GOP Forces New House Vote on Health Care Bill, March 25, 2010
From Fox News, March 25, 2010.
“GOP Forces New House Vote on Health Care Bill”
“The follow-up health care bill being considered by the Senate will have to return to the House for final congressional approval, after the Senate parliamentarian determined that two Republican challenges will succeed in stripping out language in the package.
Altering the bill in any way means it has to return to the House side, which first approved the package of changes Sunday, since both chambers must pass identical versions.
Democrats don’t appear worried. Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the House could easily approve the expected changes. The Senate is expected to complete work on the bill Thursday afternoon, and the House could take it up again the same day — or push it off until Friday.
The package of changes, which is being considered under “reconciliation” rules allowing the Senate to approve it with just 51 votes, is the final piece of the legislative puzzle to the health care reform package signed into law Tuesday. Health care reform is officially enacted, but House Democrats wanted the package of fixes to change the way it’s financed and address other concerns.
The glitches have to do with Pell grants for low-income students.
A senior Senate Republican leadership aide told Fox News that Democrats had tried to improve the cost of the bill while simultaneously piling on Pell grants “without mandating the spending.” The aide said Democrats claimed the grants would increase, but were relying on a “future Congress” to find the funding.
“They can’t do that,” the aide said. “This was one of 100 gimmicks used to keep the score down.”
Republicans have been hunting for such violations in hopes of bringing down the legislation. Democrats had also been consulting with the parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, and hoped they had written a measure that would not be vulnerable to such problems.
The two provisions are expected to be formally removed from the bill on Thursday. Both chambers are hoping to begin a spring recess by this weekend.
The president, who signed the landmark legislation into law on Tuesday, was flying to Iowa later in the day for the first of many appearances he will make around the country before the fall congressional elections to sell his health care revamp.
Obama was appearing in Iowa City, where as a presidential candidate in 2007 he touted his ideas for health coverage for all. His trip comes with polls showing people are divided over the new health law, and Democratic lawmakers from competitive districts hoping he can convince more voters by November that it was the right move.
Besides reshaping parts of the landmark health overhaul, the legislation transforms the federal student loan program — in which private banks distribute the money — into one in which the government issues the loans directly. That produces some federal savings, which the bill uses in part to increase Pell grants to needy students.
The latest development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.”
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/senate-return-health-house/
Citizen WElls 
Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 24, 2010, Charles Kerchner comments on Appellant’s Reply Brief, Mario Apuzzo attorney
Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 24, 2010, Charles Kerchner comments
From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.
“For immediate release – 23 March 2010
Commander Kerchner’s comments on the Appellant’s Reply Brief filed today by Atty Apuzzo in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit Appeal
By now many of you have likely had time to read Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s outstanding Appellant’s Reply Brief filed today with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. The closing two paragraphs sum up the issues and consequences and the duty of the federal court’s role in resolving the core constitutional legal question of this lawsuit very well. Imo, Atty Apuzzo’s words will live in history. The federal courts must take this case or our Constitutional Republic is doomed and on its way to the scrap heaps of history.
Atty Apuzzo writes on pages 29 & 30:
—————————————-
“The Supreme Court has warned us what can happen to our republic if its government does not observe the laws of the land. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). A finding of no jurisdiction will mean that we as a nation accept usurpation and tyranny by a small group of individuals who can act in concert and gain control of both parties and overthrow the constitutional order of our Republic and that citizens of the United States such as the plaintiffs, whose life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property are threatened by such a plan and action, do not have any due process to protect themselves through a legal action in which they ask the judicial branch of government to protect them by enforcing the Constitution.
Judicial review is absolutely necessary when the other two branches of government act in a concerted way to subvert and ignore the Constitution’s requirements defining eligibility standards for the most powerful office of the land, the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This power balance is important to the survival of our Republic and our Constitution. Plaintiffs’ case goes to the very core of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our land, and whether ultimately our legal system truly means anything when it comes to controversial but critical constitutional issues. For the Court to grant plaintiffs standing, find no violation of the political question doctrine, and rule that it has jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims will do no harm to the role that the judiciary plays in our Constitutional Republic but will rather confirm that elections in America must adhere to the rule of law.”
—————————————–
Bravo-Zulu Mario! You have done your job well. In your various briefs you have given the courts the facts and correctly cited the laws of our nation, including the Constitution which is the fundamental law of the land. The decision is now in the hands of the Appellate Court. They must now do their duty in our constitutional system of checks and balances and use their judicial review powers granted to them by We the People in the Constitution, and confirmed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall, to prevent usurpation of power by the other two branches. May they look for guidance to God, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions you cited in your Appellant’s Opening Brief and other briefs, and then do the correct thing per their oath “… to support and defend the Constitution of our United States against all enemies foreign and domestic … so help me God”, and remand the case back to the District Court for a trial on the merits so we can learn before the bar of a court of law the true legal identity of Obama and reveal what he has been hiding from the American people, that he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards. And in doing so, We the People will remove the Usurper from the Oval Office.
If you have not read the entire Reply Brief you can read it here:
Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Appellant’s Reply Brief – Filed 23 Mar 2010 – U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals – Philadelphia PA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief-filed-23-Mar-2010
May God Bless and Save America,
Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http:www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####”
406 Comments
Posted in America, Americans, Announcements, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Civil rights, Commander in Chief, Congress, constitution, Constitution Hall of Shame, Court of Appeals, Courts, DC, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, Election update, Federal Court, First Amendment, Founding Fathers, Government, impeachment, Judges, Kerchner v Obama, Law firms, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Liberalism, Lies, Mario Apuzzo, Military officers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, politicians, Politics, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US District Court, US House of Representatives, US Military, US Senate, Usurper, voters, Washington DC, white house
Tagged 2010, Charles Kerchner comments on Appellant's Reply Brief, Kerchner V Obama and Congress, March 24, Mario Apuzzo attorney, update