New electee Lamborn showed up with the typical "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" attitudes, I guess. Only to find that that the lofty promises of the Dems were empty. And evidently, that prompted him to write a column that appeared on today's Human Events website.
Yet on my first day in office, we learned that the notorious “100 Hours Agenda” was the beginning of the end for deliberation, transparency and bipartisanship. In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership rammed six major bills through the House of Representatives under a closed rule that did not allow any committee consideration or a single amendment to be offered.
These were not minor pieces of legislation, either. These were bills that would modify energy policy, lead to the government’s setting prices for prescription drugs, alter our homeland security process, allow federal tax dollars to be used to experiment on and destroy human embryos, and mandate a raise in the federal minimum wage. All of these issues are critically important and deserve a full and open legislative process. To talk about openness and deliberation but then turn around and do the opposite is pure hypocrisy.
Like the infomercials love to say, "But wait.. there's more!"
One need only look to the recent move by the Democrats to give delegates of the U.S. Territories voting rights to see how little respect they have for the Constitution. In a highly contentious maneuver, Democrats gave delegates from six territories the right to vote in all committees, including on the floor of the House. However, the Constitution clearly says House members must be elected by “the people of the various states.”
Democrats tried to justify this clearly unconstitutional action by claiming that the votes of territories’ delegates would not be counted if they swing the balance in a close vote. What it will do, though, is give cover to vulnerable Democrats, including those who ran on Republican values in Republican districts. Those politicians can point to the artificially enhanced vote total and tell the folks back home that their vote for a liberal issue was not the deciding one.
What's this? Unelected delegates given voting rights??? And where's the media on this issue? Oh yes... busy covering those hot to trot issues, Scooter Libby, Britney's shaved head, and the never ending saga of that great talent and eloquent spokeswoman, Anna Nicole Smith.
Then, of course, there's the recent appt of Rep Jefferson to Homeland Security. This from the "most open, honest and ethical" Congress, bestowing FBI oversight on the nation's security to a guy with $90K in his freezer. Even the liberal leaning WaPo sees the dichotomy of this.
And while we at all this new "oversight" by Congress, how about a little scrutiny and hearings on Jefferson? How long will that be tabled? Or are they afraid of losing another seat if he's convicted? After that's looked over, it should be followed rapidly by addressing Mr. Berger, stolen and destroyed classified documents.
Yeah... I'll hold my breath for that one.
Shall we turn to the NYT's for more future Congressional antics and promises? Evidently the Dem powerhouses are disgruntled that a federal appeals court upheld Constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In return for "losing", they vow to rewrite the law to favor the habeas corpus rights of Gitmo detainees.... that would be foreign nationals snapped up on the battlefields while shooting at our guys.
The Supreme Court previously ruled twice that federal statutes empowered the courts to consider Guantánamo prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions challenging the grounds for their detention. In response to those rulings, Congress twice rewrote law to limit the detainees’ avenues of appeal. The most recent rewriting was at issue in Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision.
In its ruling Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the new law did not violate the constitutional provision that bars the government from suspending habeas corpus except in “cases of rebellion or invasion.” Two of the three appeals court judges, citing Supreme Court and other historical precedent, held that the right of habeas corpus did not extend to foreign citizens detained outside the United States.
DOH! The Dems don't like that one whit. And they intend to act quickly to protect the Club Gitmo members.
Democrats now in control of Congress said they would move quickly on legislation they recently introduced that would unambiguously give federal courts the right to consider detainees’ habeas petitions.
“The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Last week Mr. Leahy joined a group of other Senate Democrats, including Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, in introducing the legislation restoring habeas rights for the Guantánamo prisoners. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, also endorsed that measure last week, and said Tuesday that he believed the dissent from the new appeals court decision would ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court.
Oh joy.... With friends and electees like this, who needs enemies? All I can say is I hope this is another of their "empy promises".
Back to the newbie, Rep. Lamborn. Personally, I didn't buy into that "ethics, honesty in Congress" crap during the campaign. I find it amazing he did. Afterall the usual suspects have a history that belies their campaign trail words. But the biggest question is - when and how will we voters ever put an end to the rise to power by liars and fools?