instance, and that was Dem v. Dem....</p>
<p>I don't believe you have any quotes from top Dems though, "hoping" for a shutdown, unless you define that term awfully liberally (pun intended).</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13776</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:44:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13776</guid>
		<description>dsws -

That is a fairly novel interpretation, but I can&#039;t refute it.  Constitutional crises are actually built in to the whole constitutional setup.  There are vague overlaps, and often times it just takes some chutzpah from one branch or another to set a precedent.  I&#039;m reminded of Andy Jackson&#039;s question as to what army the Supreme Court was going to use to enforce their decision against him....

As for the presidential thing, as far as I can see, they can have it both ways, kind of.  Congress could cut off the power to write a paycheck to the president, but whenever the money started flowing again I think by the Constitution they&#039;d owe him all his back pay.  

As for the XXVIIth Amendment, it would be interesting to see whether Congress is even allowed to cut their own pay off...

Like I said, there are plenty of crises built in...

Heh.

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dsws -</p>
<p>That is a fairly novel interpretation, but I can't refute it.  Constitutional crises are actually built in to the whole constitutional setup.  There are vague overlaps, and often times it just takes some chutzpah from one branch or another to set a precedent.  I'm reminded of Andy Jackson's question as to what army the Supreme Court was going to use to enforce their decision against him....</p>
<p>As for the presidential thing, as far as I can see, they can have it both ways, kind of.  Congress could cut off the power to write a paycheck to the president, but whenever the money started flowing again I think by the Constitution they'd owe him all his back pay.  </p>
<p>As for the XXVIIth Amendment, it would be interesting to see whether Congress is even allowed to cut their own pay off...</p>
<p>Like I said, there are plenty of crises built in...</p>
<p>Heh.</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChrisWeigant.com &#187; Friday Talking Points [161] -- April Fools</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13744</link>
		<dc:creator>ChrisWeigant.com &#187; Friday Talking Points [161] -- April Fools</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:01:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13744</guid>
		<description>[...] House Republicans&#8217; Constitutional Ignorance [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] House Republicans&#8217; Constitutional Ignorance [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13734</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13734</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;Who could be for the government shutdown? &lt;/I&gt;

Top Democrats are on record as hoping for a shut down as well...


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Who could be for the government shutdown? </i></p>
<p>Top Democrats are on record as hoping for a shut down as well...</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akadjian</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13732</link>
		<dc:creator>akadjian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13732</guid>
		<description>The &lt;i&gt; Government Shutdown Prevention Act &lt;/i&gt; 

Wow. You&#039;ve just got to admire the chutzpah. Who could be for the government shutdown? Not us. You see, we tried to pass a law to prevent it. What&#039;s in the law? Nevermind that. Nothing to see here folks. Look away. 

By the way ... wouldn&#039;t this proposed law have to pass the Senate? And be signed by the President? :)

Kur-azy
-David</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <i> Government Shutdown Prevention Act </i> </p>
<p>Wow. You've just got to admire the chutzpah. Who could be for the government shutdown? Not us. You see, we tried to pass a law to prevent it. What's in the law? Nevermind that. Nothing to see here folks. Look away. </p>
<p>By the way ... wouldn't this proposed law have to pass the Senate? And be signed by the President? :)</p>
<p>Kur-azy<br />
-David</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13730</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:32:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13730</guid>
		<description>Once again, you nailed it CW...

This GOP Congress is as do-nothing as the last Congress was...

But, at least the GOP seems to be operating under the DO NO HARM mantra....

So far...

&lt;I&gt;Or perhaps Democrats should make a very vocal push to get the &quot;I&#039;m Just A Bill&quot; video (from the Schoolhouse Rock era) back on the public airwaves. &lt;/I&gt;

&lt;B&gt;&quot;Oh how I hope and pray that I will, but today I am still just a bill&quot;&lt;/B&gt;

The sad thing is THAT is from memory!   :D


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once again, you nailed it CW...</p>
<p>This GOP Congress is as do-nothing as the last Congress was...</p>
<p>But, at least the GOP seems to be operating under the DO NO HARM mantra....</p>
<p>So far...</p>
<p><i>Or perhaps Democrats should make a very vocal push to get the "I'm Just A Bill" video (from the Schoolhouse Rock era) back on the public airwaves. </i></p>
<p><b>"Oh how I hope and pray that I will, but today I am still just a bill"</b></p>
<p>The sad thing is THAT is from memory!   :D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dsws</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13726</link>
		<dc:creator>dsws</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13726</guid>
		<description>There are a couple of ways an action of just the House might affect the law without the Senate and president going along with it.  The House can pass a non-binding resolution expressing the opinion of the House that the law already is thus-and-so. Courts then are free to use the resolution as part of the legislative history, or to ignore it.  Alternatively, Congress can pass a law saying that if X happens then provision A goes into effect.  They can do this with X being something relevant, but they can also do it with X being &#039;the House passes a resolution declaring that the moon is made of cheese&#039;.  However, neither of those applies in this case as far as I can tell.  It sounds like an ordinary bill, that would have to go through the normal process.

&quot;While that bit about cutting off congressional paychecks is something virtually everyone can support&quot;

Yay, let&#039;s make members of Congress even more dependent on money from special interests.  But according to the WaPo item it applies to the president too, and that&#039;s unconstitutional.

&quot;The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected&quot;
Article II section 1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are a couple of ways an action of just the House might affect the law without the Senate and president going along with it.  The House can pass a non-binding resolution expressing the opinion of the House that the law already is thus-and-so. Courts then are free to use the resolution as part of the legislative history, or to ignore it.  Alternatively, Congress can pass a law saying that if X happens then provision A goes into effect.  They can do this with X being something relevant, but they can also do it with X being 'the House passes a resolution declaring that the moon is made of cheese'.  However, neither of those applies in this case as far as I can tell.  It sounds like an ordinary bill, that would have to go through the normal process.</p>
<p>"While that bit about cutting off congressional paychecks is something virtually everyone can support"</p>
<p>Yay, let's make members of Congress even more dependent on money from special interests.  But according to the WaPo item it applies to the president too, and that's unconstitutional.</p>
<p>"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected"<br />
Article II section 1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Osborne Ink</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/03/30/house-republicans-constitutional-ignorance/#comment-13725</link>
		<dc:creator>Osborne Ink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=3712#comment-13725</guid>
		<description>They commit the crime they constantly see committed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They commit the crime they constantly see committed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
