Republicans are trying to nullify the results of our last two presidential
elections. There is no constitutional or legal option open to them to accomplish
this. The GOP does not have the votes to repeal the law, and even if they did,
the president would veto it. You'll have to try again in 2017 when we have
a new president, but I'm fairly certain that President Hillary Clinton
isn't going to go for it either.
Very recently the Deseret News published and editorial in which they stated that
losers in our democratic process have to accept that they lost, and not try to
change the rules of our system following their loss. The author of this piece
should have read that editorial.
Roland;Don't you realize that the DN's rules only apply to
their opponents yet?
@Roland Keyser "Republicans are trying to nullify the results of our last
two presidential elections."Obama was elected president, not
dictator. There are three branches of government, and the power of the purse
belongs constitutionally to Congress, and most especially to the House of
Representatives, where revenue bills must originate. If they choose not to fund
a giant expansion of the welfare state, they don't have to fund it.There is nothing in the Constitution which obligates the present
Congress to uphold the acts of previous Congresses.
Lets call a spade a spade. This isn't about the budget. Not one bit.This is about Obamacare. Pretending this is about anything else is
delusional at best.After failing to repeal it, this is about
defunding Obamacare. Lets just fix it... by its self. We have
now wasted 4 years trying to do the undoable. So lets now focus on fixing the
parts that are broken, and just maybe we can move forward.
T. Party says:"There is nothing in the Constitution which
obligates the present Congress to uphold the acts of previous
Congresses."Actually, those "acts of previous
congresses" which have been signed into law are the law and part of the
oaths of office of the current Congress is that they will "uphold the
law" which makes your statement false.
So the Healthcare law, which is to the Right of what Nixon proposed (in response
to what Ted Kennedy was pushing) and looks remarkably similar to what Bob Dole
proposed (in response to Hilarycare) and what Mitt Romney passed in MA, did not
get any input from Republicans… huh?The whole thing is a
Republican brain-child, including most of the cost-cutting pilot programs and
the on-line exchanges.Obama, in his naiveté, adopted a
Republican model for solving many of our healthcare problems with the thought
that Washington would join hands (amid verses of Kumbaya) and finally fix our
broken system. Sadly, he drastically underestimated the Right’s hatred for
him and anything he attached his name to. But he figured it out
pretty fast – anyone remember the five hour Whitehouse roundtable where
the ONLY thing Republicans ever proposed was scraping the entire bill –
and decided to go forward anyway while he had the votes.And now it
is the law of the land and we’re left watching the spectacle of deranged
Republicans turning our Constitution and legislative history upside down in
their mad quest for the “white whale.”
T Party: Obamacare is like Social Security and Medicare in that it has its own
dedicated revenue stream. It is not funded through the domestic discretionary
appropriations process. Attempts to defund it via that process are illegitimate,
illegal, and impossible.
How much money can Obama spend? Shall we give him an open check book with no
limits, no accountability and no credit limit?
@RanchThe oath of office taken by members of Congress says this:"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."Which makes my statement true, and yours false.
" I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I
am about to enter."Those duties are enumerated in the
constitution.... one of which is to uphold the constitution. If congress is
exempt from upholding laws passed via constitutional processes, why would any of
have to live by those laws... oath or not. The oath is not a job
description. It no more details what is part of the congresspersons job
anymore than the oath one takes when joining the military. It is a pledge to
certain principles, not a job description, or an employment contract.If the basis for T. Party's argument.... boy can you now see why things
have gone so sideways. Congress does not need to uphold the laws of the
previous congress..... wow. The oath doesn't talk about parliamentary
@UtahBlueDevilYou see...don't you?...how stupid it would be if
laws passed by one Congress could never be changed by a successive Congress?If the Constitution says this, I would like you to show me where.@RolandActually, the detractors of Obamacare are doing a
much better job of obeying the law than its proponents. Obama has repeatedly
ignored the law's provisions, including deadlines for implementation. He
has offered tax credits for supporters and imposed penalties for states not
offering exchanges (none of which is authorized by the law.)So what
if Obamacare currently has a dedicated revenue stream? Congress has the power to
dismantle that funding. I'm sorry that upsets you.
UtahBlueDevilYou should know that passing a bill is one thing.
Funding it, and how much to fund is another. The funding is subject to change
on any bill or appropripation. Look at all the battles that happen every year
with spending on any number of projects, like defense. This, and most every
other argument that happens in Congress is indeed about the budget. Always has
been, always will be.
Tea party shows a remarkable disdain for law.
Mountanman,The worst part about Democrat's spending is.... the more
they spend... the more they insure they stay in office. It's
almost like buying votes (but not exactly). They aren't buying votes...
they are buying control. When they control your wallet (IRS, welfare, SS,
etc), and they control your access to healthcare...they got you where they want
you. You have no choice but to vote for them. It's almost extortion.
You take care of us (Democrats) or you will lose your income, your property, and
your access to healthcare when you need it.Almost seems unfair.
And the most insidious part is... now Republicans have no choice but to follow
suit, or they have no chance of election.Congratulations
Democrats... You won!
@T. Party – “how stupid it would be if laws passed by one Congress
could never be changed by a successive Congress?”Who made this
(straw man) assertion?The question is how does Congress go about
changing past laws? Do they do it by allowing one faction to refuse to do the
people’s business unless a law they don’t like is changed?What would Hamilton say… what would Madison say… what does the
Constitution say?The fact is your guys are showing their true colors
– their utter disdain for the rule of law. I think we can drop all
pretenses about the Tea Party being the upholders of the Constitution as we now
see them for the petty tyrants they are.Can you imagine what they
would do if they ran the entire government? Scary…
Obama gave employers a delay until 2015 for the employer mandates. The House is
asking that he do the same for citizens. It's only fair.
The Budget Act is also the "law of the land."
T. Party:If Republicans want to overturn Obamacare, fine. They can
convince the American public to give them a majority in the Senate and control
of the Oval Office and then they can legally rewrite the law or just declare the
ACA null and void. Otherwise, all they can is what they're
doing now: throwing a massive tantrum.
They can point out how unfair it is to have a President void half of the law for
business, without asking Congress. If business gets another year to
work out problems, so do the people.
@Tyler D "Who made this (straw man) assertion?"Roland Keyser
says there's no legal option, and that it's illegal, illegitimate, and
impossible. UtahBlueDevil says it's undoable. Ranch invoked a bogus phrase
from some imaginary oath of office to make it appear unconstitutional. "one
vote" called it disdain for the law. You called it the same thing.Standing in opposition to those assertions is reality: the Constitution allows
the current Congress to defund legislation passed by a previous Congress. It is
fairly commonplace. Think of the border fence, for one example, which is the law
of the land, yet goes unfunded. There are many other examples.@KJB1Yes. Correct. They can do all those things. The other thing
they can do is defund Obamacare. I'm grateful to them for trying. Obamacare
is a huge disaster.
last time I checked the House was elected just like Obamayet it is Obama
that is ignoring the law and selectively/illegally delaying and modifying
portions for political purposes and convenienceleftists should not
throw stones in glass houseslistening to Obama rail against supposed
right wing ideologues leaves one in a stupor of incredulousness at the hypocrisy
@VickieBIn our past health insurance system, insurance companies
were free to charge drastically higher rates to the sick, or deny the sick
coverage all together. ObamaCare requires insurance companies to accept every
aplication that comes in. The ONLY reason insurnace companies are willing to be
in the insurance business with that rule is because of the individual mandate.
If everybody has to buy insurance, healthy people will sign up to subsidize the
sick. That's the only way the system can work.If you remove
the individual mandate, private insurance companies will pull out of the market.
If there are suddenly no insurance companies willing to offer health insurance,
the government will take over with a single-payer system.Is that
what you want?
Yes having thought about it, the Obama Administration has no credibility in
claiming the Republicans are not obeying the law of the land. Holder himself
has shown that he will pick and choose what laws to enforce, and which ones to
ignore. This is not good for our elected government from either side.
Especially when every elected official takes an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution. "In dangerous times we are." (Yoda).
They voted no or abstained. The law passed. Now they want to have a re vote by
forcing a shutdown and defaulting the United States.