Q&A with Jeff Irwin: 'The Republicans picked a fight with the Constitution and we're prepared to stand up for it'
State Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, and five other Democratic lawmakers who are co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit argue House Republicans have repeatedly granted immediate effect to controversial bills that don't actually have the two-thirds majority support needed to take such action.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
It's a case that has attracted national media attention, including coverage from Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, and it's now playing out in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Irwin and five other Democratic lawmakers who are co-plaintiffs in the case argue House Republicans have repeatedly granted immediate effect to controversial bills that don't actually have the two-thirds majority support needed to take such action. They argue those bills should have to wait until 90 days after the legislative session ends to take effect.
Republicans have fired back, saying they're not doing anything the Democrats didn't do when they were in power, and Irwin concedes that's mostly true.
But the Democrats contend Republicans are violating the state Constitution by ignoring their requests for roll call votes on whether the bills should take immediate effect.
Irwin, a first-term Democrat, sat down with AnnArbor.com on Tuesday to talk about the circumstances that have the Democrats suing the Republicans.
AnnArbor.com: It sounds like you've picked quite a fight with the Republicans in the state Legislature. What is this really about?
Irwin: Well, we didn't pick a fight with the Republicans. The Republicans picked a fight with the Constitution and we're prepared to stand up for it. There's a lot of different elements of this story, but I think the crux of it is that the state Constitution says that if one-fifth of the Legislature requests a roll call vote on any question, that roll call vote shall be granted. And on a number of occasions, as members of the House, I and many of my colleagues have stood up and said, 'Mr. Speaker, we want you to count the votes on this particular motion,' and the Republicans have continued to ignore our calls for a counting of the votes. What's happening is the Republicans are declaring a two-thirds majority erroneously and putting it in the journal without any counting. Even in circumstances where it's clear that there is not a two-thirds majority, even in circumstances where it's a very divisive partisan bill, they're attaching the immediate-effect provision to these bills and jamming them through.
Irwin, toward the left with hand raised, posted this photo on his Facebook page on March 28 with the caption: "How could the House Republicans not recognize this???"
Courtesy of Jeff Irwin
Irwin: When a bill passes in the Legislature, there's a roll call vote and everybody puts their votes up individually and those are recorded. After that roll call happens is the time at which usually an immediate-effect motion would be made relative to that particular bill, and what happens in the Legislature is that now just as a matter of routine, as soon as a bill passes, the speaker will recognize the majority and the majority leader will say, 'I move for immediate effect.' And the speaker ignores us and our calls for accountability and our calls for a roll call and just sort of says very casually, 'All those in favor please rise.' And usually nobody stands up or just a small handful of people will stand up and then they gavel it through and say it's passed. And then they print in the journal 'immediate effect has been passed with two-thirds of the members voting therefore.' Our whole lawsuit is trying to disprove that fact.
AnnArbor.com: How often is this happening?
Irwin: There have been 566 bills passed through the Legislature and 546 of them have had this immediate effect provision. It's not accurate to say the Republicans have ignored our calls for a roll call vote on every single one of those 546 bills. Some of the bills are bills the Democrats would be happy to support immediate effect on.
AnnArbor.com: What's your response to the claim that use of immediate effect isn't anything new and the Democrats did this in the past?
Irwin: That's mostly true. The real story of this in the historical context is the immediate-effect motion has sort of degenerated over time. And both parties have abused this power when they've had the gavel, but it's gotten worse and worse over time. And it's gotten especially bad after term limits, because now there's no institutional memory, now there's no real respect amongst colleagues, for the most part, and we're seeing that with the way the Republicans are disrespecting their Democratic colleagues. So it's happened before but it's gotten worse and worse over the years and it's gotten to the point now where the Republicans are so brazen and blatant in their violation of constitutional provisions, it's so obvious that what they're doing is wrong, that it's gotten to this fever pitch and it's gotten to this point of a lawsuit.
AnnArbor.com: What pushed you and other House Democrats over the edge to finally file a lawsuit? And what is going on in the case now?
Irwin: After the situation in the House degenerated to that point, we finally realized we had to seek justice in the courts, so we filed a motion for an injunction in Ingham Circuit Court and that was heard last Monday by Judge Clinton Canady III, and Judge Canady ruled that the Republicans were enjoined from passing immediate-effect motions without counting the votes in the future, and that immediate effect would not be applied to the three bills we specifically mention in our lawsuit.
The Republicans appealed that up to the Appeals Court level, so the Court of Appeals heard their emergency filing on Monday and they basically preserved the status quo. They said, 'We're going to take this case, we're going to hear it on the merits, and we're going to preserve the status quo with respect to the bills that were specifically challenged by the Dems.'
So the two that were signed by the governor and were already in law — the bill affecting the graduate research assistants and the bill affecting collection of union dues by public employers — those bills are going to continue to be enforced. And the other bill that we sued on where the Republicans are seeking to change the rules about petition signatures and ballot initiatives ... what the three-judge panel in the Court of Appeals said about that bill was its immediate effect would not be valid through the House.
The most troubling part of the Court of Appeals ruling to me was the Republicans can continue during the time the court is hearing this case to declare erroneous and non-existent two-thirds majorities on bills and change the law with immediate effect despite the fact that they obviously don't have the votes and the evidence is right there in the journal.
The controversy over procedure in the Michigan Legislature has Rachel Maddow fired up:
AnnArbor.com: So this isn't directly about the emergency manager law? I know that's been cited as a bill that was given immediate effect last year without a true two-thirds majority.
Irwin: The emergency manager law is not specifically mentioned, but this is to some degree about the emergency manager law because it was a divisive change, and what the governor and the Republicans did was they really accelerated the pace at which emergency managers could be appointed so they could be appointed earlier and more often, and they also increased the powers that these emergency managers had, specifically with respect to voiding union contracts. And if the Republicans had followed the Constitution, then those changes would have gone into play in a more orderly fashion. They wouldn't have been immediate.
AnnArbor.com: What other laws do you believe have been given immediate effect without a true two-thirds majority and what have been the consequences?
Irwin: One example that particularly bothers me is we all know Republicans last year passed a law that forbids public employers from treating their gay and lesbian employees the same as their straight employees. They can't provide them the same pay and benefits. It's now illegal in Michigan. We have enshrined this type of bigotry and discrimination into our laws and we have forbade the city of Ann Arbor and other employers in our area from providing certain benefits to certain employees because of who they love. The Republicans did not have a two-thirds majority for passing that bill, and one of the heartbreaking aspects of that bill was that the governor signed that bigoted piece of legislation three days before Christmas, so the moment the pen lifted off that page it became law and those people were cut off benefits three days before Christmas with no time to plan a transition.
Another good example was the welfare benefits piece. Last fall the Republicans cut off about 24,000 children and 12,000 adults from welfare benefits because they were too poor for too long. Once again, the Republicans have a right to do that. But what they shouldn't have had a right to do is cut those benefits off immediately without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. They should have had to wait until 90 days after the beginning of the year.
Under federal law you can't cut off people's benefits in this sort of precipitous way. You have to have a process. You have to give people a little bit of time to plan. And what happened was Michigan got sued. Michigan lost in federal court on this matter, and we ended up having to revoke these people's benefits in a more slow process anyway — not quite as slow as it would have been if they followed the law. But we ended up jerking these people around who are already struggling in a way that I think is really unfair, and then in addition we ended up spending money on a legal case that we should have never had to fight.
AnnArbor.com: Remind me who the plaintiffs are in the lawsuit and who you're fighting specifically.
Irwin: There are six named plaintiffs and three named defendants. The six named plaintiffs are Richard Hammel, Kate Segal, Mark Meadows, Woodrow Stanley, Steve Lindberg and myself. All House members. Five third-termers. One freshman. The named defendants are Speaker Jase Bolger, Floor Leader Jim Stamas and John Walsh, the speaker pro tem.
The reason why this is important is because, when we set up our Constitution, one of the core principles of American political theory is that government should have certain limitations. There are certain rights that are reserved for the people. There are certain powers that the minority has. And yes, we have a democracy, but we put certain limits on that democracy and we enshrine those limitations in our Constitution. And what's happening in the Legislature is the Republicans, because they have the majority, they're ignoring those limitations on their power and they're abusing their power. They're ignoring the limited rights that the minority has.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Michael Corliss
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:08 a.m.
Both the partisan democrats and the partisan republicans on this forum are missing the point: These tactics aren't hurting the politicians. They are violating OUR RIGHTS!
Chase Ingersoll
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
Politicians use the Constitution when it suits their political purpose. Does Mr. Irwin have any credibility on Constitutional issues having said nothing about the jack booted, ski mask wearing, Bill Schutte agents, seizing the business and personal health records records of our law abiding Main Street business members and their customers. People who are "real" supporters of the Constitution, speak truth to power and take personal risk, rather than riskless politically calculated rhetoric. Chase Ingersoll
annarboral
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.
Why is this clown continually getting coverage by annarbor.com? What is he paying you? Don't you realize there are other elected officials? Every article involving him is a blatant attempt to publicize himself. So it's like free advertising. Are you guys now officially his campaign committee?
Peter
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
The republican party hasn't stood for anything constitutional since well before they cooked up the southern strategy, so this shouldn't be a big surprise...
discgolfgeek
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.
Bottom line, if the Constitution is being violated, it needs to be fixed. Whether Democrats or Republicans were guilty of the behavior is totally irrelevant so stop bringing it up. Didn't your mother ever tell you that 2 wrongs don't make a right?
Sparty
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.
Finally, a bottom line assessment that makes sense.
Scott Rosencrans
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:19 a.m.
Thank you, Jeff.
Carole
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:45 a.m.
Have to admit didn't read the whole article, but found one statement interesting. Republicans state that they are doing nothing more than what the democrats did when they were in power. It is okay for one but not the other. Actually, they should all be following the constitutional laws.
Dog Guy
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:12 a.m.
The basic issue is obviously that, if this is a democracy, Democrats should run everything.
Basic Bob
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:32 a.m.
But it's not a democracy, it's a republic.
Sparty
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:49 a.m.
The republicans version of violating the constitution on immediate effect: Well yes we are doing it, but the democrats did it before so we can do it now. Nah nah. The democrats version of violating the constitution previously on immediate effect: yes, we did. It should never have happened. Unfortunately, nobody fought to stop it. It won't happen again. The lawsuit: let's stop violating the constitution regardless of party and adhere to the law!
Stephen Landes
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:35 a.m.
I suggest commenters would do well to read the Republican response submitted to the court before claiming they know what the court should decide and whether or not throwing out the law suit would be the right thing to do.
SalineTeacher
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 11:16 p.m.
On Facebook, I suggested to Mr. Irwin that he's made his point and rather than suing colleagues it would be more productive to advocate for closer adherence to the rules at the start of the next legislative session in January 2013.
Usual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:29 a.m.
"it would be more productive to advocate for closer adherence to the rules at the start of the next legislative session" Unless the Democrats get a majority, then it will become OK to do it again.
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.
If that would only work! Obviously, you are more of an idealist than a realist. Even if your suggestion would be successful in 2013, nothing prevents egregious laws from being passed until then and put into immediate effect.
ScioIndy
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 10:39 p.m.
This is so very interesting coming from a guy who has never held a real job in his life(sucking from the teat of Government as his father did); made his living gambling and drove a Mercedes as s Washtenaw County Commissioner; I think hypocrite is the appropriate word for Irwin. And really, who watches MSNBC/Maddow other than Irwin?
Charlie
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.
I do. And I saw this report. We should be appalled at what is happening in the legislature now. They showed a video of a session of the legislature. The speaker was able to count the" number of hands" in approximately 2 seconds, and this while not even looking at them!
Usual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:27 a.m.
I never watch his show.
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:57 a.m.
This quote should answer your question: ""The Rachel Maddow Show marked the 13th consecutive monthly win over CNN among A25-54 (301,000 vs. 236,000) and total viewers (1.102 million vs. 809,000). This is the strongest A25-54 delivery for TRMS since November 2010 and the best total viewer delivery since March 2009. Compared to January 2011, "The Rachel Maddow Show" grew +11% in total viewers and 19% in A25-54." http://www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-up-34/ For those wishing to view superb reporting and examination of issues, the Rachel Maddow show appears on MSNBC at 9 pm daily and is repeated at midnight Mondays through Thursdays. Now stop throwing sticks-and-stones. It is unbecoming.
xmo
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
"saying they're not doing anything the Democrats didn't do when they were in power, and Irwin concedes that's mostly true." So, what is the story?
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:49 a.m.
So you do not believe that disenfranchising elected government officials in their own deliberative forum is a "story"? It works both ways of course. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can justify ignoring the legal voting rights of others. Let us return respect to our state's legislative chambers.
Mike K
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.
"Republicans have fired back, saying they're not doing anything the Democrats didn't do when they were in power, and Irwin concedes that's mostly true." But, but, but....................... Wow. And this. "Irwin: That's mostly true. The real story of this in the historical context is the immediate-effect motion has sort of degenerated over time. And both parties have abused this power when they've had the gavel, but it's gotten worse and worse over time. And it's gotten especially bad after term limits, because now there's no institutional memory, now there's no real respect amongst colleagues, for the most part, and we're seeing that with the way the Republicans are disrespecting their Democratic colleagues. So it's happened before but it's gotten worse and worse over the years and it's gotten to the point now where the Republicans are so brazen and blatant in their violation of constitutional provisions, it's so obvious that what they're doing is wrong, that it's gotten to this fever pitch and it's gotten to this point of a lawsuit." I'm sure it will get worse when (if) the dems get the house and the senate. Oh wait, didn't that already happen at the federal level in 2008 and 2009?
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:44 a.m.
No, Mike K, it did not get worse.
Bill
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.
I'm pleased to see Jeff take this opportunity to remind the Republicans that we have a Constitution and that they, as a party, are not allowed to make their own version to fit their agenda. Hopefully the recall petition in Michigan will work and we will be able to remove the governor and replace with a governor that works for all the people. Wisconsin citizens recently received approval to recall their governor and hopefully that will be the case in Michigan soon.
1bit
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:13 a.m.
No, the question is why didn't the Republicans fight this back then.
Usual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:26 a.m.
Why didn't he remind the Democrats that we have a Constitution when they were doing it?
Roadman
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.
I have always appreciated Jeff's ability to cite and fight for constitutional principles. He is scholarly and eloquent on the Great Compromise and state constitutional law. Too many times both major parties ignore constitutional protections and the rule of statute in performance of their duties. The organizing principle of state government is the grant of power given to its citizenry. When constitutional provisions are ignored or otherwise not enforced their is an erosion of rights of the people. Mr. Irwin is exercising his constitutional right of judicial review of allegedly unconstitutional legislative conduct. He should be applauded for this.
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:40 a.m.
How can procedural rules trump Constitutional law? What "rule" or "law" or "procedure" can not be challenged as being unconstitutional?
Angry Moderate
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 8:58 p.m.
Huh? Powell has nothing to do with this case, which is about the Michigan constitution. In Michigan, the courts do not review violations of the legislature's procedural rules. That "right" doesn't exist.
Roadman
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
@ Angry Moderate: There are certain safeguards that those denied of due process can undertake. See the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Powell versus Macormack.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:50 p.m.
There is no right to judicial review of a violation of an internal legislative procedure.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:33 p.m.
Jeff is absolutely correct and deserves kudos for having the guts to join this lawsuit. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or Democrat, the rule of law and the constitution should be respected by both sides! If the Michigan courts ultimately don't rule in their favor, THAT would be a real scandal!
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:35 a.m.
Ignoring the constitutional law is wrong for Democrats and is wrong for Republicans. Everyone should commit to the letter of the law and put this issue to bed, once and for all time.
xmo
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
saying they're not doing anything the Democrats didn't do when they were in power, and Irwin concedes that's mostly true.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.
Apparently it does matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat. The plaintiffs themselves have done the exact same thing many times in the past, but now it's suddenly unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.
Barb
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:32 p.m.
Interesting take: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/michigan-republicans-blowing-up-norm-politics
DonBee
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.
I would be more comfortable with this if Mr Irwin and his team had at least 1 republican on the complaining side. Both parties have done this over the years. Why not fine one upstanding person of the other party to join in this lawsuit. Then it would not feel so partisan.
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.
The issue should stand on its merits so party affiliation should not matter.
Dilbert
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 10:14 p.m.
No need to include Republicans: this is about him getting a leadership position in the House next year.
Roadman
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.
Jeff Irwin has gone toe-to-toe with the GOP on many occaisions without hesitation. As Board of Commissioners chair he reminded Engler-appointee Circuit Court Judge Archie Brown that the BOC controlled the County Building when Brown tried to take over Ann Mattson's courtroom. He also ignored the circuit court judiciary's call for more expensive security despite threats of legal action over the county's duty to furnish a court building. Brown and his cohorts backed down on the matter in what was seen as a big political victory over the GOP-controllled circuit court. Jeff is the son of former Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan State Senator Mitch Irwin. Jeff had been elected to the BOC as a U-M student and earned a reputation as a progressive liberal. He beat Ned Staeler for the Democratic State House nomination in 2010 to replace Rebekah Warren.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.
"State Rep. Kate Segal, the Democratic floor leader, on Friday said her party was just as guilty of not getting roll call votes as the Republicans are now. 'Both parties have taken advantage of the immediate effect and gotten away from the constitution,'said Segal, D-Battle Creek." From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120407/POLITICS02/204070340#ixzz1rkzyt7M2 I'm ready for links to Rachel Maddow videos where she complains about Democrats doing it back then.
Unusual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3 p.m.
After 30 years as a voter, I am starting to think the answer is, unfortunately, no.
garrisondyer
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:57 a.m.
I gotta agree that it's pretty despicable of an elected official to trample all over the Constitution, no matter the party. Can we just get some people in office who are committed to serving the people of the state please? What a novel idea... Hopefully we're moving in that direction.
1bit
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:10 a.m.
I'm sure Ms. Maddow will do that when Mr. Hannity admits his failings. And we're all waiting for both of them to just be quiet. Seriously, two wrongs don't make a right. Fingerpointing is for children. Is it too much to ask that both parties follow our State Constitution? I don't really care what brought this about, but hopefully the parties will now be forced, go forward, to follow the letter and spirit of the State Constitution.
Usual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:23 a.m.
Waiting.....
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:30 a.m.
Children, children! Let's stop our fighting! Neither Democrats or Republicans should be allowed to break the (Constitutional) law and both should be faulted for doing it. It is time to commit to the intent of the law and without exceptions.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.
So, you're saying that there is a certain number of infractions that are OK to do? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that for you that number is conveniently somewhere between how many the Democrats did and how many the Republican did. So what's the number of times it's OK to do it? 200? 300? 400? If the next Republican-majority congress doe it 200 times you will be OK with that?
local
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.
Waiting also to hear how many votes the democrats have done using this 2/3 vote along the way. 546 is the number Republicans have force fed to the state of Michigan and its residents. Many are very controversial and deserve the proper time frame necessary for opposition and in some cases, actual action. I think the constitution is important, but any republican that can justify 546 votes without an actual role call/vote, well that seems unreal to me.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:25 p.m.
Waiting.........
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:10 p.m.
"The reason why this is important is because, when we set up our Constitution, one of the core principles of American political theory is that government should have certain limitations" The sound of liberals talking about limitations on government is too funny.
Usual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:23 a.m.
Nobody's disputing the efficiency of the CFL light bulb. The question is: what part of the Constitution gives congress the power to require their use?
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.
I find it interesting that the mandate to use of CFL light bulbs is a sentinel issue for Republicans. The CFL light bulb provides comparable candle power to the tungsten light bulb of similar wattage but does not get hot, lasts years longer so overall cost is less, and uses less energy which is good for the country.
maallen
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.
@Clownfish President Bush may have signed "the light bulb law", but it was the Democrats who wrote up the law and pushed it through. With the bad "Light bulb law" I am surprised the democrats didn't tell us what kind of light switch we were to use to turn on those light bulbs!
clownfish
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
USUAL, so you think George Bush was a Communist? He is the one that signed the "light bulb" law. What car models is Obama requiring or canceling production of?
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:55 p.m.
I agree that someone who wants the government controlling everything like health care, light bulbs, toilets, Happy Meals, what kind of cars automobile companies may build, and whether or not a corporation may build a new factory in South Carolina is called a Communist.
Enso
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:47 p.m.
Liberals DON'T want unlimited government. Someone who wants the government controlling everything is called a Communist. Last I checked, the American Communist Party was in dire straits. Although, as China seems to be showing, a communist political and economic structure may be ideal when attempting to grow an economy. Further, I hope you take your hyperbolic statements about liberals being communists and apply it to the right wing in this country. You know, the people that want to make abortion illegal, homosexuality illegal, drugs illegal, not going to church illegal, sexuality illegal. Talk about overextending the government!
Vivienne Armentrout
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.
I'm glad that the Dems are finally pursuing this. Go Jeff!
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:21 a.m.
... so speaks the resident Republican. How surprising.
xmo
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.
I would like to see Jeff go also!
USRepublic
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.
So the guy admits he and his liberal cronies are hypocrites.... This is news?
Top Cat
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Irwin seems able to eloquently explain the purposes of a Constitution. Perhaps he can explain this to Mr. Obama who missed that in school.
Pickforddick
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:42 a.m.
You are so right Top Cat.......It sure will be nice when he is unemployed starting in January.
Veracity
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:31 a.m.
Barb the Latte Liberal: It is a non sequitur. Top Cat attaches comments frequently to politically related articles and appears to use every opportunity to express his hatred of President Obama in demeaning and disrespectful terms. IMHO.
Barb
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 7:24 p.m.
This is all very entertaining but what on Earth is MR Obama doing that is unconstitutional? And what does this have to do with the article above?
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6 p.m.
Sparty, "Mr" is an appropriate way to refer to the President of the United States when not addressing him directly. When addressing directly, the custom is "Mr President," and when announcing him it's, "The President of the United States." America does not worship the office of President. The President is there to serve us, not the other way around. We got rid of all that garbage 236 years ago.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 5:35 p.m.
Obama has showed us that knowledge of it and respect for it are two entirely different things.
Sparty
Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 5:23 p.m.
PRESIDENT Obama is a Constitutional Law Scholar, so I'm certain he's quite familiar with the constitution. Perhaps more so than some of the ideologues on the Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore and Citizens United come to mind .....