3451
Comments (115)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
18
c89631147e 18 points ago +20 / -2

Since when is Pelosi above the Constitution?

Sounds like an excuse to acquiesce to the Communists. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Like “muh blue line” sucking the BBLMC all summer while they burned, looted, and murdered because of “muh pensions”. 🤦🏼‍♂️

13
NullifyAndSecede 13 points ago +13 / -0

The constitution just says congress critters can't be arrested on the way to a vote. This was the reasoning many republicans used when avoiding the metal detectors.

So they instituted a fine instead.

To the extent we allow government to tax/fine us without restriction; we cannot be said to have ANY rights, only privileges which the government can charge us for at any rate it deems appropriate.

11
SealTeamNeutrino 11 points ago +12 / -1

Pelosi leads the majority. A majority in the House can change the rules to their liking.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

5
KuzoKevin [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thanks, Pede.

5
COLDWARPATRIOT55 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes, it says that. But it was written when people had honor. Doesn’t apply to Pelosi, the having honor part that is,

1
covfefe-time 1 point ago +1 / -0

And if they change the rules, telling us to wear dirty underwear on our heads, we should do that too?

Because that's essentially what we're doing.

I can't think of anything more asinine and degrading at this point.

1
JaoBiZen 1 point ago +1 / -0

House speaker.

-6
KuzoKevin [S] -6 points ago +4 / -10

The rules of the House are the rules of the House.

One of their rules is that House members can't insult a sitting president at a personal level. That's a pretty good rule, IMO.

The last place we need anarchy is in Congress. It's bad enough as it is.

4
NullifyAndSecede 4 points ago +6 / -2

I would say it is the first place.

Anarchy is not a lack of rules, it is a lack of rulers.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon

-1
KuzoKevin [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

The House would get nothing done without rules, including a hybrid of Roberts Rules of Order. Congress getting nothing done might be a good thing, but there has to be structure, otherwise there's chaos.

2
NullifyAndSecede 2 points ago +4 / -2

An = Without

Archon = Ruler

Anarchy = Without Rulers.

The rules of moral human conduct are emergent. Nobody has to tell you that murder, rape or theft is wrong, and everyone has a moral right to prevent such behavior.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-2
KuzoKevin [S] -2 points ago +2 / -4

Down-voted for stating reality?

Zero fucks given.