Should legislation be legal if one party controls Congress and the Presidency? (Obama, government)

[katzpaw]

Should legislation be legal and legitimate if one party has a monopoly?
The ACA was passed when the Democrats held majorities in both Houses and also held the Presidency.The Supreme Court found the ACA constitutional. Yet Republicans are still fighting it and holding it hostage to the Gov't paying it's bills. The last time the Republicans held both Houses and the Presidency was in 1954 when "One Nation, Under God" was passed.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

Should legislation be legal and legitimate if one party has a monopoly?
The ACA was passed when the Democrats held majorities in both Houses and also held the Presidency.The Supreme Court found the ACA constitutional. Yet Republicans are still fighting it and holding it hostage to the Gov't paying it's bills. The last time the Republicans held both Houses and the Presidency was in 1954 when "One Nation, Under God" was passed.

One of the biggest and most prevalent fallacies of this and other popular liberal arguments is that the Supreme Court upheld the policy merits of ACA. The SC did NOT rule on the merits of the POLICY of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court merely ruled on the penalty provision of the law, ultimately ruling it is a tax instead of an actual penalty.

Again: The Supreme Court did NOT rule on the merits of the policy. Therefore, the claim that Obamacare has been ruled "constitutional" is a willfully ignorant attempt to associate the Supreme Court's ruling with the complaints put forth by House conservatives about the merits of the POLICY that is the Affordable Care Act.

The ignorant will agree with you. The rest of us? Nice try.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

Should legislation be legal and legitimate if one party has a monopoly?
The ACA was passed when the Democrats held majorities in both Houses and also held the Presidency.The Supreme Court found the ACA constitutional. Yet Republicans are still fighting it and holding it hostage to the Gov't paying it's bills. The last time the Republicans held both Houses and the Presidency was in 1954 when "One Nation, Under God" was passed.

The GOP held both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2001 (from January 20th to June 6th) and again from January 3, 2003, to January 3, 2007.

Of course legislation 'should be legal' if it is duly passed as prescribed by the Constitution.

[evilnewbie]

The Supreme Court should not rule on the merits of the policy, that isn't their job....

What does legislation have to do if one party is in power or not? None
Are Republican to play dead when the debt ceiling is to be increased? Because, if you forgot, the DEMOCRATS said a little stupid stuff when Obama was a senator and the debt ceiling was raised... should debt ceilings no longer require anyone's approval? is that what you are looking for? If not, then stop asking stupid questions...

[volosong]

Yes, legislation passed under our current system of government should be law. Doesn't matter if the opposition agrees with it or not. However, the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment caused the breakdown of the Founding Father's concept of 'checks and balances', so whenever either party controls both the legislative and the executive branch of government, laws get instituted which do not reflect the will of the people.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

The Supreme Court should not rule on the merits of the policy, that isn't their job....

What does legislation have to do if one party is in power or not? None
Are Republican to play dead when the debt ceiling is to be increased? Because, if you forgot, the DEMOCRATS said a little stupid stuff when Obama was a senator and the debt ceiling was raised... should debt ceilings no longer require anyone's approval? is that what you are looking for? If not, then stop asking stupid questions...

Liberals are constantly reminding us that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act when attempting to blame House Republicans.....as if the SC had adjudicated the policy merits of the Act. It didn't because, like you said, that's not what the Supreme Court does. Liberals are bending over backwards to ignore this fact.

[John Dark]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

The GOP held both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2001 (from January 20th to June 6th) and again from January 3, 2003, to January 3, 2007.

Wonder if the OP objects to the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), which were both passed under single-party control during those time periods.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

The Supreme Court found the ACA constitutional.

Wrong as usual.

They found one small part of it constitutional... by rewriting it and pretending it didn't say what it said.

They made no judgements about most of the rest. That is coming up in other cases.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

Should legislation be legal and legitimate if one party has a monopoly?

This has to be a trick question or surely you have to be joking?

[jackmccullough]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Liberals are constantly reminding us that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act when attempting to blame House Republicans.....as if the SC had adjudicated the policy merits of the Act. It didn't because, like you said, that's not what the Supreme Court does. Liberals are bending over backwards to ignore this fact.

I'm sure you can find me tons of quotes from liberals who argue that the Supreme Court ruled that the policy of the Affordable Care Act was a good idea, right?