The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice

[Smokepole]

Why not just point out that both laws are unconstitutional? One violation of the constitution does not beget the next.

There's a reason that people say that the constitution was being trampled before the ink had dried.


Echoing what was said above, Article 1 Section 8 contains federal powers. Anything not explicitly listed there is outside the power of the federal government. If they wanted to add a power, they needed to pass an amendment. For the federal government to involve itself in health care, there should have been an amendment stating it explicitly. Until then, health care -- and the vast majority of federal endeavors -- does not correspond with the written document. The states never gave their consent to change the federal government via the amendment process.

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Stickfight]

Why not just point out that both laws are unconstitutional?

Where did SCOTUS find them unconstitutional?

 

[Streak]

Why not just point out that both laws are unconstitutional? One violation of the constitution does not beget the next.

There's a reason that people say that the constitution was being trampled before the ink had dried.


Echoing what was said above, Article 1 Section 8 contains federal powers. Anything not explicitly listed there is outside the power of the federal government. If they wanted to add a power, they needed to pass an amendment. For the federal government to involve itself in health care, there should have been an amendment stating it explicitly. Until then, health care -- and the vast majority of federal endeavors -- does not correspond with the written document. The states never gave their consent to change the federal government via the amendment process.

Just as the ACA was a Constitutional act. The Senate took a bill, passed by the house. They amended it to change the name, strip out most of the bill's original contents, and added in the ACA stuff. They sent it back to the House where it was ratified, came to the President's desk, and signed into law.

The SCOTUS reviewed the individual mandate and found it within the Constitutional boundaries and thus we have a legal, Constitutional, bill that the Republicans have now shut down the government because they lost. They're hurting people and causing hundreds of millions of additional cost. And people on here claim they're fiscally sound? Pfff, they're wasting money so fast we might have just as well gave it to the lazy, poor people. At least it'd have gone to something more useful than where it's going now.

THANK YOU, REPUBLICANS!

 

[AtTheMurph]

I think the Dems have shut down the government because they don't agree with the Sequester, which is also a passed piece of legislation that no one feels is unconstitutional.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Are you, perchance, familiar with microbiology? There is a process called transduction by which a bacteriophage (a bacterial virus) infects a bacterium, reproduces the viral DNA to the exclusion of the bacterial DNA that existed there before, effectively taking a preexisting cell that might have a good purpose, replaces its contents with something harmful, destroying the original bacterium and sending more bacteriophages out to infect other bacteria, which then reproduce with the new, viral DNA in all of their "daughter cells".

Why am I not surprised to find statists copying the tactics of pathogenic viruses?

Just as the ACA was a Constitutional act. The Senate took a bill, passed by the house. They amended it to change the name, strip out most of the bill's original contents, and added in the ACA stuff. They sent it back to the House where it was ratified, came to the President's desk, and signed into law.

The SCOTUS reviewed the individual mandate and found it within the Constitutional boundaries and thus we have a legal, Constitutional, bill that the Republicans have now shut down the government because they lost. They're hurting people and causing hundreds of millions of additional cost. And people on here claim they're fiscally sound? Pfff, they're wasting money so fast we might have just as well gave it to the lazy, poor people. At least it'd have gone to something more useful than where it's going now.

THANK YOU, REPUBLICANS!

Wait... Where it's going now? You mean to various park police and other LEOs that are tasked to, among other things, prevent people from walking in the woods that the People own, going into the ocean that no one owns, and controlling the comings and goings of 90 yr old WWII Veterans who want to see the memorials constructed in their honor? And... it would be the Republican administration that's giving these orders to the members of the Executive branch of government, right?

Oh wait....

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bogan]

You mean to various park police and other LEOs that are tasked to, among other things, prevent people from walking in the woods that the People own, going into the ocean that no one owns, and controlling the comings and goings of 90 yr old WWII Veterans who want to see the memorials constructed in their honor? And... it would be the Republican administration that's giving these orders to the members of the Executive branch of government, right?

Didn't know the White House ran the day to day affairs of non-partisan government agencies... now who effected the shutdown again? This kind of disingenuous argument doesn't really fool many.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Can we get a "Please dont feed the trolls" smile?

 

[buckstopshere]

Didn't know the White House ran the day to day affairs of non-partisan government agencies... now who effected the shutdown again? This kind of disingenuous argument doesn't really fool many.

You clearly have the virus

 

[buckstopshere]

Can we get a "Please dont feed the trolls" smile?

Here you go...

 

[Bill of Rights]

How're these?

 

[cobber]

Didn't know the White House ran the day to day affairs of non-partisan government agencies... now who effected the shutdown again? This kind of disingenuous argument doesn't really fool many.

Um. The Dept. of Interior is a department in the Executive Branch. Directed by the President. Ditto for ALL "non-partisan government agencies". The heads and senior bureaucrats serve at the pleasure of the President. Now they could resign rather than do his bidding, but don't kid yourself that they are "non-partisan".

Who's fooling whom?


OOPS. Missed the part about not feeding the troll. Sorry...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Didn't know the White House ran the day to day affairs of non-partisan government agencies... now who effected the shutdown again? This kind of disingenuous argument doesn't really fool many.

The Senate could pass any of the multiple budgets it has been given if it really wanted almost 99% of the government running but they do not want to.

 

[jamil]

Just as the ACA was a Constitutional act. The Senate took a bill, passed by the house. They amended it to change the name, strip out most of the bill's original contents, and added in the ACA stuff. They sent it back to the House where it was ratified, came to the President's desk, and signed into law.

The SCOTUS reviewed the individual mandate and found it within the Constitutional boundaries and thus we have a legal, Constitutional, bill that the Republicans have now shut down the government because they lost. They're hurting people and causing hundreds of millions of additional cost. And people on here claim they're fiscally sound? Pfff, they're wasting money so fast we might have just as well gave it to the lazy, poor people. At least it'd have gone to something more useful than where it's going now.

THANK YOU, REPUBLICANS!

When you first started posting here, like churchmouse, I thought you seemed intellectually honest. I disagreed with much of your politics, but I thought you were at least interested in what was real rather than trying to find technical reasons to justify your party. However, you've demonstrated, especially in the last several days, that you just like to argue in favor of your party. I have no doubt that you'd argue the opposite point if it were the republicans in office shutting down the government and the democrats insisting on compromise.

I have no doubt that if a Republican lead senate took a bill that originated and passed in the house with bipartisan support, then completely changed it to be something that would never have passed the house, much less had any democratic support, you'd have argued against it. Probably called it dirty tricks. May even have called it unconstitutional. But when the same bait-n-switch tactic is used by your side, no problem. It's all good.

You are partisan. You are not more intellectually honest than the partisan folks on the other side. You just like to argue.

Didn't know the White House ran the day to day affairs of non-partisan government agencies... now who effected the shutdown again? This kind of disingenuous argument doesn't really fool many.

I am astonished that an adult--I'm assuming you're an adult--could possess such a grossly inaccurate understanding of US government. The WH does indeed direct the policy carried out by the various government agencies. And during this partial shutdown, the President ultimately decides what gets shut down, and what stays open. The President and Senate could have approved the House bill to fund the government.

The White House and Harry Reid want ALL or NOTHING. So they're getting NOTHING. Their choice.

 

[wildhair]

I'm not sure I agree. If the Constitution was that black and white, there'd be no reason for the existence of the Supreme Court. The genius of the Constitution was that it's interepretation could grow with changing times. Nothing in the Constitution will ever be only "this way,"and "not another." That may trouble some, but at least the way our history has unfound since the very begining, that's simply the way it is.

The Constitution is black and white and does not need to be interrupted or read into. The Constitution is easy to understand and it was written that way on purpose. In fact much of the Constitution is not telling us what our rights are, but telling the federal government what powers it doesn't have. It's clear that the framers intended for most of the power to be in the hands of the states and local governments not at the federal level. The framers would not agree with much of anything the fed. gov. does these days and certainly no OBAMACRAP.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Just as the ACA was a Constitutional act. The Senate took a bill, passed by the house. They amended it to change the name, strip out most of the bill's original contents, and added in the ACA stuff. They sent it back to the House where it was ratified, came to the President's desk, and signed into law.

The SCOTUS reviewed the individual mandate and found it within the Constitutional boundaries and thus we have a legal, Constitutional, bill that the Republicans have now shut down the government because they lost. They're hurting people and causing hundreds of millions of additional cost. And people on here claim they're fiscally sound? Pfff, they're wasting money so fast we might have just as well gave it to the lazy, poor people. At least it'd have gone to something more useful than where it's going now.

THANK YOU, REPUBLICANS!

Someone please correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but when a bill comes back from Conference Committee (where the Senate grafted its ACA bill onto the former House bill) both the House and the Senate are supposed to vote on the amended bill. Nancy Pelosi didn't allow a vote, but "deemed the bill passed." Certainly a violation of the intent of the Constitution, and a real stretch of the rules, even though the Democrats' control of both Houses of Congress let them get away with it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Someone please correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but when a bill comes back from Conference Committee (where the Senate grafted its ACA bill onto the former House bill) both the House and the Senate are supposed to vote on the amended bill. Nancy Pelosi didn't allow a vote, but "deemed the bill passed." Certainly a violation of the intent of the Constitution, and a real stretch of the rules, even though the Democrats' control of both Houses of Congress let them get away with it.

My understanding is the same as yours. FWIW.

 

[Expat]

Didn't know the White House ran the day to day affairs of non-partisan government agencies... now who effected the shutdown again? This kind of disingenuous argument doesn't really fool many.

Just like when the sequester came about, the department people said they were told by the WH to make things as painful as possible.

 

[Smokepole]

QUOTE=Blackhawk2001;4521147]Someone please correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but when a bill comes back from Conference Committee (where the Senate grafted its ACA bill onto the former House bill) both the House and the Senate are supposed to vote on the amended bill. Nancy Pelosi didn't allow a vote, but "deemed the bill passed." Certainly a violation of the intent of the Constitution, and a real stretch of the rules, even though the Democrats' control of both Houses of Congress let them get away with it.[/QUOTE]

That would be my recollection of the process used to pass the ACA - POS. And if I recall correctly, the way in which Pelosi used the process to "deem" the Bill passed even stretched the prior use of the "deeming" process FAR beyond grounds for which it had been used and intended in the past.

Anyone that reads and studies (honestly) the Constitution, the Constitutional Conventions, Federalist Papers, etc. and posses rational thought could easily see and understand that the ACA and the process by which it was drafted and passed is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL! As was the Judicial REWRITING of the law and the argument that was employed by the SCOTUS for Roberts to find it Constitutional. The Panel cannot rewrite a law in order to find it just or Constitutional for that is truly "Legislating from the Bench". And legislation is not a power that the Constitution bestows upon the Court.

In the totality of the process and events of ObamaCare (ACA), from it's drafting to the manner in which it passed Congress to the process of the SCOTUS finding it Constitutional, there is nothing about this Law that is Constitutional. And anyone that honestly reads the Constitution will understand this.

 

[SmithGuy]

In the totality of the process and events of ObamaCare (ACA), from it's drafting to the manner in which it passed Congress to the process of the SCOTUS finding it Constitutional, there is nothing about this Law that is Constitutional. And anyone that honestly reads the Constitution will understand this.

Sorry, but your definition of constitutional does not match the Supreme Court's definition of constitutional. I don't know you and I am assuming you are a very smart person, but I will take the Supreme Court's definition of constitutional any day over your definition or anyone else's. And remember, this is a conservative leaning court so I think most people who still insist the ACA is still somehow unconstitutional have motives that they themselves may not even fully understand.

The ACA is constitutional and it is law. If someone wants to get it repealed, they need to word hard to get people elected that represent their views so they can repeal it. The tactics the Republicans have been using recently (including this little rule change) are legal, so again if anyone does not like them they need to get their own people elected and get the rules changed.

All of this ACA and shutdown posturing is just pure politics. Politicians have been using tricks (including dirty ones sometimes) since the founding of this great country of ours. Sadly, sometimes it takes the politicians to really screw something up really badly for there to be a sudden shift in the political landscape. In my opinion, that is what all of this posturing by the Republicans is about - trying to shake things up to the point things start changing politically in their favor so that their electorate is satisfied. Time will tell how effective that strategy will be, but it is a very risky strategy that makes everyone nervous and can have huge impacts in the 2014 and 2016 elections. If the Republicans lose the House in 2014 and the next presidential election in 2016, I think most people who voted non-Republican will blame Republican tactics relating to this shutdown as a major reason why they voted for someone else.

 

[poptab]

Johnny M. found judicial review floating in the penumbra.

Johnny R. found the power of unlimited government floating about in the penumbra of taxes.

I think they skipped that day in history class.
That day they talk about what an ******* john Marshall was.