Or to convict a President in impeachment proceedings. If you add those supermajority provisions or requirements that were in our original Constitution with those that have been added to the Constitution by amendment, there are today already in our Constitution 10 different provisions which require not a simple majority, not 50 percent plus one, but a supermajority. And if it is appropriate in those circumstances, you and I are here tonight arguing that it should be appropriate in this one where we actually reach into people's pockets and take the productive efforts of their labor out of their pockets and give them to someone else to spend.
John Shadegg: “Or to convict a President in impeachment proceedings. If you add those supermajority provisions or requirements that…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for supermajority requirements in legislative decisions.
Share
More from John Shadegg
So this would be the first Federal mandate saying you must buy a product because the Federal Government tells you you must buy a product?
Because of one word difference? One word difference. The Senate has already passed the Senate bill, the House has to pass that exact bill word for word. It can't have one word missing?
So the reason you wouldn't want to stand on the floor and vote for that Senate bill is not just because of the policy in it, it is because that bill will contain the Cornhusker Kickback, right?
I have spent a great deal of my life advocating for the victims of crime. It seems to me this is an outrage that exists in current law. The victims of crime should not be revictimized. In this case, American law does revictimize those…





