A lot has already been said here on Peach Pundit about Congressman Nathan Deal voting “Present” twice on the “Cash for Clunkers” program. What has been missing from the discussion is his reasoning behind the decision.
To start, let’s first look at House Rules:
http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/rules110/
RULE III: THE MEMBERS, DELEGATES, AND RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF PUERTO RICO
Voting
1. Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House during its sittings, unless excused or necessarily prevented, and shall vote on each question put, unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question. <emphasis added>
Sources in the 9th Congressional District have informed me, and I have received confirmation from Deal’s staff, that Nathan Deal is part owner in a business that would directly impacted by the vote on “Cash for Clunkers.”
Before he was elected to Congress, Nathan Deal became part owner of a salvage yard, a business which he still owns today. Members of Congress are allowed by House Rules to continue to have an ownership stake in a business that they owned prior to their election.
According to House Rules, Deal was expressly forbidden from voting on a matter that could impact his business.
Sources I spoke with have stated that this was his understanding and explanation given to him about the above stated rule.
Whether Deal privately supports the “Cash for Clunkers” program or not, he was prohibited from voting for or against it by House rules. There has been a lot said about his motivations, many who blinding support him or one of his opponents and are therefore quick to make judgments or excuses. However, no one paused long enough to actually find out what his motivations were.
As far as my investigation has shown, his motivation was following the rules of the House and not doing something from which he could personally profit.
{ 67 comments }
Continue your research on these businesses authority by State of Georgia to self inspect and aid into the conversions of these wrecked totaled vehicles by magic into vehicles with a new registration. How can a Governor be involved in this slimey business.
Three cars to make one.
so he would have violated House Rules by costing himself money and voting AGAINST it? Weird.
Whether yes or no, it’s still an issue in which he has direct interest.
I still believe the real issue is whether he thought the issue he was voting on was violating the Constitution or not. If he didn’t think so then he’s off the hook with is vote of present. If he though it was unconstitutional then he had an obligation to vote NO in spite of whether House rules provide him cover. Only he knows this.
Thing is, not much is unconstitutional.
Things may seem extra-constitutional…but not many things Congress bothers with are clearly unconstitutional.
Of course, if you have never studied constitutional law or theory…anything not spelled out explicitly might seem unconstitutional. Like these morons that claim the current healthcare bill is uncons. because healthcare is not stated specifically in the Constitution.
Fortunately, this time around, we have a President and VP that both taught Constitutional Law at highly respected Universities…rather than some guy who needed “daddy” to donate enough merely to get passing grades.
This is also why it is so difficult to get into the Supreme Court.
I guess what I am saying, and this is a deal every political consultant deals with when working with first time candidates, passive observers of the process (political, legal, etc) do not quite get it. They have some ideas…but your average person does not grasp the interconnectedness of all these things. There are histories, precedents, new precedents and thousands upon thousands of case studies on constitutional theory out there.
Serious stuff, I might add as a disclaimer. You know…from people who get paid to think about these things full time. Not entertainers…but the “philosopher kings” of our society.
GC,
It is easy to mince words and meanings. I agree, because of court rulings, there are many things that are LEGAL but that does make them anymore right.
The most obvious example is abortion. Yes, because of the SOCTUS decision, it is legal, but that does not make it right. So while Congress has every right to vote on most any bill it wishes, and control most any aspect of our life it deems warranted, it does not make it right. Our Constitution is a finite document, that can be amended if times dictate it should be. We have had that “correct” mindset as recently as 1917 when we amended the Constitution to outlaw intoxicating liquors. Look what the federal government is doing now, they are on the path to outlaw, or severely control, tobacco products. If tobacco is so bad, and should be controlled or outlawed on the federal level, Congress, by passing laws, should have no authority to do so. It should be done by the states, or by Constitutional amendment. Recently congress gave the control of tobacco products to the FDA.
Because of court precedent, I agree, they have the right and authority to do so. However, that is the flaw, and that is why we must demand our Representatives exercise a level of self control and not allow this intrusion into our lives by the federal government. I understand, asking congress to show self control is like trying to get a shark to become a vegetarian. But, demand we must, and elect people who will, and remove those that will not.
Now, if only there was a candidate who has repeatedly made such statements…
http://www.JonesForUs.com
You have to think about it this way:
Had he voted for it, he would have benefited personally.
Representatives are intended to be the more democratic of the two Houses of Congress. They can act as delegates or trustees, as both notions are currently embraced by various members, but either way Deal would have had a personal interest in the matter.
A delegate votes the will of the people, whereas a trustee votes in the best interest of. Either way, the argument could be made that had Deal voted for the bill he would be acting in his own interest. The flip side of this is that had he voted “No” then he would have been voting “No” simply because he could not vote “Yes.” Either way, it could be argued he did not represent the people of the district.
But voting “Present” is essentially abstaining. He was there. He could voice himself in the debate. It would just be unethical for him to have a vote in the matter.
The rule is written the way it is for a reason. Sometimes a “No” vote benefits the legislator, sometimes a “Yes” vote benefits – it depends on the issue. So rather than create a rule that was expressly clear and would likely require situation by situation investigation, they have a vague rule that serves as a simpler means to an end.
However, no one paused long enough to actually find out what his motivations were.
Not correct. Several of us already knew and discussed this in that very thread.
Technocrat: Recycling is slimy?
There are a couple of problems with this explanation as far as I’m concerned.
1. I’m pretty sure this rule is to keep you from PROFITING from a vote you’d make on an issue. I don’t think anyone on the other side of the aisle would have criticized him for voting NO on a bill that would possibly have hurt his business or left it revenue neutral.
2. Assuming Congressman Deal believes that the Cash for Clunkers bill is unconstitutional, would the house rules trump the Constitution in this case? Of course not. The House of Representatives was established by the Constitution, not the other way around. Of course he might think that C4C is Constitutionally permissible but just bad fiscal policy. Maybe someone should ask him that because if that’s the case I’d be interested in hearing an example of something he thinks that IS unconstitutional.
In any event this is what you get when you have a flexible standard on what the federal government is allowed to do. If the general welfare exception that is often quoted as the reason for most of the bills that are passed that grow government, in direct contradiction to Article I Section 8, then why is the bill of rights safe? If Congress decides the “general welfare” is served by suspending the 1st or 2nd Amendments then how can you make an argument against it?
ByteMe,
Bite me. I didn’t see it.
Of course, who’d want to read through 200 posts of mostly propaganda to find the few people who know what are talking about. If you already discussed it, maybe I should take down this thread and let that point remained buried in the comments.
Only if you have done enough prebuy inspections on rebuilt cars, to see the 3 cars made into one and all the marginal welds. Used car lots and private sellers prey on poor people.
His business is not recycling like in a junkyard selling parts and scrap, but appears to be facilitating title laundering or close to it.
Now I’m no vehicle expert or attorney I leave it to others to research the situation better and in greater depth. Ask Ga Attorny General to rule on the ethics.
He’s been a congressman for 17 years, had an interest in this business longer than that, and you are accusing him of facilitating title laundering? I guess it must be so, because you think it. You don’t think it’s been looked at before now?
Your statements are mind boggling. “Used car lots and private sellers prey on poor people.” Has it occurred to you that poor people can’t afford new cars?
“How can a Governor be involved in this slimey business.” Well, he is not Governor yet, unless you are talking about Sonny. Have you ever seen a car with a salvaged title? The time and effort to take three junk cars and turn them into one rarely turns a profit on a salvaged vehicle.
It’s obvious that you are out to slime, even though you admit that you are not an expert.
I’ll take Deal at his word.
I dn’t like that he voted “present” but even a “no” vote would not have helped in this case.
Kellie is correct. The legislation passed by a significant margin, and Deal’s vote did not impact the outcome.
“Didn’t”
Any salvaged vehicle that is rebuilt must be certified by a state inspector from the Georgia Department of Vehicle Safety before it is resold. Since these inspections can be time consuming, the Department of Vehicle Safety allows dealers to take their vehicles to a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station.
The GSD facility serves as an official Motor Vehicle Inspection Station every other Thursday. Supplying this service allows our dealers and other car owners in northeast Georgia to quickly certify their vehicles.
State inspectors are available from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. All vehicles must be transported, not driven, to the station, and must arrive before 12:00 p.m. to qualify for inspection that day. Vehicles are inspected on a first-come, first-serve basis.
http://www.gsdauction.com/index.php?fuseaction=content.view&pagename=gsdinspections
So you work at Gainesville Salvage?
No but I did go to HS with the owner of Gainesville Scrap Iron and Metal [a real junkyard].
Kellie , are you not in a business familiar with salvage and rebuilding. I would have thought you would be the first to carry the torch?
The body shop business but we work on late models cars, not rebuilding.
The reason I asked if you worked there was because of all the info you had on it.
You can read the rule as it is written.
If it is allowed to vote “No” on something that a congressman could profit on if it passed, doesn’t it look like the congressman hurt himself intentionally, thus creating sympathy for the Congressman?
“He voted against his own interests, let’s help him out.” This rule is a good one that allows congressmen to recuse themselves from a vote because of a possible conflict of interest.
Only Ayes are counted in the passing of a bill. By rule, he couldn’t for against it. By voting present, it had the same effect of voting no.
Obviously, we don’t want people who own a paving company voting to pave more roads.
“He voted against his own interests, let’s help him out.”
No, voting NO would have been against his self interest. Voting present allowed him to straddle the fence on this issue. In fact I believe a NO vote, especially when it came out that he owned a salvage yard would have been seen as a principled conservative stand by his supporters like I used to be. Agree that his NO vote would not have made a difference but it was the right thing to do if you believe in the Constitution.
I ask again, does he believe the Cash for Clunkers bill was Constitutional or not? If he thinks it isn’t then he violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. If he thinks it is, then we need to know that too. I’m sure a lot of people would be interested in knowing that.
If an elected official can’t/won’t stand up for the Constitution when they’re in Washington why would I believe he would stand up for Georgia’s 10th Amendment rights if he’s elected Governor?
“I ask again, does he believe the Cash for Clunkers bill was Constitutional or not? If he thinks it isn’t then he violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.”
That’s the same thought that crossed my mind when I read this. Clearly the oath is to “support and defend”, not merely “witness the usurpation of” the Constitution.
My quote “He voted against his own interests, let’s help him out,” would have been applied if he had voted no. It’s a reason that he should straddle the fence to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
I understand you are a strict constitutionalist and I can respect that. We only have Nine people running for congress in the Ninth and no one from Dade county, yet. Interested? The state GOP would like half of your qualifying money.
Shouldn’t EVERY Republican be a strict Constitutionalist? As opposed to what? Acting like Democrats?
I don’t like this concept you are promulgating, because I believe it to be flawed.
For example, I could be a strict Constituionalist and a Democrat – the two are not mutually exclusive. I would just see the need to implement liberal policies at the state level, which is what the Constitution provides for.
What I’m getting at, is that this issue alone is a bad indicator of one’s political stance. But ideally most Republicans would be Constitutionalists.
You’re exactly 100% right. I just never hear about Democrats complaining that the Constitution isn’t being followed by the people they send to Washington. Do you ever hear any?
Rarely sir, rarely. But I have on occasion heard it.
Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana comes to mind—a democrat who understands the concept of states’ rights and the necessity of decentralized powers.
“I just never hear about Democrats complaining that the Constitution isn’t being followed by the people they send to Washington. Do you ever hear any?”
Only the ones who invoke the 9th Amendment to claim healthcare is a right and they are being denied.
Oh wait, they don’t even bother with the fiction of trying to justify how healthcare is a right.
No, I’m not interested because I’m not going to spend that kind of money to get a job that will never pay back your investment. I’m going to support Tom Graves who tells me he will respect the Constitution as I do. If he doesn’t I’ll be against him next time too.
This is the only way to fix this. You can’t use some mushy “conservative” label any more because it means different things to different people. I just got a copy of a document today that we voted on in 2007 stating that we expected elected officials to respect the Constitution. If we really mean that then the Republican Party should be calling these politicians out on this so that individual party members don’t have to.
If the primary plank of the national and state Republican Party platforms is not an insistance that we expect officials to follow the Constitution, as written and amended, then what makes us different from the Democrats?
Quotes from the 2008 GOP National platform:
The long term solution for many of Washington’s problems is structural. Congress must respect the limits imposed upon it by the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Republicans will insist on the appointment of constitutionalist judges, men and women who will not distort our founding documents to deny the people’s right to self-government, sanction federal powers that violate our liberties, or inject foreign law into American jurisprudence.
So you don’t think the GOP should insist that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is still relevant?
You label me as a strict Constitutionalist. You’re the Chairman of the 9th District GOP. Which parts of the Constitution do you not believe in?
Hoping to appoint more SCOTUS justices who MIGHT try to slow down the statists running the country is a poor strategy compared to just using the existing document we were already supposed to use.
I believe in all of the constitution. The problem comes in when people are interpreting it. Some see it as a living breathing document that can be applied differently depending on the mood of the county. That’s not me.
From what I can tell, you do not agree with the interpretations that the SCOTUS have applied to it over the years. I know you focus like a laser beam on Article section 8. I am not sure that you agree with article 3 section 1. Let me know if I am correct in that.
Congress can do stupid things. The SCOTUS is supposed to tell them when they have stepped over the line. Do I agree with every decision that has came from the SOTUS? Probably not, but I can live with it until it comes back up for judicial review with a different composition of the court. It’s not a perfect government, but it’s the best one we have.
I am glad that we are both involved to try to make it better.
Ben, there are many ways to interpret the Constitution and the meaning of its language. Let’s take a for instance. Art. II says the President must be a “natural born citizen.”
Define that for me.
I’d go with Title 8 of the US code that is summarized here: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
I don’t think there are any ambiguous parts of Article I Section 8 though, do you?
Commerce Clause has been, because of its broadness, the cause of much confusion and mischief by the federal government. The regulation of commerce among the various states may make the Cash for Clunkers program Constitutional, depending on your interpretation.
Personally, my interpretation would not include the program.
Yes…let’s not forget that the word “is” may constitute the BIGGEST challenge to interpreting our U.S. Constitution. What does “is” mean?
Yep, commerce clause is another hideous example of abuse of the intent of the founding fathers. However, just becaue they CAN use it as an excuse to violate the Constitution doesn’t mean they MUST. Same way with the general welfare excuse. I’m not interested in sending someone to DC to follow the liberal/statist herd and vote for expansion of federal government they know the founders never intended and for which no amendment has been proposed much less passed.
I am glad your candidate has given you private assurances of his intent.
I have heard him speak at least 5 times, I have not heard him mention the Constitution once, much less his desire to stick to it. His website mentions the Constitution no more than zero times.
The first public speech I gave, and every one since, The Constitution, and our need to abide by it, has been a central theme.
Just thought I’d point that out.
Jeremy Jones
http://www.jonesforus.com/about.htm
Isn’t there a limit on presents?
In what regard? If you mean on how many times you can vote present I think the only time limit is how long you can get away with it before your constituents refuse to send your sorry butt back to Washinton.
As I recall, when BHO was in the Illiniois Senate some huge percentage of his votes were “present” but that’s Illiniois and a whole different animal.
BHO was absent, voting present, and voting against America’s best interests.
Anyway, nobody’s perfect. Deal is no RINO, and he’d make a fine governor, and so would several others.
I’ve seen the enemy, and his name is Barnes.
If he’s absent on his birthday can he still get a present? Maybe we should ask BHO.
BHO was never born.
I’m pretty sure he was born but I don’t think his mom was a virgin.
I know yours isn’t.
I did not know those rules existed in the U.S. House. Now that I do, I apologize for my naive comments about Congressman Deal on a previous thread regarding this matter.
Thanks for the education, Shep!!
I agree, says a source from inside the Ninth District.
You weren’t my only source, Doug.
I just said I was source, not your source.
left out the “a”
Obviously some are not clear that Cash for Clunkers is a program which could cost Deal money [thus he might have abstained to look ethical] since the engines are destroyed and the cars must be crushed. No way his salvage title auction company can resell them to anyone to be rebuilt and retitled.
But then again neither do regular junkyard support the program since they lose the most expensive parts to the sand wear mixture.
Crush or not to crush that is the question.
Now now, scrap yards are allowed to salvage everything except the engine. They can do what ever they like with the scrap metal and other parts.
This isn’t costing Deal, or any other salvage yard, money…they just are not making as much. Who knows, perhaps the sheer volume coming in will make up for that.
This is why I support Jason Shepherd for HOUSE integrity first! Please send in donation!
http://jasonshepherd.com/
To: Ramblinwreck
Keep up the good work.
Right on, VF – Ramblin has been an impeccable beacon on this matter.
Consider this: before the unconstitutional “Cash For Clunkers” scheme existed – neither Congressman Deal nor any other citizen had a direct “personal or pecuniary interest” in its administration. In fact, one (although not a Marxist or faux conservative) could make the case that any supposed “personal or pecuniary interest” to be enjoyed by someone voting on such a matter in Congress would be entirely outweighed by the associated loss of liberty in general & respect for one’s oath and the Constitution itself. So, voting “NO” to prevent the very existence of a program by which someone could later claim there involved “personal or pecuniary interest” proves that the “Present” vote (non)explanation is a cop out.
For heaven’s sake – taking this false self-justification at face value means the Congressman & his handlers would have us believe that most House members would have to vote “Present” simply because they owned “clunkers” themselves!
And, as others have correctly noted – voting “NO” would not only be the only vote consistent with one’s oath and the supreme law of the land, that supreme law trumps all others including the NON-law of “House Rules”. Voting against such a travesty is both courageous and an outright repudiation of any supposed pecuniary interest which some may later claim as a motive.
Another courageous, statesman-like act could have been to vote “NO” and divest oneself of the business interest which some would say could derive a “pecuniary interest”, that is – if one believed their own plausible denial creations.
Or, the Congressman could have voted “NO” and personally pledged to take no part whatsoever in the unconstitutional program from which he would be attempting to protect those he represents by honoring his oath.
But, the good gentleman did not choose those acts either….
Instead, we get reverse-engineered-long-after-the-fact-double-talk-(im)plausible-denial buckets carried by minions & disseminated piecemeal (not the Congressman himself) in a transparent maneuver to help save face.
And, all the speculation for why he may have done what he did or why he should have done different – obscures the central issue & the only lawful, constitutional, republican, moral, and just response:
Vote “NO” on the unconstitutional bill and stand tall on the fact that you’ve honored your oath, represented your consistuents faithfully, repudiated the Marxist, acted like a R/republican, and recognized that the “House Rules” are hogwash and subservient to the Constitution. That is: vote against the destruction of our republic and reassert your own individual sovereignty as a Georgian with the inalienable right to be involved in ANY private enterprise in the pursuit of your own property or happiness.
Ask yourself these questions:
If the Congress only engaged in constitutional acts and/or legislation involving powers they actually have had granted to them by US – what concern involving “personal or pecuniary interest” could EVER apply?
If they are not engaging solely in constitutional acts and/or legislation involving powers they actualy do have granted to them by US in the Constitution – what are they doing there at all?
Friends, the gentleman’s vote DID & DOES MATTER – he was there to represent his district & honor his oath. Those are his only functions in his capacity as Congressman. Whether the vote ends up being 434-2 or something less lopsided, I’d want to know that MY Congressman was doing what I sent him there for.
Congressman Deal is a nice guy, but Georgia needs a real Republican with a backbone.
For Such A Time As This
Ray McBerry For Governor
Let me translate that for you:
Spin, spin, spin, Ray McBerry for Governor.
Of course, that should be 433-2. I remembered the only other Congressman who can always be counted on to vote “NO” when an unconstitutional bill came up for a vote, added that to the 1 proposed for the Congressman from the 9th District in Georgia who cannot be so counted upon apparently, and forgot to reduce the proposed votes for such a bill accordingly before posting.
Do we really want the local scrap guy as our next governor?
We’ve been trying to find someone who can scrap worn out government programs for decades. We might have found our man.
Wouldn’t he be more inclined to continue to try to “salvage” worn out gov’t programs?
It would have been nice if we actually test drove some of these programs before we bought into them, sight unseen, as-is, and no warranty.
So, fundy, are you saying that we shouldn’t elect someone who is an experienced small business owner?
I support the Cash for Clunkers program and still think Deal did the right thing on this one.
For the record, and so everybody knows, several of the House Rules are really just guidelines. Take a quick look at any Congressman’s personal financial disclosure and try saying, with a straight face, that they never vote in their own financial interests.
Whether you are Barney Frank or Tom Price, there is little difference between them when it comes to this issue. They routinely engage in the practice of buying up stock in companies that are soon to be reregulated, deregulated, or simply newly regulated…same goes for selling it off before committee action.
There is always the issue of lobbying members of Congress as a member of Congress. I believe the only rule is that you are prohibited from lobbying members of your own committees…which explains why Tom Price does not desire to serve on any medical/healthcare committee. He is own of our nations brightest doctors and most talented surgeons….but does not want to serve on a health related committee. Curious?! Not when you look at his personal financial disclosure.
GC,
Dr. Price actually is on one of the committees that deals with healthcare. He’s on the Committee on Education and Labor, which has jurisdiction over ERISA and was one of the three committees that marked up H.R. 3200, the Democrats’ bill to nationalize the U.S. healthcare delivery system.
http://edlabor.house.gov/about/members/
The difference here, GC, is that Deal is astute and honest. He knows the rules, and he follows them to the best of his ability. There’s something to be said for a guy who will follow the rules when others won’t.
Comments on this entry are closed.