Some common-sense wearable advice from Hugh Hewitt.... The Patriot's best, at 1320 on my dial here in JAX...!
This super pix was snagged from John Hinderaker's posting at Powerline, "Following Hugh's Advice." Just a peek below, the rest at the above link.
"Last night, at the Minnesota Republican Party's state convention, Congressman Mark Kennedy was nominated for the open Senate seat being vacated by Mark Dayton. The Minneapolis Star Tribune prints the full text of Mark's acceptance speech here....
One thing that struck me as I read Mark's speech is that he seems to have followed Hugh Hewitt's advice:
Mark's speech focused on all five of Hugh's recommended themes. That probably wasn't a coincidence, and I'm sure we'll hear more on all of those topics from Mark as the campaign continues...."
If Congressman Mark Kennedy is running for the U.S. Senate on a platform that includes Hugh's advice above, I'd almost move to Minnesota just to vote for him. Especially for his stand on securing the border.
Too bad Senator Mel Martinez, our embarassing Senator from Florida---for whom I'm ashamed to admit I cast my vote---wants open borders and has four more years left in his term. He has been a big disappointment, the capstone of which was his co-authoring of the outrageous pro-amnesty, reward-the-criminals Hagel-Martinez bill. He has aligned himself with a cabal of soft-centrist, left-tilting faux Republicans of the John McCain fringe that also includes Lindsay Graham, who is infuriating many in the Republican Party in my home state, South Carolina.
I'm glad to see that the constitutionality of the McCain-(Ted) Kennedy "earned" amnesty Senate bill that passed is now coming into question---since it includes a revenue component and, according to the Constitution, revenue bills can only originate in the U.S. House of Representatives, to wit:
"Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." here
McCain-Kennedy originated in the U.S. Senate and it has already been passed. They voted to allow no more amendments prior to final passage and one cannot be added in the Joint Conference. The House's final version of the bill includes no revenue provisions, so it is not a revenue bill.
Senator Bill Frist's proposed solution to the constitutional problem is a real stretch, in that he wants to amend a House tax bill to include the Senate's Immigration Reform bill. But they would still be adding revenue legislation that originated in the Senate---legislation that is opposed by the House and was purposefully not included in their Immigration Reform bill. Such a proposed addition would be dead on arrival.
According to Charles Hurt, here, "Illegals' tax deal could kill bill." Hurt's column includes the following:
"The long-fought Senate immigration bill that opponents say grants amnesty to 10 million illegal aliens is unconstitutional and appears headed for certain demise, Senate Republicans now say.
A key feature of the Senate bill is that it would make illegals pay back taxes before applying for citizenship, a requirement that supporters say will raise billions of dollars in the next decade. There's just one problem: The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits revenue-raising legislation from originating in the Senate...
Republicans -- including the bill's supporters -- say this will kill the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he's offered a simple solution. He wants to attach the immigration bill to a tax bill that has already passed the House. It would then proceed as planned to a "conference committee," where negotiators from the House and Senate hammer out differences between the two chambers' immigration bills. " This is a procedural issue that we could overcome..."
But Minority Leader Harry Reid won't go along with that fix. His office said yesterday that the concerns raised by Mr. Frist and House Republicans are "technical in nature" and can be ignored. " The bill as written, however, will never make it to conference, Republicans say.
Under House rules, any member can introduce a "blue-slip resolution" to return the legislation to the Senate... Hill staffers say it would likely be done based on "policy-blind constitutional issues." "If there is a blue-slip issue, it is not about policy," said one House aide familiar with the matter. "It's about procedure and the House's prerogative to uphold the United States Constitution."
Republicans say that because the concerns already have been raised, they expect the bill to be returned to the Senate..."