Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We should not stand for the method of operation that has not become commonplace in DC.
I don't care who you are or which political party you align yourself with. Letting ANY minority coalition say, "I don't like the way the legislation turned out for my side; I'm going to threaten the nation with default and force hundreds of thousands of people out of their jobs until I get my way" is bad for democracy.
That's what elections are for, people. There are winners and there are losers. That's where the "voice of the people" is heard. If it's a law, it's a law until it is repealed. You don't have to like it, but you do have to respect it if you want to be a participant in a democratic system.
The Constitution rightfully wanted division of power and checks and balances, but I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have contemplated that a few people would use the threat of default and government shutdown to sabotage approved law when they can't come up with the votes.
This can't be the way forward. It's not right now when Republicans don't like that they lost fair and square on Obamacare. And it won't be right one day in the future when Democrats lose fair and square on taxes or gun control. You have to respect outcomes, even if you don't like them. That is fundamental to our system of government.
We need to come up with a way to amend the Constitution that respects checks and balances but doesn't allow a small minority to tyrannize the nation with this degree of economic harm when they don't get their way.
No, the founding fathers would have hung, drawn and quartered every politician that is in office right now. They are all traitors to the nation and the face of tyranny.
The House feels like taxes should be lower but can't accomplish it through legislation, so they withhold funding and threaten default until the President lowers taxes on the wealthy?
The President withholding his signature until Congress passes single-payer?
in fact this is exactly what the founders wanted to insure could and would happen.
someone should spend some time reading Monroe. .
No, it's really not.
They wanted the President to not be able to unilaterally say that he'll increase spending on various pet projects. They did not want Congress to prevent the President from implementing laws that were lawfully passed through the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court as per the process.
If a law is a law, then it's to be upheld - PERIOD. And if we don't like the law, then we amend or repeal it.
What we don't do is let a group of people without the political mandate decide which laws will and won't be enforced. That is NOT what was intended.
The President withholding his signature until Congress passes single-payer?
The President can withhold his signature, sure. Veto power is legitimate.
The Congress can hold up other parts of the President's proposed bills as negotiating chips for what they want to get. That's legitimate.
But what should not be done is to use the threat of national default as a de facto way to strike down a law that has already been passed. There's a big difference.
They did not want Congress to prevent the President from implementing laws....
A President has no authority to implement laws.
It is the duty of Congress to decide what should and should not be law, and then present that to the President for approval, but the President is not obligated to approve every bill presented having veto power. Even so, Congress may over-ride a veto with the necessary votes.
It is the duty of the President to enforce the laws that Congress passes, not create laws.
You might want to try reading and understanding your own Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
.... that were lawfully passed through the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court as per the process.
And what did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court said Obamacare is a tax.
So.....what part of....
Section. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,...
....do you not understand?
The House has the right, power and authority to decrease funding for Obamacare, since it is a tax.
The Republicans are the majority in the House, because Americans didn't trust Obama or the Democrats, so Americans gave the House to the Republicans in 2010......and in 2012.....the majority of Americans again decided that Republicans should maintain control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
If a law is a law, then it's to be upheld - PERIOD. And if we don't like the law, then we amend or repeal it.
Or de-fund it.....the House and Congress have that power and authority, under the Constitution, whether you like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
What we don't do is let a group of people without the political mandate decide which laws will and won't be enforced. That is NOT what was intended.
Republicans have the political mandate.
The American people gave the House to the Democrats in 2008.....the Democrats stepped on it, so the American people dumped the Democrats in favor of the Republicans in 2010, and then continued to support the Republican mandate in 2012.
If the American people wanted the Democrats to run the House, the American people would have returned the 60-odd Democrats that got thrown out in 2010.
Twice American has spoken, and each time Americans have made it clear they do not want Democrats controlling the purse-string.
Your political spin is way out of control, but then you just regurgitate what your Obamabot Talking Points puke up.
Do you have any facts to support your claims? No, of course not.
Constitutionally...
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet.
The Congress already decided what should be law. They decided that ACA should be the law. Now uphold that law until such time as it is amended or repealed. What do you not get about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And what did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court said Obamacare is a tax.
False. They only said the individual mandate penalty is a tax. ACA is much more than just the individual mandate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Or de-fund it.....the House and Congress have that power and authority, under the Constitution, whether you like it or not.
Again, it's nonsense to claim that the intention was for the House to use the power of the purse to make unilateral policy-making decisions. It was to keep the President from spending on all sorts of things outside of the law. The House is not supposed to wield power of the purse and threaten to push USA off a cliff to keep laws on the books from being implemented, just because they don't like them. If that was the intention, then the House could withhold funding under threat of national default to unilaterally force any policy to be dismantled or instituted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Republicans have the political mandate.
No, they DON'T. If they did, they would control sufficient parts of the House, Senate, and/or White House so that they could repeal the thing. That is the standard; they don't meet it. Hence, they don't have the political mandate.
And, just by the way, there are about a dozen polls out there all saying that Americans hate the GOP for what they did. Their favorability rating has dropped so far down the toilet on this one, which is why they caved. By a significant margin, Americans blame GOP for the shutdown over Democrats. Look it up.
It's utterly moronic to suggest that the target of an extortion attempt is the one to blame for the extortion attempt; everyone knows it's the extorter who is to blame. The Republicans are the ones who chose to use one million jobs and the US credit rating as hostages for bargaining leverage, not the Democrats.
There was no rational reason why the Senate should capitulate to the House's reckless demand that a law be de facto struck down under threat to the nation's credit rating. It's just asinine to suggest that they should have; no one should give in to such a scenario. When the intended victim of an unfair attack doesn't give in, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
