There is ample evidence to indicate that many, if not most, of our congress-critters are chronic prevaricators. They campaign for office and without batting an eye or nervously dampening a palm they tell us what they know are untruths. They willfully and repeatedly look us squarely in the eye and recite talking points which are designed to convince us of "facts" that aren't so. They are professional liars.
They know they are liars. They do it for a career.
Now here is the intelligence test. If you are a professional liar and you are in a legislative body of professional liars how would you behave when faced with this proposal:
- The check is in the mail
- I'll respect you in the morning
- I won't...
The Constitution says that legislation must be passed by both chambers of the legislature, House and Senate. That means the same act must be voted on and approved by the necessary majority. Not two different acts, but one.
The House passed a bill in December. The Senate passed a bill in December. The leadership opted not to have a conference committee to resolve differences. The leadership know proposes a reconciliation bill in the Senate. That requires a law and that means the House must pass the Senate bill as it exists without ability to change or amend it. They must then allow the President to sign it into law--which he is only too eager to do.
The House is being asked to assume that once this law is signed that the Senate will then consider their objections, corrections, amendments or proposals under the reconciliation process.
Would any intelligent person in a Congress of liars believe that such a thing could happen?
Meanwhile Louise Slaughter (D-NY) wants to just foregoe any voting at all and let the President sign a Senate-only enactment. Can we get that lady a copy of the Constitution?