Here again, would the gentleman agree, this is the kind of discussion and debate that ought to have occurred in the Committee on the Judiciary, so we could have had appropriate refinements made to clear up what is a fundamental area of vagueness and therefore potential uncertainty and litigations? That is why we should not be voting on this out of the regular order as we are going to.
Discussing the need for proper debate in the Committee on the Judiciary.
Share
More from David Skaggs
recent reports of atrocities against Kosovo civilians by Serb security forces are certainly appalling. It is further evidence of President Milosevic's criminality in repressing ethnic Albanians. It is entirely understandable why many…
Mr. Speaker, of course we want to support American troops as they carry out this dangerous and important mission. But let us not lose sight of the sad fact that President Clinton has acted in violation of the Constitution in ordering these…
I want to see China improve its human rights record, stop repressing the people of Tibet, allow civil liberties and public dissent, and stop persecuting religious minorities. So I understand the appeal of voting for this resolution. It…
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is the third time in as many years that we are considering amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds majority of both Houses regarding any increase in revenue. Note revenue, not just taxes. I guess…
Other voices in this conversation
