The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Bigun on October 03, 2013, 02:50:35 am
-
Obamacare can be defunded without Senate approval
http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-can-be-defunded-without-senate-approval
When the House passed legislation to defund ObamaCare but would keep the government running through mid-December, the Senate, led by Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) stated that they would not budge on Obamacare and the legislation was defeated.
On Monday, Dr. Harold Pease, an expert on the United States Constitution, stated that the authority in dealing with Obamacare funding belongs to the U.S. House, not the U.S. Senate and that the House is doing this all wrong.
Pease said, “Everything hinged upon funding which was given exclusively to the House of Representatives, the only power that they alone had.”
Pease went on to say, “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. To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives.”
“If that does not happen taxpayer money cannot be spent. The people, through their representatives to Congress, have determined, after a three-year closer scrutiny of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), that it does not protect the patient, is not affordable and is not even workable; hence in the interests of the vast majority of the people needs to be defunded.”
When the United States Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare in 2012, Chief Justice Roberts stance on Obamacare coincides with the intent of the U.S. Constitution, explained by Pease, and the powers between the House and Senate.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Obamacare cannot be implemented and is not considered the law of the land, contrary to Democrat claims.
Bubba Atkinson of the Independent Journal Review wrote, “Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That is how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything, ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.”
“Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax,” said Atkinson. “He struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — “comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.” Roberts ruled that is a no-no.”
When the House attached Obamacare to the legislation in funding the government, it made a mistake in doing so and the funding of Obamacare should have been separate, thereby giving the Senate no power in denying the Houses’ request to defund Obamacare.
Pease said, “House opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a “stand alone” bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. “Stand alone,” having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile, Obamacare is merely defunded.”
“Still, the intent of the Founding Fathers was to give the people, through their House of Representatives, the power collectively to say no to any proposed federal tax, which she is decidedly doing.”
If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House and the Senate and the President has no constitutional authority to override the House decision.
-
Personally I believe Dr. Pease to be entirely correct!
-
I believe he is reading too little into Article 1, Section 7, separating out the first clause from the rest. Here is the full text:
Article 1, Section 7 doesn't separate the 2nd Clause (and so on) from the first, it just identifies where the bill must originate. Clause 2, however, is clear that any bill must still pass the Senate and then the President approve it or it goes back to the House...
It doesn't say that a revenue bill passed in the House is law once the House passes it and it doesn't matter about the Senate or President.
I sometimes wonder where these Constitutional experts come from, but then I remember our President is called one too.
Still if the house refuses to fund it it cannot be funded.
How is that incorrect?
-
I don't do this often, but I just deleted my previous comment and am reversing my opinion. I went to the Federalist papers to see the original intent and it does fit with what the author is saying.
"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government....This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect, every just and salutary measure." James Madison- Federalist 58
-
Since Obamacare is law, any defunding of Obamacare must pass muster with the Senate and be signed by the President.
Spending bills originate in the House, but that doesn't mean the Senate and the President have no role in approving or denying spending.
-
Still if the house refuses to fund it it cannot be funded.
How is that incorrect?
I was incorrect in the origination clause not giving the final authority to the House. The author made the interpretation (and I found him to be correct in the original language of Madison), that there was clear cause to keep all revenue in the hands of the body closest to the people. See my correction above.
-
Still if the house refuses to fund it it cannot be funded.
How is that incorrect?
Yes. And the Senate can refuse to pass any budget that doesn't contain funding for Obamacare.
Thus, we have a shutdown.
-
Since Obamacare is law, any defunding of Obamacare must pass muster with the Senate and be signed by the President.
Spending bills originate in the House, but that doesn't mean the Senate and the President have no role in approving or denying spending.
B.S. The House need merely pass an appropriations bill that fails to contain funds that would have otherwise funded Obastardcare. Just because something is "the law of the land" does not mean that tax revenue must be spent on that legislation - the two are logically distinct constructs - and even if the original legislation had expressly stated that it must be funded, Congress still wouldn't have to fund it because Congress cannot bind itself to pass, or to not pass, certain types of legislation in the future. As such, there is nothing that would prevent the present Congress from passing an appropriations bill that simply did not appropriate any funds for those particular activities. This is so because one Congress cannot bind a later Congress by legislation intended to prevent that later Congress from passing, or not passing, certain types of legislation. To give a simple example: suppose at some point in time Congress agreed that bicycles should forever remain tax-free and therefore passed a bill stating that (a) there shall be no tax on bicycles, and (b) no future Congress may impose a tax of any sort on bicycles, and any legislation to the contrary is automatically null and void.
Notwithstanding that, if the next Congress (i.e., the Congress following one election) decides that bicycles should be taxed out of existence and passes a law imposing a tax on the purchase of a bicycle (where such bicycle is purchased in interstate commerce) equal to 1000% of the purchase price, that legislation is perfectly valid and necessarily trumps the earlier legislation even if that earlier legislation was never repealed and was still codified into the U.S. Code.
The concept is implicit repeal and is based on the very simple idea that the last legislative act properly enacted pursuant to the Constitution - and the Constitution alone - trumps any earlier inconsistent legislation.
Therefore, even if Obastardcare mandated its own funding, that alone cannot constrain this Congress to provide such funding and, since the House appropriates funds for government activities, and can be as general or as specific as they wish to be, they can pass an appropriations bill that appropriates funds in great detail for all of the government agencies, but which omits any mention of the offices needed to implement Obastardcare; those offices would therefore not receive any funds, notwithstanding the fact that there was nothing in that appropriations bill that "defunded" those offices.
-
I was incorrect in the origination clause not giving the final authority to the House. The author made the interpretation (and I found him to be correct in the original language of Madison), that there was clear cause to keep all revenue in the hands of the body closest to the people. See my correction above.
Any budget that does not contain funding for items the Senate deems needing funding can be voted down. And even if the Senate passed said budget, the President can veto it.
In other words, the House can withhold funding, but only with the consent of the Senate and the President.
Otherwise, the government is not funded and is shutdown.
-
Yes. And the Senate can refuse to pass any budget that doesn't contain funding for Obamacare.
Thus, we have a shutdown.
The senate has not passed a budget in five plus years! What's new about that?
-
Just to add to that, the first author of this clause, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, required all "money bills" (including appropriations) to originate in the House and would have given the Senate no power to amend.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania later helped modify it explaining, "If both branches were to say yes or no, it was of little consequence which should say yes or no first."
Wilson's interpretation was closest to what the final became. Revenue is held to the House and the Senate only has the power to offer Amendments.
-
B.S. The House need merely pass an appropriations bill that fails to contain funds that would have otherwise funded Obastardcare.
And the Senate can refuse to pass it, as the Senate has done.
Thus the current impasse.
-
Just to add to that, the first author of this clause, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, required all "money bills" (including appropriations) to originate in the House and would have given the Senate no power to amend.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania later helped modify it explaining, "If both branches were to say yes or no, it was of little consequence which should say yes or no first."
Wilson's interpretation was closest to what the final became. Revenue is held to the House and the Senate only has the power to offer Amendments.
But the Senate can amend and send back to the House. Which is what has happened.
-
I don't do this often, but I just deleted my previous comment and am reversing my opinion. I went to the Federalist papers to see the original intent and it does fit with what the author is saying.
Thank you! That is my finding as well!
-
B.S. The House need merely pass an appropriations bill that fails to contain funds that would have otherwise funded Obastardcare.
That is correct. The senate can propose amendments but if the house refuses to accept them they are moot.
-
Just to add to that, the first author of this clause, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, required all "money bills" (including appropriations) to originate in the House and would have given the Senate no power to amend.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania later helped modify it explaining, "If both branches were to say yes or no, it was of little consequence which should say yes or no first."
Wilson's interpretation was closest to what the final became. Revenue is held to the House and the Senate only has the power to offer Amendments.
Yes. The Senate can offer or strip Amendments and send the bill back to the House. That's precisely what's happened.
-
It's fascinating how dedicated Mr. Sinkspur is to getting Obamacare funded and off the ground. Why is that?
-
I'll pick "How Sinkspur benefits financially" for 500, Alex.
-
It's fascinating how dedicated Mr. Sinkspur is to getting Obamacare funded and off the ground. Why is that?
This is a constitutional discussion that applies to any bill or law.
I wish Obamacare could be repealed. Until the GOP takes the Senate and wins the Presidency, it cannot be repealed.
-
I'll take that he benefits financially for 500, Alex.
You lose.
-
You're so easy. :eatdrink:
-
This is a constitutional discussion that applies to any bill or law.
I wish Obamacare could be repealed. Until the GOP takes the Senate and wins the Presidency, it cannot be repealed.
You are the only one on this entire thread who has said a word about repealed! We are talking about FUNDING here! Try reading the article again if you ever did in the first place.
“House opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a “stand alone” bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. “Stand alone,” having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile, Obamacare is merely defunded.”
-
You are the only one on this entire thread who has said a word about repealed! We are talking about FUNDING here! Try reading the article again if you ever did in the first place.
Bigun, I love ya. But defunding Obamacare has not happened, and even the GOP has backed off attempting to do it.
-
Bigun, I love ya. But defunding Obamacare has not happened, and even the GOP has backed off attempting to do it.
Really??? I'm hearing just the opposite!
I'm thinking you should get those voices in your head checked out!
-
Really??? I'm hearing just the opposite!
I'm thinking you should get those voices in your head checked out!
Where's the current GOP proposal to defund Obamacare? The GOP is now down to delaying it.
-
Where's the current GOP proposal to defund Obamacare? The GOP is now down to delaying it.
That does not conflate to "...even the GOP has backed off attempting to do it." except perhaps very temporarily.
-
That does not conflate to "...even the GOP has backed off attempting to do it." except perhaps very temporarily.
Of course it does. Look around. No Republican, even Ted Cruz, is talking about defunding any longer.
The GOP is losing this battle, Bigun. The House followed Ted Cruz off the cliff.
I'll bet they never make that mistake again. Cruz has grand ideas but has proven to be a terrible strategist.
By the way, where the hell IS Ted Cruz? He was more than happy to be out front when he was getting publicity for his 21 hour speech.
-
I'm sorry Sink but I simply cannot follow your line of reasoning! It simply doesn't compute!
-
By the way, where the hell IS Ted Cruz? He was more than happy to be out front when he was getting publicity for his 21 hour speech.
Exclusive–104,000 Strong: Tea Party Patriots Have Record Turnout for Cruz on Tele-Townhall
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,115219.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,115219.0.html)
-
Of course it does. Look around. No Republican, even Ted Cruz, is talking about defunding any longer.
The GOP is losing this battle, Bigun. The House followed Ted Cruz off the cliff.
I'll bet they never make that mistake again. Cruz has grand ideas but has proven to be a terrible strategist.
By the way, where the hell IS Ted Cruz? He was more than happy to be out front when he was getting publicity for his 21 hour speech.
I was on a tele Town Hall with Cruz on Wednesday at 8 PM, for nearly an hour, when I got caught off. He's out there with the people.
-
Pease went on to say, “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. To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives.”
I thought the ACA originated in the Senate?
How are the tax increases Constitutional then?
-
I was on a tele Town Hall with Cruz on Wednesday at 8 PM, for nearly an hour, when I got caught off. He's out there with the people.
He's out there with people who will give him their email address and help fund his future presidential campaign.
Now that he's backed the entire Republican party into a corner, he's selfishly feathering his own nest.
What are his ideas for getting out of this mess? Continuing to offer weaker and weaker measures, showing the world that we're now at the point where we'll take the smallest bone Obama will throw us?
Pathetic.
-
I'm sorry Sink but I simply cannot follow your line of reasoning! It simply doesn't compute!
I'm not surprised.
-
I thought the ACA originated in the Senate?
How are the tax increases Constitutional then?
The House sent over a bill, Reid stripped everything out of it but the title, and the bill turned into the ACA. That's perfectly constitutional. The Republicans used to do it all the time when they owned both Houses of Congress.
-
He's out there with people who will give him their email address and help fund his future presidential campaign.
Now that he's backed the entire Republican party into a corner, he's selfishly feathering his own nest.
What are his ideas for getting out of this mess? Continuing to offer weaker and weaker measures, showing the world that we're now at the point where we'll take the smallest bone Obama will throw us?
Pathetic.
He did no such thing, and you know nothing about the man, except what you want to believe. I guess he isn't limp wristed enough for you.
-
He's out there with people who will give him their email address and help fund his future presidential campaign.
Now that he's backed the entire Republican party into a corner, he's selfishly feathering his own nest.
What are his ideas for getting out of this mess? Continuing to offer weaker and weaker measures, showing the world that we're now at the point where we'll take the smallest bone Obama will throw us?
Pathetic.
It could be he is doing two things - both listening to the public and crowdsourcing ideas. It is a surprisingly effective technique.
-
I'm not surprised.
I'm not either! My mind simply will not contort like yours does and I thank GOD for that!
-
It could be he is doing two things - both listening to the public and crowdsourcing ideas. It is a surprisingly effective technique.
He's listening to the same crowd that got us into this mess. What new ideas did you hear last night for resolving this shutdown?
-
I'm not either! My mind simply will not contort like yours does and I thank GOD for that!
:beer:
-
He did no such thing, and you know nothing about the man, except what you want to believe. I guess he isn't limp wristed enough for you.
He's an opportunist. Much like Barack Obama, he thinks six months in the Senate qualifies him for the Presidency.
What new ideas did he have for resolving the shutdown? Keep doing what we're doing and hope for the best?
-
He's an opportunist. Much like Barack Obama, he thinks six months in the Senate qualifies him for the Presidency.
What new ideas did he have for resolving the shutdown? Keep doing what we're doing and hope for the best?
Unlike you he is also a noted Constitutional scholar! He knows what he is doing!
-
Unlike you he is also a noted Constitutional scholar! He knows what he is doing!
He does? What is he doing?
-
Here is a link to a video of Ted Cruz's dad speaking! Watch it and tell me what he says that you disagree with!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0Ym4Xt0T6fM
-
He does? What is he doing?
He's trying to save this once great republic! That's all! And, unlike you, most people recognize the fact!
-
He's trying to save this once great republic! That's all! And, unlike you, most people recognize the fact!
I find it odd that sinkspur is blaming Ted Cruz for what Harry Reid and Barack Obama are doing.
-
He's trying to save this once great republic! That's all! And, unlike you, most people recognize the fact!
What, exactly, is he doing?
-
I find it odd that sinkspur is blaming Ted Cruz for what Harry Reid and Barack Obama are doing.
Reid and Obama are reacting to what Ted Cruz browbeat the House Republicans into doing. Now that the government is shutdown, and his suggestions for resolving it have failed, what else is he doing to help bring it to an end?
-
Reid and Obama are reacting to what Ted Cruz browbeat the House Republicans into doing. Now that the government is shutdown, and his suggestions for resolving it have failed, what else is he doing to help bring it to an end?
Who says we need to bring it to an end.....?
-
Who says we need to bring it to an end.....?
GOOD question.
-
Who says we need to bring it to an end.....?
The stock market is down 167 points as we speak. Uncertainty comes at an economic cost. If the Dow loses a thousand points, the pressure on Boehner to bring this to an end will be immense.
-
The stock market is down 167 points as we speak. Uncertainty comes at an economic cost. If the Dow loses a thousand points, the pressure on Boehner to bring this to an end will be immense.
Obama told Wall Street yesterday he wanted them to react....and upon command they did..
-
He's listening to the same crowd that got us into this mess. What new ideas did you hear last night for resolving this shutdown?
Give me a chance, mate. Only got home last night! Trying to catch up here!
-
Ahhh Toussaint stock market, th m rein ink supported TARP. Unless you have to sell, put on your big boy pants and let it ride...
-
Give me a chance, mate. Only got home last night! Trying to catch up here!
May I cut in here and say, "welcome back", and I'm glad you are safe.
Now back to the arguing. In fact, I will start it off again.
-
First he makes this statement, implying Senator Cruz has gone into hiding over what he has caused:
By the way, where the hell IS Ted Cruz? He was more than happy to be out front when he was getting publicity for his 21 hour speech.
Shown this to be inaccurate, Exclusive–104,000 Strong: Tea Party Patriots Have Record Turnout for Cruz on Tele-Townhall, he doesn't acknowledge his error but merely alters his smear to state (not imply), that Senator Cruz is doing all this for self enrichment.
He's out there with people who will give him their email address and help fund his future presidential campaign.
Now that he's backed the entire Republican party into a corner, he's selfishly feathering his own nest.
He's an opportunist.
Is it not quite obvious we are here dealing with a Liberal hatchetman, or someone who is so full of venom toward Conservatives, especially Senator Cruz, that he is bordering on irrationality?
-
First he makes this statement, implying Senator Cruz has gone into hiding over what he has caused:
By the way, where the hell IS Ted Cruz? He was more than happy to be out front when he was getting publicity for his 21 hour speech.
Shown this to be inaccurate, Exclusive–104,000 Strong: Tea Party Patriots Have Record Turnout for Cruz on Tele-Townhall, he doesn't acknowledge his error but merely alters his smear to state (not imply), that Senator Cruz is doing all this for self enrichment.
He's out there with people who will give him their email address and help fund his future presidential campaign.
Now that he's backed the entire Republican party into a corner, he's selfishly feathering his own nest.
He's an opportunist.
Is it not quite obvious we are here dealing with a Liberal hatchetman, or someone who is so full of venom toward Conservatives, especially Senator Cruz, that he is bordering on irrationality?
Perhaps the latter but certainly not the former.