PDA

View Full Version : WOW! Sen. Coburn Lays it Out: Sell Your Vote and We Will Publish It



megimoo
03-18-2010, 03:02 PM
SEN. TOM COBURN (R), OKLAHOMA: I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.

If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you. It's going to be held.

Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I've already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote.

So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen.

snip

Coburn: Senate Republicans Will Watch for Sweetheart Deals in Health Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA0EOugizPY&feature=player_embedded

http://patriotroom.com/article/wow-sen-coburn-lays-it-out-sell-your-vote-and-we-will-publish-it

fettpett
03-18-2010, 06:32 PM
awesome, good for him

patriot45
03-18-2010, 06:37 PM
Coburn has stayed true to his word since the Contract With America! He is the only one!
Coburn for Prez!

PoliCon
03-18-2010, 08:40 PM
Coburn For President!

Rockntractor
03-18-2010, 09:16 PM
Oklahoma has dam fine politicians!:cool:

Freeman_Shadwell
03-18-2010, 09:38 PM
Wow! I heard a quick snippet about this on the radio today but that's the first time I've read/heard what was actually said. He seems pretty confident, cocky even (in a good way), that he's got someone's proverbial balls nailed to the wall.

IF this passes, or is "deemed"to be passed, this weekend it will become the biggest train wreck in the court system that I can think of. And we'll still have to pay the immediate tax increases while it's tied up in court battles for the next 3 years.

patriot45
03-18-2010, 09:45 PM
Wow! I heard a quick snippet about this on the radio today but that's the first time I've read/heard what was actually said. He seems pretty confident, cocky even (in a good way), that he's got someone's proverbial balls nailed to the wall.

IF this passes, or is "deemed"to be passed, this weekend it will become the biggest train wreck in the court system that I can think of. And we'll still have to pay the immediate tax increases while it's tied up in court battles for the next 3 years.

Kinda un Constitutional isn't it? :rolleyes:

Freeman_Shadwell
03-18-2010, 10:17 PM
Kinda un Constitutional isn't it? :rolleyes:

As I understand it, it's unconstitutional should the house pass the Senate bill? Wasn't the Senate bill one to be submitted to be conferenced with the house bill, and not a bill sent to the house to be passed as law?

I may be wrong on that, and please correct me if I am. I would like to know the real facts about this, not the newspaper facts.


The Dems are doing their best to muddy the waters and over complicate things in hopes that we'll just give up. If I'm misunderstanding this, I apologize.

patriot45
03-18-2010, 10:27 PM
As I understand it, it's unconstitutional should the house pass the Senate bill? Wasn't the Senate bill one to be submitted to be conferenced with the house bill, and not a bill sent to the house to be passed as law?

I may be wrong on that, and please correct me if I am. I would like to know the real facts about this, not the newspaper facts.


The Dems are doing their best to muddy the waters and over complicate things in hopes that we'll just give up. If I'm misunderstanding this, I apologize.

Well I think there is a rule of law on this, and we are, or were a Nation of laws! If i 'm right I think the wording of both bills should match before the 0 can sign it into law.

Swampfox
03-18-2010, 10:30 PM
As I understand it, it's unconstitutional should the house pass the Senate bill? Wasn't the Senate bill one to be submitted to be conferenced with the house bill, and not a bill sent to the house to be passed as law?

I may be wrong on that, and please correct me if I am. I would like to know the real facts about this, not the newspaper facts.


The Dems are doing their best to muddy the waters and over complicate things in hopes that we'll just give up. If I'm misunderstanding this, I apologize.

If they pass it with the "deem and pass" method, it's of very questionable constitutionality because it violates bicameralism (both house and senate passing the same bill and then president signing it into law). If a constitutional challenge is successful here, the whole bill/law would be struck.

If they pass it regularly, constitutional challenge will be much tougher and even if it's successful it would likely only strike those provisions that violate the Constitution (i.e. potentially the "mandate to purchase health insurance"), not the bill as a whole.