No Labels!

Phantasmal

Harris/Walz
Staff member
As your constituent, and as a citizen fed up with Congress’ failure to make progress on any of America’s problems, I am calling on you to support full enactment of the No Labels Make Congress Work! action plan.

[PLEASE WRITE ONE SENTENCE EXPLAINING WHY THIS PLAN IS IMPORTANT TO YOU]

This 12-point plan, outlined below, provides a blueprint for fixing Congress by immediately reducing hyper-partisanship and gridlock. However, it can’t happen without your leadership and willingness to put political labels aside for the good of our country.

Accordingly, I urge you to fix the broken Congress you are a part of by supporting all of No Labels’ common sense recommendations.

No Labels Make Congress Work! Action Plan:

1. No Budget, No Pay
* Members of Congress will be docked pay for each day that they fail to pass the budget and all appropriations bills for the next fiscal year before the prior fiscal year ends.

2. Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointments [RC]
* All presidential nominations for executive and judicial positions must be confirmed or rejected within 90 days after the Senate receives the completed nomination.
* “Completed” means the submission of all paperwork and background check.
* The 90 days includes both committee and floor action.
* “Rejection” can occur at the committee stage if the nominee fails to obtain majority support in the committee of relevant jurisdiction.

3. Filibuster Reform [RC]
* If senators want to halt action on a bill, they must take to the floor and hold it through sustained debate (i.e. the talking filibuster).
* End filibusters on motions to proceed to debate.

4. Empower the Sensible Majority [RC]
* Reform House and Senate procedures to fast-track legislation with majority support.
* In the House, reform the discharge petition to restore the anonymity that allows individual members to vote without fear of leadership retribution by reversing the 1993 decision to make the process public.
* In the Senate, institute a parallel procedure that would enable majority coalitions to force floor
consideration of bills held up by leaders, committee chairs or individual senators.

5. Make Members Come to Work [L]
* Each four-week congressional period will include three weeks in Washington followed by a week available for working at home with constituents.
* Each week in Washington will consist of a five day workweek.
* The House and Senate will coordinate schedules so they are in Washington during the same weeks.

6. Question Time for the President [L]
* Institute a regular “question period” that brings Congress and the president together.
* President meets with House and Senate respectively on an alternating, monthly basis.
* Each session lasts for 90 minutes and is televised, with the majority and minority parties alternating questions.

7. Fiscal Report to Congress: Hear it. Read it. Sign it. [L]
* Institute an annual report to a joint session of Congress on America’s fiscal condition, coordinated and delivered by a high-ranking, non-partisan official such as the Comptroller General
* The president, vice president, all cabinet members, senators and representatives must attend this fiscal update session and take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the report by signing the report, just as CEOs are required to affirm the accuracy of their companies’ financial reporting.

8. No Pledge but the Oath of Office [CC]
* With 80 percent of Congress having signed pledges to never raise taxes or never cut Social Security, there is no room for compromise on two of the biggest factors in America’s budget deficits. No Labels demands members of Congress make no pledges except the pledge of allegiance and their formal oath of office.

9. Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings [L]
* The House and Senate should institute monthly bipartisan gatherings.
* Gatherings would be off the record and not televised.
* If both sides agree, outside experts could be invited in to brief members on topics of concern.

10. Bipartisan Seating [L]
* At all joint meetings or sessions of Congress, each member should be seated next to at least one member of the other party.
* On committees and subcommittees, seating also would be arranged in an alternating bipartisan way by agreement between the chair and ranking member.

11. Bipartisan Leadership Committee [L]
* Includes the President pro tempore of the senate, the speaker of the house and the Senate and House majority and minority leaders.
* Includes four open slots for any two members of the Senate and House, determined by lottery on a rotating basis.
* The committee meets weekly and, subject to mutual agreement, monthly with the President.

12. No Negative Campaigns Against Incumbents [CC]
* Incumbents of one party should not conduct negative campaigns against incumbent members of the opposing party.
* Members are free to campaign or fundraise in support of candidates from their own party.
* This prohibition would not apply in the case of open seats.

Note: There are four different mechanisms to implement the action plan: codes of conduct (CC), leadership (L), rules changes (RC) and a bill (B). You can read more about each of these reform proposals at: http://nolabels.org/workTime for the people to take back America!
 
4. Empower the Sensible Majority [RC]
* Reform House and Senate procedures to fast-track legislation with majority support.
* In the House, reform the discharge petition to restore the anonymity that allows individual members to vote without fear of leadership retribution by reversing the 1993 decision to make the process public.
* In the Senate, institute a parallel procedure that would enable majority coalitions to force floor
consideration of bills held up by leaders, committee chairs or individual senators.

why in the hell would anyone with sense want this shit to be policy?
 
why in the hell would anyone with sense want this shit to be policy?

Because it makes sense, aren't they representing us? If the majority of people want something to be policy, shouldn't it be policy, then if there is a problem with the majority, the courts then figure out the legality?
 
1) over the last 80 years, the courts have almost continually upheld laws by congress
2) just because it's majority support does not mean that the law would be constitutional
3) if the majority write unconstitutional laws and the courts uphold it, but the vote is private, how do we the people hold those accountable?
4) even if a majority of people support a piece of legislation does not mean it has constitutional validity. remember that thing about the constitution protecting the rights of the minority over the majority?


again, why would anyone with sense allow this to happen?
 
1) over the last 80 years, the courts have almost continually upheld laws by congress
2) just because it's majority support does not mean that the law would be constitutional
3) if the majority write unconstitutional laws and the courts uphold it, but the vote is private, how do we the people hold those accountable?
4) even if a majority of people support a piece of legislation does not mean it has constitutional validity. remember that thing about the constitution protecting the rights of the minority over the majority?


again, why would anyone with sense allow this to happen?


I lost you at step 3 there. If the Supreme Court upholds it, it's constitutional.
 
I lost you at step 3 there. If the Supreme Court upholds it, it's constitutional.
then citizens united is totally constitutional? the internment of japanese american citizens was totally constitutional? dred scott was totallly constitutional?

please, stop being a judicial kiss ass. the courts are not the last stop for the constitution that WE THE PEOPLE wrote.
 
then citizens united is totally constitutional? the internment of japanese american citizens was totally constitutional? dred scott was totallly constitutional?

Of course they are (or were), until they aren't (or weren't).


please, stop being a judicial kiss ass. the courts are not the last stop for the constitution that WE THE PEOPLE wrote.

Yes, they are. At least since 1803.
 
Of course they are (or were), until they aren't (or weren't).




Yes, they are. At least since 1803.

ROFL, you really expect me to concede that a constitution that WE THE PEOPLE wrote, restricting a central government, with WE THE PEOPLE defining what is and isn't constitutionally permissible is now different because the US Supreme Court said so in a case called Marbury v. Madison? I'm pretty damned sure that the framers of the constitution did NOT give the courts the power to change constitutional powers on a whim.
 
ROFL, you really expect me to concede that a constitution that WE THE PEOPLE wrote, restricting a central government, with WE THE PEOPLE defining what is and isn't constitutionally permissible is now different because the US Supreme Court said so in a case called Marbury v. Madison? I'm pretty damned sure that the framers of the constitution did NOT give the courts the power to change constitutional powers on a whim.


If the framers didn't believe in judicial review, why didn't they do anything about it? Why are there no records of vociferous dissent about the usurpation of powers by the judicial branch? Marbury v. Madison was only 15 years after ratification.
 
If the framers didn't believe in judicial review, why didn't they do anything about it? Why are there no records of vociferous dissent about the usurpation of powers by the judicial branch? Marbury v. Madison was only 15 years after ratification.
because 'jury nullification' was still known and practiced? because marbury v. madison had to do with a branch dispute and therefore didn't affect the people? I do not know why there wasn't, but I do know that the constitution does not give the judicial branch to reinterpret the constitution according to the times, nor does it give them the authority to remove rights of the people or add powers to the government.
 
Back
Top