Visit our sister site, Arts Across Georgia,
for ALL the latest
Arts happenings!
Newt Gingrich:
Turning the Senate into the Chicago City Council
9/23/09
“Using the budget reconciliation process to pass health
reform and climate change legislation…would violate the
intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious
injury to the constitutional role of the Senate.”
These are not the words of a Republican or a conservative
activist.
This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the
former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C.
Byrd (D-W.Va.).
He was referring to a dangerous assault on American freedom
as it is protected by the constitutional balance of power --
an assault that is being considered by the Obama
Administration right now.
“We Pour Legislation into the Senatorial Saucer to Cool It”
The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and our
government to guard against political power grabs by slowing
down the process of making laws.
They insisted that the Senate had to be a deliberative body
to slow down the passions of the House and stop mob rule
from destroying freedom.
In a famous conversation between the two presidents, Thomas
Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington why the
Framers had agreed to a second chamber in Congress at the
1787 Constitutional Convention. "Why did you pour that
coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked him. "To cool
it," said Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour
legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
The Founders Relied on the Senate to Carefully Consider
Before They Commit Us to a New Law
One of the key means by which the Senate slows down the
legislative process is through the filibuster.
Unlike in the House, in the Senate, even a small group of
senators can hold up a bill by threatening to continuously
debate it.
It takes the votes of three-fifths of the Senate, or 60
senators, to end a filibuster. This means that it
effectively takes 60 votes to pass a controversial piece of
legislation or nomination.
And again, this is for good reason. The Founders looked to
the House to more directly reflect the will of the people.
They relied on the Senate to take a step back and carefully
consider a bill before they commit the American people and
our resources to it.
A Revolutionary Act Worthy of a Third World Country
I have taken this brief tour of American constitutional
history to make an important point: The Obama Administration
clearly has concluded it cannot get a big government health
plan through the Senate if they accept the traditional,
historic requirement of a 60-vote majority.
It is also clear left-wing activists would cheerfully
destroy the integrity of the Senate and the freedoms it
protects if that is what it takes to get a government-run,
bureaucratic health care system which would expand their
power and increase the importance of Washington.
Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic majority leader,
has warned that a failure to get 60 votes would lead him to
try to force through a bill with 50 senators and Vice
President Joe Biden breaking the tie.
Changing one-sixth of the American economy with 50 senators
voting yes would be a revolutionary act worthy of a third
world country.
Senator Byrd: “Reconciliation was Intended to Adjust Revenue
and Spending Levels in Order to Reduce Deficits”
The Obama Administration and Sen. Reid are considering
getting around the 60-vote majority rule in the Senate by
using a process called “reconciliation.” Under
reconciliation, just 51 votes are required to pass a bill.
Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, whom I quoted at the beginning
of this message, has unique authority on reconciliation. Not
only is he the author of a remarkable history of the Senate
(four volumes published between 1989 and 1995), he was, as
he wrote, “one of the authors of the reconciliation
process,” which was created in 1985.
Here is what he said about using reconciliation to pass
things like health care reform: “I can tell you that the
ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never
intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to
adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce
deficits.”
Sen. Byrd concluded with this warning: “The Senate cannot
perform its constitutional role if senators forego debate
and amendments. I urge senators to jealously guard their
individual rights to represent their constituents on such
critical matters.”
For 20 Years, I Was Told to Be Patient When Conservatives
Couldn’t Muster 60 Votes
For 20 years as a member of the House, I was told to be
patient when conservative reforms could not muster 60 votes
or a conservative nomination could not get 60 votes.
For the last decade I was told to be patient when reforms
conservatives wanted and personnel conservatives wanted were
blocked by the lack of 60 votes in the Senate.
Now after a lifetime of sustaining the constitutional role
of the Senate, we find that the left wants to suspend the
normal constitutional process so they can ram through a
gigantic government run health program immediately.
Every American Who Cherishes the Institutions That Have
Preserved Our Liberty Will Tell Their Senators to Fight
We are being told the Obama agenda is so important we should
destroy the Senate and make it more like the House of
Representatives.
This radical action may make sense to President Obama, Chief
of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior strategist David Axelrod,
all of whom come from Chicago and are used to seeing the
Chicago City Council muscled by a strong mayor on behalf of
a machine.
However, every American who cherishes freedom and
appreciates the institutions that have preserved us from
tyranny will be telling their senators to preserve the
integrity of the Senate and preserve the protections of
American liberty.
This fight over process may turn out to be even more
important than the fight over the substance of the big
government, big bureaucracy, high-tax health bill they want.
When both process and policy are wrong there is something
very bad going on.
Remembering our Heritage Through Rediscovering God In
America Part II
This Friday Callista and I have a new movie premiering with
Citizens United.
“Rediscovering
God in America II” is not only entertaining and
informative, it’s the perfect opportunity to measure how
accurately our schools and our media have been portraying
American history.
Question: Which President’s Inaugural Address Had 14
References to God?
Ask your friends:
• What was the first thing the very first English speaking
colonists did when they arrived in the New World?
• Where did Patrick Henry say “give me liberty or give me
death”?
• Which President gave an inaugural address with 14
references to God, draws on biblical text four times, and
makes three calls to prayer in 703 words?
Answer: Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural
If your friends know:
• The first act of the first English speaking colonists was
to erect a cross at Cape Henry to thank God for having
crossed the ocean safely.
• Patrick Henry uttered his famous words at St. John’s
Church in Richmond.
• Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address in March, 1865
had 14 references to God, four quotes from the Bible, and
three calls to prayer in just 703 words.
If your friends know these answers, they know a lot more
about the real history of America than most of our young
people.
Because the schools have failed to teach our history
accurately, the elite media has refused to cover God in
America accurately, and the courts have shown contempt for
the history of religion in America, we have begun producing
the series of Rediscovering God movies and books which set
the record straight.
*Last week, we asked you to submit comments to the
Department of Interior in favor of drilling for more
American energy. With your help, American Solutions
delivered 90,358
comments on Monday. Thank you for being a part of this
amazing accomplishment as we continue our push for a
pro-American energy policy.
