0
billvon

Kudos to Boehner, Reid, and McConnell

Recommended Posts

>It is well with in the House's right to pick and choose if they want to fund the ACA.

Where in the Constitution is the House given the right to defund specific laws? The legislative branch passes laws; the executive branch executes them. (The specific language is that the President ". . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." - and the ACA is a law.)

The Constitutional way to defund the ACA is to pass a law to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>It is well with in the House's right to pick and choose if they want to fund the ACA.

Where in the Constitution is the House given the right to defund specific laws? The legislative branch passes laws; the executive branch executes them. (The specific language is that the President ". . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." - and the ACA is a law.)

The Constitutional way to defund the ACA is to pass a law to that effect.




It's been done in the past.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/issues/defunding-obamacare-legal-and-constitutional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The link I posted specifies the legal and constitutional backing.

No, it just lists a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your claims. A few tidbits:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." True. The ACA is a Law that lists the appropriations to be made.

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." They actually list that. Unless you think the ACA is really an army, it of course does not apply.

"Despite the requirement in the rules that only authorized programs may receive appropriations, Congress has continued to appropriate even when authorizations have expired." - Agreed. The ACA is an "authorized program." Indeed it is a law.

This is yet another example of a small group of people who did not get their way and are trying to find ways around the system to get what they want. They deserve no more respect than a roofer who you contract to replace your roof, removes your old roof, then demands double the agreed-upon fee to replace it before the next rainstorm.

Want to defiund the ACA? Fine. Do it legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>The link I posted specifies the legal and constitutional backing.

No, it just lists a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your claims. A few tidbits:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." True. The ACA is a Law that lists the appropriations to be made.

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." They actually list that. Unless you think the ACA is really an army, it of course does not apply.

"Despite the requirement in the rules that only authorized programs may receive appropriations, Congress has continued to appropriate even when authorizations have expired." - Agreed. The ACA is an "authorized program." Indeed it is a law.

This is yet another example of a small group of people who did not get their way and are trying to find ways around the system to get what they want. They deserve no more respect than a roofer who you contract to replace your roof, removes your old roof, then demands double the agreed-upon fee to replace it before the next rainstorm.

Want to defiund the ACA? Fine. Do it legally.



Guess it was too hard for you to understand. Defunding ACA was a legal way to effectively repeal it. It's been done with other laws. It has precedence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can spell this one out for you.

Quote

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." True. The ACA is a Law that lists the appropriations to be made.



Appropriations are done by the House at their discretion. The House doesn't have to approve all appropriations listed in each and every law.

This is not a glitch. This is by design. It's called separation of powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really not the same thing



Yeah, it kinda is. Shall not be infringed. So when you try to 'infringe' on it it is against the 2nd.

Quote

The ACA is enacted law (so is the 2nd Amendment), signed off on by the Supreme Court (so is the 2nd). If we want to modify it, the process is clear - you pass new legislation and have it signed by the President.



Obama has said that the Congress should NOT take that action since it was "settled law". Well, the BoR is pretty "settled"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf


Guess it was too hard for you to understand. Defunding ACA was a legal way to effectively repeal it. It's been done with other laws. It has precedence.



I'll agree that the House has some discretion on budgeting. All spending bills originate in the House. But it still entails legislation that is passed by Senate and the President.

What aspects of ACA actually require funding? I'm reminded of when TR sent out the Great White Fleet against the wishes of Congress, who sought to defund such an action. His response was 'I have enough money to send the fleet out - you can choose whether or not to fund its return.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***
Guess it was too hard for you to understand. Defunding ACA was a legal way to effectively repeal it. It's been done with other laws. It has precedence.



I'll agree that the House has some discretion on budgeting. All spending bills originate in the House. But it still entails legislation that is passed by Senate and the President.

What aspects of ACA actually require funding? I'm reminded of when TR sent out the Great White Fleet against the wishes of Congress, who sought to defund such an action. His response was 'I have enough money to send the fleet out - you can choose whether or not to fund its return.'

Right, the House can't fund anything it want's. That wouldn't be a good idea.

As for what aspects of the ACA require funding? I have no idea. I don't really care to read that much about it. But defunding the ACA is well with in the legal powers of the House.

The President and the Senate basically usurped the power of the House by forcing them to fund the ACA.


Just to add the one part that I can think of off hand that requires funding is the website. Which is going to require lots of money to fix/redesign, since it sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf


The President and the Senate basically usurped the power of the House by forcing them to fund the ACA.



You're implying that the House holds the purse strings. It doesn't. It just gets to make the first bid.

Quote


Just to add the one part that I can think of off hand that requires funding is the website. Which is going to require lots of money to fix/redesign, since it sucks.



Not really. It's just suffering release woes, no different than any other company out there. I already talked extensively about the problems with scaling the infrastructure for first day demand rather than typical, and the data problems with different companies coding the same variables differently will be settled soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

Quote

All spending bills originate in the House.



That actually is part of why the ACA really wasn't constitutional. Part of it is a spending bill and it didn't originate in the House.



The Supreme Court already ruled in the contrary. You may disagree, but the call has been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the Republicans should have caved in and funded the ACA or raised the debt limit. They should have forced the country to live within it's means rather then continue to pile on more and more debt. Yes it would hurt a lot. But that is only because the US Gov has amassed an insane amount of debt. Whether we deal with the debt and spending problems now or later defines how much it's going to hurt. If we put off to the future like they have chosen to do the problem only gets bigger and harder to deal with. There will never be a good time to deal with it. So might as well do it now while we have the chance to mitigate some of the really bad consequences of this massive debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***

Quote

All spending bills originate in the House.



That actually is part of why the ACA really wasn't constitutional. Part of it is a spending bill and it didn't originate in the House.



The Supreme Court already ruled in the contrary. You may disagree, but the call has been made.

They didn't rule on that. They ruled on the individual mandate. And I think they got that wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DaVinci

Quote

Really not the same thing



Yeah, it kinda is. Shall not be infringed. So when you try to 'infringe' on it it is against the 2nd.



and yet, as Kallend loves to tell us, even Scalia wrote that it isn't an absolute, just as we've infringed on the free speech rights of people in crowded theaters.

So you can't make it so binary. Gun control legislation that bans, or effectively, bans hand gun ownership, like attempts by DC and Chicago, don't stand up. But other regulation, though not good or beneficial by our perspective, can be proposed, discussed, even enacted.

Quote


***The ACA is enacted law (so is the 2nd Amendment), signed off on by the Supreme Court (so is the 2nd). If we want to modify it, the process is clear - you pass new legislation and have it signed by the President.



Obama has said that the Congress should NOT take that action since it was "settled law". Well, the BoR is pretty "settled"

He can say that, and he can veto it. Just as Bush did with attempts by the majority party in Congress to force troop pullouts in Iraq. If they can get enough votes to override, then his opinion ceases to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Defunding ACA was a legal way to effectively repeal it.

No, it's not; and posting a link to the page defunding-obamacare-legal-and-constitutional from the website conservativeusa.org doesn't make it so.

>It's been done with other laws.

Which other laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

I don't think the Republicans should have caved in and funded the ACA or raised the debt limit. They should have forced the country to live within it's means rather then continue to pile on more and more debt. Yes it would hurt a lot. But that is only because the US Gov has amassed an insane amount of debt.



Actually, our debt burden is far better than most first world nations. The pain you spoken of would have made 2009 a pleasant memory.

Cutting off a limb to get your way isn't leadership, it's bordering on treason. It's also pretty suicidal for the party. It used to be that the Democrats were the muddled mass while the unified GOP delegations kicked their ass, but now the table has turned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I don't think the Republicans should have caved in and funded the ACA or raised the debt limit.

They didn't fund the ACA. All they did was raise the debt ceiling. The US Treasury directly funds things in the USA, based on laws that have been passed by Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

> Defunding ACA was a legal way to effectively repeal it.

No, it's not; and posting a link to the page defunding-obamacare-legal-and-constitutional from the website conservativeusa.org doesn't make it so.

>It's been done with other laws.

Which other laws?



It's pretty clear from the Constitution that the House controls the money and that they can choose what to fund and what not to fund.


Quote

President Clinton acknowledged in 1995 that after vetoing the appropriations for some government agencies he had no choice but to close those agencies until he and Congress could reach agreement on a new appropriations bill.[5] The fact that many of those agencies had a legal authorization on the books was irrelevant without an appropriation. By vetoing the appropriation, Clinton had imposed a de facto repeal of those authorizations, though an intentionally temporary one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***I don't think the Republicans should have caved in and funded the ACA or raised the debt limit. They should have forced the country to live within it's means rather then continue to pile on more and more debt. Yes it would hurt a lot. But that is only because the US Gov has amassed an insane amount of debt.



Actually, our debt burden is far better than most first world nations. The pain you spoken of would have made 2009 a pleasant memory.

Cutting off a limb to get your way isn't leadership, it's bordering on treason. It's also pretty suicidal for the party. It used to be that the Democrats were the muddled mass while the unified GOP delegations kicked their ass, but now the table has turned.

I am not a Republican and don't care about that party at all. The US has the most amount of debt of any nation in the world. The pain that will come from this is inevitable. The only choice we have is when we deal with it. The longer we put this off the worse it will get.

Treason is allowing the debt to get this far and not dealing with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>I don't think the Republicans should have caved in and funded the ACA or raised the debt limit.

They didn't fund the ACA. All they did was raise the debt ceiling. The US Treasury directly funds things in the USA, based on laws that have been passed by Congress.



They tried to fund everything but the ACA. Instead they just caved in and funded everything up until a certain date. I don't remember the exact date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

******

Quote

All spending bills originate in the House.



That actually is part of why the ACA really wasn't constitutional. Part of it is a spending bill and it didn't originate in the House.



The Supreme Court already ruled in the contrary. You may disagree, but the call has been made.

They didn't rule on that. They ruled on the individual mandate. And I think they got that wrong.

Your vote on the matter doesn't count.

Which is just as well, since it seems you don't have a good grasp of the Constitution.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>They tried to fund everything but the ACA.

Read up on what the fight was about. They were threatening to keep the government closed until OBAMA defunded the ACA, because the House felt they could not accomplish that via Constitutional means.

Congress has the Constitutional power to defund Obamacare. It's spelled out right there in the US Constitution. If they want to use it, they can.

The Tea Party alone does not have the power to defund Obamacare, even if they really, really, really, really want to. And this (fortunately) proved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0