___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
How's this one
Besides, though there's no consensus on the actual numbers, most agree that 60-70K is quite lowball.
If you don't know the difference between what is and isn't Constitutional then I cxan;t help you. Articl I Section 5 States that the House can set there own rule in accords with the US Consatitution and Billof Rights. Which means they can't have a rule that stops any memeber of the House Excersissing his or hers 1st Adm Right which Rep. Wilson was doing. As I have stated Article II Section 3 ther is nothing in there stating that the President can't be interupted.
Oh as for are Founding father guess you don't kno wmuch about them then huh. John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton used to have shouting matchs with each other when Congress was in session. When John Adams was the Vice President Hamilton shout him down in a debate on the floor.
Well...."most" wingnuts anyhow. We here in the reality based community have no problem accepting the estimate of the DC Fire Dept.
Why do you continually make posts that are irrelevant?
It never says anywhere in article I section 5 that it has to be in accord with the constitution since IT'S A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior."
Ah but what is Disorderly Behavior as I have already pointed out this has gone on in the past. The House and Senate can't stimmy Free Speech which is what Rep. Wilson used. The reason I keep citing Article I Section 3 is because it talks about the duty of the President to give Speechs to the Joint Session of COngress and if they Founding Fathers wanted the Presidentr to not be interupted they woul dhave notted it in this section. Hence Rep. Wilson used his 1st Adm Right which the House now has violated. Why do you all on the Left can't folloow this very simple discussion.
You still don't understand that the supreme court has ruled numerous times that our first amendment right is restricted. And the founding fathers probably didn't think someone would be THAT disrespectful.
Ummm . . . Congress used to be several orders of magnitude more disrespectful than that.
Well, this all real cute. Funny, in fact. However, the real question before our Libbo brothers and sisters, is, where the hell were all of you when Pete Stark claimed that American soldiers were, "blowing up innocent civilians for his [The President] ammusement"? Why was there no outcry when Pete Stark called GWB a liar, on the house floor?
YouTube - Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor
Ah but what is Disorderly Behavior as I have already pointed out this has gone on in the past. The House and Senate can't stimmy Free Speech which is what Rep. Wilson used. The reason I keep citing Article I Section 3 is because it talks about the duty of the President to give Speechs to the Joint Session of COngress and if they Founding Fathers wanted the Presidentr to not be interupted they woul dhave notted it in this section. Hence Rep. Wilson used his 1st Adm Right which the House now has violated. Why do you all on the Left can't folloow this very simple discussion.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to share with us what law school you graduated from with a specialization in Constitutional Law? Otherwise your pontification/interpretation of our Constitution is....less than compelling.
Was former-president Bush making a speech? No, so your point is irrelevant.
You still don't understand that the supreme court has ruled numerous times that our first amendment right is restricted. And the founding fathers probably didn't think someone would be THAT disrespectful.
Well, if you'll go back and read the rules, it says nothing about whether, or not, the president is present and/or making a speach. So, my point is extremely relevant.
the question still stands. Where were you all and why the faux outrage, now?
Our you kinding what you didn't read my post about how Adam,Hamilton,Madison and Jefferson would have shouting matchs. Or how about the fact that in the past Congress would always ask the President question during a Joint Session of Congress wow what the hell do they teach in Social Studie and US History these days.
Don't talk if you can't back it up.
Well, if you'll go back and read the rules, it says nothing about whether, or not, the president is present and/or making a speach. So, my point is extremely relevant.
the question still stands. Where were you all and why the faux outrage, now?
When you decide to apoligizes to me for calling me a Nzi till then all bets are off
Your other point is irrelevant too, what does Bush's incident have to do with this one? Just because nothing happened in a previous event doesn't mean somethign shouldn't happen this time...
Well, of course; you'll cling to whatever number suits your worldview best.
So, you're cool with the wild ass hypocrisy of your own party?
The main relevancy, is that a US Congressman called our troops murderers, basically, on the house floor. If you're cool with that, then It speaks volumes about you and your ilk.