Divided GOP Congress.............

Divided GOP Empowers Dems In Political Minority
By: David Espo


WASHINGTON (AP) — Winners in a bruising struggle with Republicans over homeland security funding and immigration, minority Democrats had unity on their side, along with a politician's understandable fear of terrorist attacks and the Constitution's separation of powers.

The tea party-aligned, bitter-end Republican losers had outrage, and in the House, an unbending unwillingness to compromise that some of their own rank and file judged counterproductive.

The result was a rout that some Republicans say — and Democrats no doubt hope — portends poorly for their party.

Republicans "have got to find a level of cohesion where we can at least pass legislation that we get to the president's desk," said Rep. Dennis Ross of Florida as the party's attempt to roll back President Barack Obama's immigration directives flamed out. "If we can't do that, we fail to govern and we lose 2016."

Whatever the long-term implications of Republican divisions, the lessons of this one episode seem simple.

In the current version of divided government, Republicans must avoid significant divisions of their own and have enough Democratic votes in the Senate to assure passage of legislation they favor. They hold the biggest majority in decades in the House. Yet on the pivotal vote of the struggle, an attempt by their own leadership to pass a three-week stand-alone funding bill, more than 50 defected, empowering Democrats.

In other cases, Republicans will need even more Democratic votes in both houses to enact laws over Obama's opposition.

Their recent failure to override his veto of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was evidence of that. A measure to rein in the president's ability to negotiate a nuclear accord with Iran looms as another test.

But they never had a chance of prevailing over Obama and the Democrats in their attempt to condition funding for the Department of Homeland Security on a repeal of the administration's immigration directives

"We all knew how this was going to end," said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., during the week as the final scenes of struggle played out.

At the end, House Speaker John Boehner publicly sympathized with the rebels who had resisted surrender the longest, but like Dent, expressed no surprise about the outcome.

He also said, correctly, that Senate Republicans had "never found a way to win this fight," and noted that the issue was already before the courts, which would ultimately decide the outcome.

There was no surprise in that, either. At a two-day Republican lawmakers' retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, this winter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell explained to rambunctious House Republicans that it often takes 60 votes to prevail in the Senate, where Republicans hold 54 seats. Afterward, some House members told McConnell he was going to have to try harder to persuade Democrats to vote across the aisle.

Actually, a faction of House conservatives made it harder on McConnell.

Legislation drafted for the House in January approved funding for the Department of Homeland Security if the president agreed to roll back a directive that eased the threat of deportation of millions of immigrants.

Demanding more, dissidents insisted on a second concession. They changed the measure so it also called for the reversal of a separate Obama directive that had eased the threat of deportation of so-called "dreamers," immigrants who had been brought to the United States illegally as children.

The result was to solidify Democratic opposition in the Senate and expose divisions among Senate Republicans, some of whom recoiled at the prospect of changing the status of Dreamers.

Throughout the struggle, it was a Republican article of faith that Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority in issuing immigration directives. After all, Republicans said the president himself had said he lacked the power.

"This is about trying to defend the Constitution," said Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona.

Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia, a first-term lawmaker, said the House was "is in this mess because of the unconstitutional decisions from the president."

Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona said he was saddened at having to choose between "funding our national security or standing for the Constitution."

However heartfelt the rhetoric, members of Congress don't have the power to rule a presidential act unconstitutional.

Only the courts can do that.

"When there are differences of opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, a court makes that determination," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, delivering a gentle refresher course on the Constitution to those on his own side of the aisle.

It's been that way, he pointed out, since a case the Supreme Court decided in 1803.

EDITOR'S NOTE — David Espo is chief congressional correspondent for The Associated Press.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-divid...-politics.html

Divided GOP Empowers Dems In Political Minority
By: David Espo


WASHINGTON (AP) — Winners in a bruising struggle with Republicans over homeland security funding and immigration, minority Democrats had unity on their side, along with a politician's understandable fear of terrorist attacks and the Constitution's separation of powers.

The tea party-aligned, bitter-end Republican losers had outrage, and in the House, an unbending unwillingness to compromise that some of their own rank and file judged counterproductive.

The result was a rout that some Republicans say — and Democrats no doubt hope — portends poorly for their party.

Republicans "have got to find a level of cohesion where we can at least pass legislation that we get to the president's desk," said Rep. Dennis Ross of Florida as the party's attempt to roll back President Barack Obama's immigration directives flamed out. "If we can't do that, we fail to govern and we lose 2016."

Whatever the long-term implications of Republican divisions, the lessons of this one episode seem simple.

In the current version of divided government, Republicans must avoid significant divisions of their own and have enough Democratic votes in the Senate to assure passage of legislation they favor. They hold the biggest majority in decades in the House. Yet on the pivotal vote of the struggle, an attempt by their own leadership to pass a three-week stand-alone funding bill, more than 50 defected, empowering Democrats.

In other cases, Republicans will need even more Democratic votes in both houses to enact laws over Obama's opposition.

Their recent failure to override his veto of a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was evidence of that. A measure to rein in the president's ability to negotiate a nuclear accord with Iran looms as another test.

But they never had a chance of prevailing over Obama and the Democrats in their attempt to condition funding for the Department of Homeland Security on a repeal of the administration's immigration directives

"We all knew how this was going to end," said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., during the week as the final scenes of struggle played out.

At the end, House Speaker John Boehner publicly sympathized with the rebels who had resisted surrender the longest, but like Dent, expressed no surprise about the outcome.

He also said, correctly, that Senate Republicans had "never found a way to win this fight," and noted that the issue was already before the courts, which would ultimately decide the outcome.

There was no surprise in that, either. At a two-day Republican lawmakers' retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, this winter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell explained to rambunctious House Republicans that it often takes 60 votes to prevail in the Senate, where Republicans hold 54 seats. Afterward, some House members told McConnell he was going to have to try harder to persuade Democrats to vote across the aisle.

Actually, a faction of House conservatives made it harder on McConnell.

Legislation drafted for the House in January approved funding for the Department of Homeland Security if the president agreed to roll back a directive that eased the threat of deportation of millions of immigrants.

Demanding more, dissidents insisted on a second concession. They changed the measure so it also called for the reversal of a separate Obama directive that had eased the threat of deportation of so-called "dreamers," immigrants who had been brought to the United States illegally as children.

The result was to solidify Democratic opposition in the Senate and expose divisions among Senate Republicans, some of whom recoiled at the prospect of changing the status of Dreamers.

Throughout the struggle, it was a Republican article of faith that Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority in issuing immigration directives. After all, Republicans said the president himself had said he lacked the power.

"This is about trying to defend the Constitution," said Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona.

Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia, a first-term lawmaker, said the House was "is in this mess because of the unconstitutional decisions from the president."

Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona said he was saddened at having to choose between "funding our national security or standing for the Constitution."

However heartfelt the rhetoric, members of Congress don't have the power to rule a presidential act unconstitutional.

Only the courts can do that.

"When there are differences of opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, a court makes that determination," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, delivering a gentle refresher course on the Constitution to those on his own side of the aisle.

It's been that way, he pointed out, since a case the Supreme Court decided in 1803.

EDITOR'S NOTE — David Espo is chief congressional correspondent for The Associated Press.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-divid...-politics.html Originally Posted by bigtex

The Constitution does give Congress recourse in dealing with an out of control President who abuses his authority.

Impeachment by The House, and conviction in the Senate, then removal from office.

Rush Limbaugh was touching on this subject yesterday. If President Obama decided to ignore The Constitution and run for a third term, who would stop him?

The Congress? You need 2/3's of the Senate to convict on impeachment. The SOTUS? Someone would have to challenge it in Court, then it would take years to reach them. The Attorney General? who is nothing more than a legal lackey of the President, be it Republican or Democrat.

Would the Major News outlets even go against it. The likes of Andrea Mitchell, Chris's Mathews, Matt Lauer, Anderson Cooper, etc. I doubt it.

I'm not being facetious. Who does have the ultimate authority to say, "you can't do that".

Jesus Christ. Here we go with the third termers again. You people are paranoid beyond belief. He's going to leave, just like he's supposed to. Then we'll have an election, during which the republitard candidate will put his foot in his mouth and ass no less than 7 times, lose the election and cry.

.

The GOP is as divided as it ever was. They have done ABSOLUTE SHIT since gaining control of the senate. Its because a tiny percent of them have the common sense not to go along with Booner and Bitch Mcconnells "brilliant" plans. The house is just as adamant about not getting anything done as it ever was, and the Senate is a bunch of lazy fucks and all they care about is not giving Obama an inch of space. They give fuck all about this country.

Rush Limbaugh was touching on this subject yesterday. If President Obama decided to ignore The Constitution and run for a third term, who would stop him?

. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You should have stopped at Rush Limbaugh. Anything that that RETARD says should be given exactly the credence it deserves: NONE

Impeachment by The House, and conviction in the Senate, then removal from office.

Rush Limbaugh was touching on this subject yesterday. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I'm shocked! Rush Limbaugh (of #F*@KYOURUSH fame) actually advocated for the impeachment of a Democratic President?

When was the last time #F*@KYOURUSH advocated for impeachment of a sitting US President?

When Bill Clinton (a Democrat) was President, of course!

I'm shocked! Rush Limbaugh (of #F*@KYOURUSH fame) actually advocated for the impeachment of a Democratic President?

When was the last time #F*@KYOURUSH advocated for impeachment of a sitting US President?

When Bill Clinton (a Democrat) was President, of course! Originally Posted by bigtex

He leapt right over Bush the junior. Strange how that happens. I hope they know that Rush is telling them just exactly what they want to hear and laughing all the way to the bank as he does it. Hell, I'd tell them that bullshit for what he makes a year.

The GOP is as divided as it ever was. They have done ABSOLUTE SHIT since gaining control of the senate. Its because a tiny percent of them have the common sense not to go along with Booner and Bitch Mcconnells "brilliant" plans. The house is just as adamant about not getting anything done as it ever was, and the Senate is a bunch of lazy fucks and all they care about is not giving Obama an inch of space. They give fuck all about this country.






You should have stopped at Rush Limbaugh. Anything that that RETARD says should be given exactly the credence it deserves: NONE Originally Posted by shanm

Your argument is worth as much as your opinion. The GOP has done shit??? They have done the same thing that they have before and that is pass bills that would help the country and people of this country (Keystone pipeline) and either the minority democrats in the senate won't allow a vote (or even a discussion) or the goon in the Oval Office will veto it. If you're going to grind your hatchet then grind it by telling the trurh.

When was the last time a president needed impeaching? Bush, for all his faults, respected the limits the Constitution placed on him and Clinton just broke the law.

Clinton just broke the law. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There is a difference in breaking "the law" according to the U.S. Constitution and breaking "the law" according to those of you who are friggin' Idiot's.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1 to IBs 25 to Life term for Obama.

Republicans are just being Republicans, which is bowing to Democrats. There's no substantive difference.