Budget Deficit

McConnell: I Don't Know Constitution Any Better Than Obama Does


Mitch McConnell declares his independence from the U.S. Constitution.

Days after the Obama Administration's attempt to seize control of the U.S. budget was roundly shown to be illegal, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) have stepped up to show that Republicans want to tear up the Constitution too. 

Instead of letting the president usurp Congress' budget-making authority, McConnell is now offering to give it up freely. AP's David Espo writes that under McConnell's plan…

Obama could request increases of up to $2.5 trillion in the government's borrowing authority in three separate installments over the next year, as long as he simultaneously proposed spending cuts of greater size.

The debt limit increases would take effect unless blocked by Congress under special rules that would require speedy action - and even then Obama could exercise his authority to veto such legislation. Significantly, the president's spending cuts would be debated under normal procedures, with no guarantee they ever come to a final vote.

In essence, McConnell's proposal would greatly enhance Obama's authority to avoid a default, while also virtually absolving Republicans of responsibility if one occurred… 

Under his proposal, the debt limit would rise by $100 billion as soon as Obama requested the first of the three increases envisioned.

Officials have said that the government normally borrows about $125 billion a month to finance operations, meaning Obama could avoid a default for a brief period of time simply by asking for it.

This cession of legislative power to the president is getting a remarkably warm reception from Republicans. "Everybody believes there needs to be a backup plan if we are unable to come to an agreement," Boehner agrees agreeably. "I think Mitch has done good work." Boehner also claims fellow Republicans Rep. Eric Cantor (Virginia) and Sen. Jon Kyl (Arizona) are in agreement. 

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has said executive borrowing authority is "certainly worth exploring" but has shown less enthusiasm than Republicans. "It's something worth looking at for the next time around," Schumer said Friday, "but I don't think it's had enough fermentation-examination, to employ at this time."

In an opaquely worded statement, Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist praises McConnell without endorsing his plan. "ATR wants to ensure a debt limit deal contains the maximum amount of real spending cuts and absolutely no tax increases," Norquist writes. "Leader McConnell has put forth a plan that attempts to put this goal in motion."

There is no constitutional authority for the legislative branch to surrender its clearly delineated duty to write bills for raising revenue and borrow money on the credit of the United States. 

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently employed a clever but easily falsifiable argument, which cites Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to claim that the president can override the separation of powers. 

I dismantled this argument last week. On Friday, the highly regarded law professor Laurence Tribe rebutted Geithner's suggestion that the administration was considering the "Section 4" or "constitutional" option and also provided a humiliating disproof of Geithner's subsequent denial that he had made the suggestion. (Note that once again the labeling of a political initiative "constitutional" indicates that it is in fact unconstitutional.) 

McConnell's enthusiasm for this unconstitutional gimmick is disheartening, but it does not change the law. Congress has no more right to give up its authority than the president has to confiscate it. 

NEXT: The Economist: U.S. Debt Is "Perfectly Affordable" ... Except When it's Neither "Healthy" nor "Pretty"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. McConnell's enthusiasm for this unconstitutional gimmick is disheartening

    What a jackass.

    "See - we didn't spend the money -[Points at Obama] he did!"

    1. That, and it makes the problem that is making all the cocktail parties in DC no fun go away.

      The more shit Congress can blame on the president to keep getting themselves reelected, the more power they will give to him. They are spineless parasites, and the only thing they fear is losing their offices and therefore losing all the power and perks that come with it.

      1. The douche-bags will no doubt pass an enabling act before much longer.

    2. Good lord, it's like watching the subprime debacle being played out in real time.

      "Say, Mr. President, if you act RIGHT NOW, you can refinance with an interest-only loan! Doesn't that sound great?"

    3. I guess, to be fair, it's not half as pathetic as Obama's claim that the Social Security checks for August are going to get slashed if a deal isn't done by the 3rd. Never mind that the checks are cut on the 1st, and on top of that, every shrieking leftist over the last 3-4 years has been claiming that there's nothing wrong with Social Security and that we have a "surplus."

      In other words, Obama threatened to NOT draw on the supposed SS "trust fund" that would supposedly ensure full payment for however long senile old farts like Bernie Sanders claimed it would.

      There's your tacit admission right there that SS is broke.

      1. SS is broke.

        Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

      2. Oh, god. Those in need of assistance from the government honestly need help. I'm not busting anybody who needs care and the government is the only (currently viable) source.

        But I do find the politicians that use them in the midst of a debate on a very pressing and complicated issue such as spending to be cruel and despicable scum. I'm serious. It's almost not even worth the effort to have a serious debate because you can't win.

        1. Yes, Obama has been despicable to threaten both the financial system and old people in this debate. We have more than enough money to cover interest and social security, but this is pure political "my way, or the credit markets and old people will get hosed"

  2. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

    Are we there yet?

    1. We've been there for a while now.

    2. That's the DOI, not the Constitution. The founders didn't include any such power to abolish gov't under the Constitution, and the states ratified it without. We have the amendment process and we have the constitutional convention process. Any other attempt to abolish is unconstitutional.

      1. What the fuck is a constitution worth when the government has become too corrupted to even consider it?

        It is becoming evident that the government can no longer be altered. Now it must be abolished!

      2. I think it's only a matter of time before states start calling for a constitutional convention to clear up the separation of powers.

      3. This is stupid. The Constitution is supposed to lay out clear rules for government, not the citizens. It doesn't include that power because that's not the point of the Constitution.

        1. Exactly, the constitution doesnt grant any power to the people or the states, its a document showing the powers the people and states are giving up to the federal government.

          So duh, of course it isnt mentioned.

      4. Fuck off, slaver.

        That is all.

      5. Pretty sure England didn't include any such power either.

        1. I guess I should read further before posting.

      6. The english unwritten constitution didnt include any such power either.

        And yet...

      7. We could certainly call a Constitutional convention and re-write the Constitution such that (a)any person serving in an elected capacity in the Federal government was barred from serving in the new government. and (b)barring the new Legislature from ceding its authority to administrative rulemaking by the executive branch.

      8. That's nonsense. I doubt the Founders suddenly changed their minds about the principles they (some of them, anyway) set out in the Declaration.

    3. Pretty much.

      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

      For transporting us [and others] beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

      Taking our land and giving it to private interests

      Forcing us into commerce against our wishes

      Preventing the people from using the illumination of their choosing in their own home.

      Prevents the recording of public actions of public officials

      Declares secret without oversight, information of import to the citizenry

      Restricts or bans the growing of plants for food and medicine.

      Subjects travelers on private transport to unreasonable, invasive and humiliating searches.

      Taxes the citizens of the States, and then requires the States to pass Laws as condition for the return of the funds

      Illegitimately imposes upon personal arms the police power of the state

      Incurs debt that the citizenry is unable to repay

      Debauches the currency on a daily basis

      Orders U.S. Military Forces into offensive actions without the approval of Congress.

      Institutes so many regulations and laws that it is impossible for a mortal to live a day without violating at least one if not a multiple of them.

      Uses the unlawful ownership of the airways to restrict speech.

      Takes the property of those not convicted but merely suspected of a crime.

      Does not protect the U.S. Constitution but at every turn tries to circumvent it.

  3. "Congress has no more right to give up its authority than the president has to confiscate it."

    Little late for that don't you think? Congress loves giving up authority to the president, so they don't have to do shit and they can blame the president for everything that goes wrong. The media is culpible in the whole charade as well.

  4. Mr. McConnell, with all due respect, please resign. If you are not going to stand for the constitution, you have violated your oath of office and are impeachable. Please, save us all the trouble, appoint a republican that will honor his oath, and resign.

    1. You can't impeach members of Congress. Recall them, yes; get them suspended by the chamber of Congress where they sit, yes; but not impeach them.

      1. No, which is why I proposed the Tar and Feathering Amendment earlier this year. I believe it's getting some traction among the populace.

  5. Congress has no more right to give up its authority than the president has to confiscate it.

    So I guess our brief love affair with the War Powers Act is over?

    1. We had a love affair with the WPA?

      Its been clearly unconstitutional since the day it was written.

    2. Haven't you heard? Barack Obama is the first President to fully support and endorse the WPA -- and is demonstrating his full support and endorsement by violating it.

    3. Now you know that's not what's been going on here. The complaint was that he wasn't even complying with the WPA, not that the WPA is good law.

      There's a pretty fair argument that parts of the WPA improperly infringes upon executive powers, incidentally. It also improperly delegates congressional power, but that's been par for the course with Congress for quite some time.

  6. Quite seriously though, I'm almost ready for the Republicans to just cave in on tax increases. Hell, here would be my deal to the Democrats.

    "49.5% across the board for all earners, and no deductions whatsoever. If the rich have to chip in, let's see some working class folks do so as well."

    1. I would prefer that they simply do not raise the debt limit and force Obama to stop writing out social security checks.

      Why do we have to raise the debt limit again?

      Oh yeah i forgot so the government can borrow more money....


      Why does the government need to borrow money?

      oh yeah i forgot so it can spend more then it takes in...


      Why does the government have to spend more then it takes in?


      1. I prefer they call the bluff but conservatives don't have the balls tits.

        1. Correction: not 'conservatives' who dont have the cohones,
          but careerist Republican officeholders, who have, in their all-too-long time in DC, managed to lose whatever principles, conservative or otherwise, they once had.

          The principled stand is to pass the debt ceiling increase with the condition that one feels is needed. The GOP position was cuts equalt to the debt ceiling increase. Fine. Pass that, and give it to Reid and Obama: "we did our part, now you do yours."

          McConnell's plan B is a throw-in-the-towel move pre-cave. You cant call a guys bluff if you throw in your hand too soon.

    2. Everybody pays at least 10% in taxes to the IRS above their payroll tax obligations. No deductions on the 1st $10,000 of income. Do the taxes on >$125k individuals the way the Dems want. See who is in favor of the next tax increase.

    3. It's so funny listening to the class warfare bullshit, where the Democrats say things like "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share in these hard times" all while being fully aware of who pays most of the income taxes they like to spend.

      Of course, the definition of "rich" is in the eye of the beholder.

  7. Couple that with a return to 1995 levels of spending...Hey, we wanted 2000 levels, but the Dems got pushy on taxes, didn't they?

  8. Mitch McConnell- avoiding tough decisions for America.

    1. But P Brooks - it's for teh CHILDRUNZZS

  9. Thankfully, future-President Michele Bachmann is totally opposed to this kind of bullshit. She demands a real balanced budget amendment AND a de facto repeal of Obamacare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Ron Paul goes her one better and opposes raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

    1. Why are you always on about Bachmann, SIV?

    2. Mrs. Bachmann enthusiastically wants to do away with the Minimum Wage. So, if you'd like to be working for $1 per hour, give her all the support you can. Remember, this is coming from a woman that makes $172,500 as a Congresswoman and her husband's health service company get tax payer support. Have another tall cool glass of Kool-Aid, you'll feel MUCH better as she flays you alive.

      1. Millions of young people have lost jobs since the time of the last minimum wage increase. Fat lot of good a minimum wage does you when YOU DONT HAVE A JOB.

        BTW, its economic insanity to believe removing the minimum wage would lead to $1/hr wage rates. You have no clue about labor supply/demand economics if you think that.

  10. A well researched posts, I'll link to it from my site thank you!

  11. I say just get out of the way and let the Democrat-Republican Spending Train have at it.

    Nothing and I mean absolutely nothing will stop the spending. Both parties are completely invested in this failed idea that government can solve every problem if they just spend enough money.

    The only way this stops is when our creditors pull the plug and stop leading The United States anymore money.

    I welcome the collapse because then our nation will have to face up to a century of bad choices. Many times in life you have to bottom out & hit that wall before making the changes that should have been made a long time ago.

    The only problem is at that point, the changes are a hell of a lot more painful.

  12. it is very good share,thanks,and i like this blog.

  13. "Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has said..."

    STOP. Something stupid will be said.

  14. You know how I feel about incandescents vs. CFLs, but this is too over the top even for me -- especially in a news rather than opinion article on the AP:

    Their legislation would have kept the marketplace clear for the cheap, energy-wasting bulbs that have changed little since Thomas Edison invented them in 1879.

    For most Democrats, it's an exasperating debate that, just like the old incandescent bulbs being crowded out of the market, produces more heat than light.

    The standards in question do not specifically ban the old bulbs but require a higher level of efficiency than the classics can produce, essentially nudging them off store shelves over the next few years. Four of Edison's descendants said the great inventor would be mortified to see politicians trying to get the nation to hang on to an outdated technology when better bulbs are available.

    The standards have not been particularly contentious before now. They were crafted in 2007 with Republican participation and signed into law by President George W. Bush. People seem to like the new choices and the energy savings they bring, polling finds.

    1. Oh and considering how Edison tried to scare/force the public to stick with direct current electricity delivery rather than alternating current I think his descendants are full of shit.

      1. At least Edison supported "Westinghousing" condemned criminals with alternating current.

      2. And since the invention of the DC step down transformer, it's a shame we are stuck with AC.

    2. You know what else we hang on to when better options are available...

      1. Wives? Girlfriends?

    3. Broken link, but the quote is enough. Definitely opinion/advocacy attempting to masquerade as news. The last sentence is a real doozy. I love the new choices offered by increased government regulation.

    4. Four of Edison's descendants said the great inventor would be mortified to see politicians trying to get the nation to hang on to an outdated technology when better bulbs are available.

      Oh my GOD, talk about some disingenuous bullshit! Making certain bulbs illegal is okay, not coercive at all, but eliminating the regulations and maintaining choice on the issue is "trying to get the nation to hang on to an outdated technology".

      1. It's not hard to repair old incandescent bulbs - you just need to replace the metal part that breaks, then vacuum seal it again. The replacement kits could be huge sellers.

    5. "People seem to like the new choices and the energy savings they bring, polling finds."

      Outlawing a choice creates choice? Are you kidding me?

      And more importantly, if these new energy-saving "choices" are so clearly preferable and money-saving, WHY DO WE NEED A LAW TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY THEM?

  15. A little Death-Rock: Endless Sleep

  16. Ceterum censeo Republicaninem esse delendam

    Put the Republican party out of its misery. The good-cop-bad-cop routine is old and painful. The pathetic repubes cannot even muster a vote on light bulbs, for gawd's sake. To expect them to do anytime about the debt, regulations, health nazis? Ha, ha! Why even give them the time of day?

  17. Is there actual legislation somewhere I could read? Depending on the structure of a bill to this effect, I could see it being constitutional; a spectacularly bad idea, sure, but constitutional. Specifically, if the bill simply authorizes a defined number and dollar amount of debt limit increases to be contingent upon presidential request, which is what I am reading to be the intent, how would that be a cession of power by Congress? Congress would just be authorizing the specific debt increases as usual, except with a mostly meaningless conditional requirement for activation tagged on. It's not the same thing as authorizing the President to unilaterally make any increases he wants. Again, it's idiotic politicking, but how is it unconstitutional?

  18. Resign, McConnell. You're too stupid and spineless to lead any political party.

  19. "This cession of legislative power to the president is getting a remarkably warm reception from Republicans."

    I wouldn't get too riled up about this...

    The reason this is popular with Republicans--and the reason it's been proposed--is that they want to give the President all the blame for not cutting the deficit enough. It's just a negotiating tactic.

    Obama doesn't want to be solely responsible for the cuts--or the tax increases. It's just a ploy to try to exert some extra pressure on Obama.

    Obama wants to run against the Republicans who slashed entitlements and wouldn't raise taxes on the rich. This is a proposal that would let the Republicans dodge all that responsibility on both sides of the balance sheet.

    ...of course it's popular with Republicans! But it isn't going anywhere. It's just meant to drive Obama back to the bargaining table--with some seriousness this time. That's all it is.

    1. You give the Republicans too much credit. This sounds more like post hoc rationalization from someone who understands the issues and what can be gained from this positioning. It's almost certainly not the thinking of the Republican leadership.

      1. You may have missed the comments McConnel made earlier about how our fiscal problems would never be solved while Obama was in office.

        Obama's tactics so far are all about blaming the Republicans for the cuts and making the Republicans share in the blame for tax increases. The reason we don't have a deal right now is because the Republicans won't accept all the responsibility...

        This is a means for them to dodge all that responsibility. I'm not saying the Republicans are united behind it--but do they think dodging that responsibility is a good idea?

        Of course!

        But it will never make it off the ground--and I think most everyone after a good night's sleep realizes that.

    2. The brief bit I read on NRO last night, the commentators were not happy about this.

      1. You're talking about the Republican faithful among the pundits and the people.

        I was talking about the Republicans in Congress. A plan that lets the Republicans in Congress dodge responsibility for the budget cuts is popular for the moment with Republicans in Congress--for the moment.

        But it isn't going anywhere.

  20. What a bunch of cuntstains. The congresstards, not you all Reasonoids, of course. And thanks for ruining the evening just before I hit the hay, Timmeh! This is for you:



    Night All!

    1. On second thought, I continue to blame Bush

  21. I heard about this plan on the radio while i was driving home.

    My only thought was WTF?!?!

    Anyway it will be fun in 2012 when many of the names above have Tea Party primary challengers.

    In other news does anyone have any predictions on how this resolve itself?

    Will Obama cave to no taxes?

    Will the republicans cave to more taxes?


  22. Let's have Congress just confer the power of impeachment over to the Executive. Obama could then impeach the entire Legislative branch, and, at the same time, Congress could impeach Obama. Now, what to do with the Judicial branch...

  23. Wasn't Bunning supposed to be the crazy Senator from Kentucky? Is there a universal conservation of crazy Senators from Kentucky? Or should we try to recruit Bunning to run against McConnell?

    1. Bunning wasnt even remotely crazy. Well maybe a little at the end.

      McConnell is exactly what he has always been. Its power hungry, not crazy.

      Rand Paul is the most sane one of the bunch and he is the one that gets called crazy.

      1. McConnell is a turd of the lowest order. I hope they lynch him in Kentucky over this.

  24. It's a nice stopgap measure, but what we really need is some sort of Act that would completely Enable the President to wield all of the powers of Congress as long as the nation is in crisis. Congress simply can't be trusted with this responsibility, as the current flirtation with default shows us.

    1. The Jedi are trying to undermine the Republic!

      1. "This is my last territorial demand!"

    2. I am sure some german legislation from 1933 could be used as a model. All Hail the Oba-fuhrer. Debt ceiling crisis makes for a fine Reichstag fire. 'never let a crisis go to waste.'

  25. "(Note that once again the labeling of a political initiative "constitutional" indicates that it is in fact unconstitutional.)"

    Note, once again, that the declaration of A by a politician means that NOT A is true.

  26. -> I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshibalaptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by fedex. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff,

  27. CAUSE AND EFFECT! ? Of Empire increasing the debt ceiling

    [OZYISM ASKS]: -- will the [EMPIRE] regime increase the debt ceiling?

    [HTS REPLYS]: Yes the American - Israeli Military Industrial Complex - the [EMPIRE] will in fact raise the debt ceiling as it has at least [70] times in the past that is a given.

    [OZYISM ASKS]: -- Will the increase of debt ceiling help the [EMPIRE] avoid a catastrophe?

    [HTS REPLYS]: No! the raising of the debt ceiling will not avoid an economic world wide catastrophe, in fact it will only bring it on must faster, there is no possible way that the debt can ever be repaid, and saying that everything is going to be better in the future by looking into some crystal ball is not reality.

    [OZYISM ASKS]: -- Will the increase of debt ceiling come with tax rises and spending cuts? If not, how will that work out?

    [HTS REPLYS]: It will in fact come with a tax increase but it may be more of an INFLATIONARY TAX increase, as their own [DR. RON PAUL]

  28. has shown again and again, the value to its currency will decline on the international level making the cost of Wally World items increase along with the cost of Oil and other necessary resources for production, Rare Earth from China, Lithium from Afghanistan, Food and all costs across the economic spectrum.

    [OZYISM ASKS]: - Will US go on default?

    [HTS REPLYS]: The Empire crossed the default line a long way back, the reality of that default has not sunk in.

    [OZYISM ASKS]:-- Where will the cuts come from? More teachers lay offs? Or maybe cut aid to pregnant women and children.

    [HTS REPLYS]: The better question is where the cuts, not come from, will everywhere except from the [1%] Empire wealthy, and the Military Industrial Complex the war machine.

    [OZYISM ASKS]: -- Will they cut funds from the military?

    [HTS REPLYS]: No! the Nuclear Choke Chain Blue and Gold Necklace running from the Black Sea, around the under belly of the [ME] Middle East, to the Far East and then to the Pacific Arctic Region must be maintained, and used against those nations that have the oil and resources the [Empire] must have to continue to exist.

    [OZYISM ASKS]: -- Will they increase the taxes? How will that affect anything and everything?

    [HTS REPLYS]: Again Inflation will be the tax, with causes sales tax's to rise, and city, county, state, federal, rents, which are all taxes of one form or another will rise while unemployment will also rise, this is cause and effect with one effecting each other.


  29. My first thoughts were Chavez and Venezuela. We really are becoming a banana republic.

  30. I don't think this is a ploy or positioning.

    I think McConnell simply fears that House Republicans will hold out longer than the President, and allow a default rather than give in.

    This entire plan is designed to do one thing: evade the House Republicans by creating a mechanism that allows the debt limit to go up without their cooperation - but allows quisling Republicans in the House and the Senate to say, "Well, golly gee, don't look at US! We didn't raise the debt limit!"

    To work, it requires everyone involved to be completely dishonest about their motives and the meaning of their "merely procedural" votes. In other words, it's a perfect plan for Washington in 2011.

  31. It's time for McConnell to get the Bob Bennett treatment. I'd love to see the look on that clown's face when he comes in third in his next Republican senatorial primary.


  32. So what's the threat to Obama here? That his taking ownership of the debt ceiling will result in more mindless hysteria from Republicans? You mean you can turn it up more?

  33. Okay McConnell, and Obama, too, if you can't read our contract, leave your privileged bathroom keys at the front desk and go home. We will come later with our remedial course in Good Constitutional Government in Service To The People!

  34. Why in the hell are these peckerwoods even in Congress if they don't know the constitution? They all need to take a test on the constitution and bill of rights and pass with 95% to even be considered for office...but I digress...

  35. It's not just the republican's .

  36. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect the Constitution, which protects the people. The people accept the responsibility for their own safety as opposed to what now exists - a bloated beast gone 'rogue' that is exercising brute power in the absence of authority.
    We find ourselves in an unprecedented predicament. It will take nothing less than a Jeffersonian commitment to restoring this nation to a constitutional republic.

  37. To get the money to run for office these guys sold out. Now they do not want to do anything to hurt their chances of re-election so they pass the buck. Congress does not want to be responsible for raising the debt ceiling so they look for a way to give that responsibility to the President. No one cares about right or wrong. They are all just looking out for their butts and protecting their cushy positions.

  38. As Republican, I resent the remark that Republicans are giving this a warm reception. There may be some number of sellout shills in the Senate cloakroom who like this buck-passing monstrosity, but no real conservative Republican is for this bad idea. And those Congress-critters who go on the record and vote for this will find out that SUPPORTING THIS WILL BE VIEWED AS TREASON TO REPUBLICAN VALUES AND AGENDA. I fully expect that, once the more serious plan to cut spending is shot down by the spendaholic Reid and Obama, the RINO sellout usual suspects will stab conservatives in the back and vote with Reid, Pelosi, Durbin etal to make this unconstitutional pass-the-buck plan happen.

  39. Republicans want to tear up the Constitution? Good. I like to tear up republicans. They deny reality and murder people world wide with their racist c_________ attitudes. I hope they all die in horrible traffic accidents.

  40. Remember, G.W. Bush said that the Constitution was "...nothing but a piece of paper." The first president to begin stepping all over the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln --- and he was the first Republican president.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.