Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
yota691

Obamacare can be defunded without Senate approval

Recommended Posts

October 2, 2013

 

582bb57592a741c9c0b7eb898e784edf.jpg?ito

When the House passed legislation to defundObamaCare 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 Constitutionstated 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.”

[Edited for clarity] If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House. If that is the case, then the Senate and the President can vote yes or no and if the vote is no, then the Obamacare bill can sit in the House with no funding.

Edited by yota691
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood this "acceptance" by the citizenry, and by Congress, of attaching so much "pork" and special-interest funding to certain primary bills.   Because of lobbying, and the mistaken sense of "efficiency" by "bundling"... this convolution just makes clarity impossible.   I call it lazy politics!  Congress needs to work harder and later... if it takes 100 bills, instead of one, so be it!   I believe all bills should be stand-alone.   How about a bill to force all bills to be stand-alone?!!!

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jax--- It seems to me, they all need to re-read all laws/rules/bills/constitution/etc.....and so-on.....Congress & "O" cannot go day by day making these things up as they go.   Go RV

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Affordable Care Tax?

 

The ACA legislation was approved by the Supreme Court to the extent monies could be extracted from the citizens by the congress through taxing but not fines for failing to purchase a product.  They struck down the feds ability to withhold state medicade funding for not complying to match funding for all uninsured.

 

The House of Representatives is the branch of government that has the power to legislate taxation and the branch that controls all funding to protect the voice of the people.

 

As the ACA legislation has been transformed into a tax by the court and the implementation of a tax is totally at the discretion of the House of Representatives the Senate does not have the authority to demand any legislation be funded or de-funded.

 

Our government is working the way it is designed to work, so the President and Senate shutting it down is overreaching their authority and is not caused by the action of the House of Representatives.

 

Intimidation should be resisted in any branch overreaching it's authority to keep the balance of power that was included in our constitution.

 

The inability of Obama supporters to recognize the limits of his powers is attributed to the media manipulating the events and swaying the faces of reality.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't the Speaker and Representatives know this.

How can they make laws if they do not know the procedures with which to make them.

Dah, wake up. OUR COUNTRY AND FREEDOMS ARE AT STAKE!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.”

My initial feeling is "Good, I'm not buying."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't yall get the message...'Ya got to pass the bill to know what's in it'... :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just conducted the "Washington Bone Head Play of the decade" Republicans will lose control of both the Senate & Congress in the coming years!

 

The American people will remember this for the next decade and the GOP will suffer for it.

 

"Republicans shut down the government" will be rally cry for all upcoming elections.

 

It's like watching "Dumb & Dumber" over and over again. LOL

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican House has gone from stalling immigration reform and cutting food stamps to precipitating a government shutdown by demanding the repeal of the health law that is the cornerstone of President Obama's legacy. The shutdown is threatening nutrition programs, cancer treatment, salaries, jobs, and much more.

 

"We're not finished committing suicide here," said Republican strategist John Weaver, a veteran of the McCain and Huntsman campaigns. "We also have the opportunity to kill immigration reform, and the odds are that we will do that, just to make sure we're the angry-white-man party." He says the party may need a George McGovern-sized defeat with a candidate like Ted Cruz before it chooses another path.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much think they're doing the right thing now.  The House has passed legislation to fund the government.  Now all the Senate needs to do is pass those Bills.  Seems like it is the Senate that is holding everything up.  I wonder who has the Majority in the Senate?

 

-

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much think they're doing the right thing now.  The House has passed legislation to fund the government.  Now all the Senate needs to do is pass those Bills.  Seems like it is the Senate that is holding everything up.  I wonder who has the Majority in the Senate?

 

-

 

Legislation with add ins in an attempt to back door what they are after anyway. LOL

Lets not try to justify what the Republicans did with this garbage.

The Senate is NOT the problem. The Congress is.

I fully expect to see a majority in the Senate and Congress not Republican soon.

I am an independent so I think all this is wasteful.

The Republican Party is showing the American people that their interest in NOT in line with the working class. They are telling America that the 1% and big business is all that they care about. That's goona come back and bite them in the you-know-where! LOL

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legislation with add ins in an attempt to back door what they are after anyway. LOL

Lets not try to justify what the Republicans did with this garbage.

The Senate is NOT the problem. The Congress is.

I fully expect to see a majority in the Senate and Congress not Republican soon.

I am an independent so I think all this is wasteful.

The Republican Party is showing the American people that their interest in NOT in line with the working class. They are telling America that the 1% and big business is all that they care about. That's goona come back and bite them in the you-know-where! LOL

 

 

I agree something needs to be done about Health Care. However how can you think ACA is a good thing? Don't do something just to do something... wait until you can come up with a GOOD plan. ACA is not productive. How in hell can middle class pay 25-30% of their income on healthcare? Its ridiculous!!!

 

So I can tell you (as a health insurance agent) the poor will get theirs mostly paid for and the rich can afford it but the middle class will go without insurance and MAYBE pay the fine. That is not right, and it makes me disgusted!

 

Government is completely out of control. Maybe this shut down will clue them in that we can cut some waste. We can not continue to spend more and they can not keep taking more and more in taxes.

Edited by DinarDiva007
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legislation with add ins in an attempt to back door what they are after anyway. LOL

Lets not try to justify what the Republicans did with this garbage.

The Senate is NOT the problem. The Congress is.

I fully expect to see a majority in the Senate and Congress not Republican soon.

I am an independent so I think all this is wasteful.

The Republican Party is showing the American people that their interest in NOT in line with the working class. They are telling America that the 1% and big business is all that they care about. That's goona come back and bite them in the you-know-where! LOL

 

Nice try, but this why the Founding Fathers put in checks and balances into the System.  There are over 200 House Members who thinks Obama Care should be defunded, and there are a little over 50 Senate Members and 1 President who thinks it should be funded.   That's at least 200 to 51, so who do you think should win in a situation like this? Don't answer I already know.

 

-

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legislation with add ins in an attempt to back door what they are after anyway. LOL

Lets not try to justify what the Republicans did with this garbage.

The Senate is NOT the problem. The Congress is.

I fully expect to see a majority in the Senate and Congress not Republican soon.

I am an independent so I think all this is wasteful.

The Republican Party is showing the American people that their interest in NOT in line with the working class. They are telling America that the 1% and big business is all that they care about. That's goona come back and bite them in the you-know-where! LOL

 

ROFLMAO, You do realize CONGRESS is made up of the House and the Senate right? Not the Congress and the Senate? And you also realize your team had total control of both and the WH and still couldn't get crap done right? Not even a budget right?

The Democrats are completely the problem they will not negotiate on anything PERIOD!!! Even when their constituents don't want what they are voting on to force down our throats! 

Nice try, but this why the Founding Fathers put in checks and balances into the System.  There are over 200 House Members who thinks Obama Care should be defunded, and there are a little over 50 Senate Members and 1 President who thinks it should be funded.   That's at least 200 to 51, so who do you think should win in a situation like this? Don't answer I already know.

 

-

Exactly and what is it about 87% of Americans think it should be sent to the trash can!!!  But what the majority of Americans want means nothing to the idiot liberals running the show!

Edited by DiveDeepSix
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the response would have been in the following hypothetical scenario:

 

All numbers reversed to current.

Republican President.

Republican majority in Senate.

Democrat majority in Congress.

 

A Bill has been passed by both Houses, signed into law by the President and ruled constititional by the Supreme Court.

The Bill states that abortion shall be outlawed in the United States.

 

Congress sends a bill to the Senate for approval that states: "No further appropriations will be approved unless the bill to outlaw abortion is repealed"

 

Senate rejects proposed bill and sends it back to Congress.

 

The Democrat Speaker will not bring a Bill to the floor that continues further appropriations without the added "repeal abortion outlaw bill" part in order to maintain the support of the minority of the Democrat members who insist that the "repeal abortion outlaw bill" remain.

 

Government shuts down.

 

 

Dinar Vet members blame who for the government shut down?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the response would have been in the following hypothetical scenario:

 

All numbers reversed to current.

Republican President.

Republican majority in Senate.

Democrat majority in Congress.

 

A Bill has been passed by both Houses, signed into law by the President and ruled constititional by the Supreme Court.

The Bill states that abortion shall be outlawed in the United States.

 

Congress sends a bill to the Senate for approval that states: "No further appropriations will be approved unless the bill to outlaw abortion is repealed"

 

Senate rejects proposed bill and sends it back to Congress.

 

The Democrat Speaker will not bring a Bill to the floor that continues further appropriations without the added "repeal abortion outlaw bill" part in order to maintain the support of the minority of the Democrat members who insist that the "repeal abortion outlaw bill" remain.

 

Government shuts down.

 

 

Dinar Vet members blame who for the government shut down?

 

 

Ok I might be in the minority but abortion is a moral issue, ACA is an economic issue. I think because of that you are talking apples and oranges.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the response would have been in the following hypothetical scenario:

 

All numbers reversed to current.

Republican President.

Republican majority in Senate.

Democrat majority in Congress.

 

A Bill has been passed by both Houses, signed into law by the President and ruled constititional by the Supreme Court.

The Bill states that abortion shall be outlawed in the United States.

 

Congress sends a bill to the Senate for approval that states: "No further appropriations will be approved unless the bill to outlaw abortion is repealed"

 

Senate rejects proposed bill and sends it back to Congress.

 

The Democrat Speaker will not bring a Bill to the floor that continues further appropriations without the added "repeal abortion outlaw bill" part in order to maintain the support of the minority of the Democrat members who insist that the "repeal abortion outlaw bill" remain.

 

Government shuts down.

 

 

Dinar Vet members blame who for the government shut down?

 

Great hypothetical situation Tigger, but if I remember right when Obamacare passed the Dems had both the house and the senate and the WH, I could be wrong but the reason they lost one was because of Obamacare.  That's what happens when 85% of the people don't like what your selling!!  The GOP knows this is bad for America and I hope they fight it to the end!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the response would have been in the following hypothetical scenario:

 

All numbers reversed to current.

Republican President.

Republican majority in Senate.

Democrat majority in Congress.

 

A Bill has been passed by both Houses, signed into law by the President and ruled constititional by the Supreme Court.

The Bill states that abortion shall be outlawed in the United States.

 

Congress sends a bill to the Senate for approval that states: "No further appropriations will be approved unless the bill to outlaw abortion is repealed"

 

Senate rejects proposed bill and sends it back to Congress.

 

The Democrat Speaker will not bring a Bill to the floor that continues further appropriations without the added "repeal abortion outlaw bill" part in order to maintain the support of the minority of the Democrat members who insist that the "repeal abortion outlaw bill" remain.

 

Government shuts down.

 

 

Dinar Vet members blame who for the government shut down?

 

 

It wouldn't happen, it doesn't cost money to NOT have an abortion. :lol:

 

-

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I might be in the minority but abortion is a moral issue, ACA is an economic issue. I think because of that you are talking apples and oranges.

Well, to me, the ACA is about ensuring that people who previously couldn't get insurance (for any number of reasons) will now be able to get insurance.

Therefore - it's a moral issue.

 

So, in the hypothetical situation I posted, who is responsible for the government shutdown? 

 

Great hypothetical situation Tigger, but if I remember right when Obamacare passed the Dems had both the house and the senate and the WH, I could be wrong but the reason they lost one was because of Obamacare.  That's what happens when 85% of the people don't like what your selling!!  The GOP knows this is bad for America and I hope they fight it to the end!

How the law came to pass is irrelevant.

Do you think that a law that totally outlaws abortion would have any chance of passing unless the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the Congress and the White House?

Now, in the hypothetical situation I posted, I guess we could use the same assumption that you have and say that the Republicans lost the Congress due to the abortion law.

 

So, in the hypothetical situation I posted - who is responsible for the government shut down?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to me, the ACA is about ensuring that people who previously couldn't get insurance (for any number of reasons) will now be able to get insurance.

Therefore - it's a moral issue.

 

So, in the hypothetical situation I posted, who is responsible for the government shutdown? 

 

How the law came to pass is irrelevant.

Do you think that a law that totally outlaws abortion would have any chance of passing unless the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the Congress and the White House?

Now, in the hypothetical situation I posted, I guess we could use the same assumption that you have and say that the Republicans lost the Congress due to the abortion law.

 

So, in the hypothetical situation I posted - who is responsible for the government shut down?

 

 

Well, I am one of those people who could not get insurance. Now I can YEA! oh wait I cant afford it... Dang Im in the same position. WHAT ABOUT THAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!!! IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

and as far as the government shut down. I am for it, too much government as it is. I am sorry for the people not getting a paycheck, however we need to cut out all the frills anyway. I am an independent so whatever.

Edited by DinarDiva007
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't happen, it doesn't cost money to NOT have an abortion. :lol:

 

-

 

 

Lol.

 

But seriously, children don't cost money?

 

Children that the parents can't afford to feed and house don't cost the government money?

 

Topic derail - might be worth another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different issues TIg.

 

ACA is not a moral issue, having health insurance is NOT a right!!  Why should taxpayers have to pay for someone's lousy lifestyle choices and their choice not to buy insurance?  We shouldn't have to and we won't.



Well, I am one of those people who could not get insurance. Now I can YEA! oh wait I cant afford it... Dang Im in the same position. WHAT ABOUT THAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!!! IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Exactly right, and it's not that people wouldn't be for healthcare for all if we could actually afford it, but we can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:

 

It would be a utopian piece of legislation if they were to pass a bill that would deposit a million dollars a week in everyone’s banking account.  If it were to be presented, passed, and signed into law; everyone would be happy. 

 

The fact exist that when you exceed your ability to produce you exceed your ability to consume. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.

 

But seriously, children don't cost money?

 

Children that the parents can't afford to feed and house don't cost the government money?

 

Topic derail - might be worth another thread.

 

It is a good topic, but their is also a huge waiting list right here in the US for people wanting to adopt!

Hypothetical:

 

It would be a utopian piece of legislation if they were to pass a bill that would deposit a million dollars a week in everyone’s banking account.  If it were to be presented, passed, and signed into law; everyone would be happy. 

 

The fact exist that when you exceed your ability to produce you exceed your ability to consume. 

:twothumbs:

It wouldn't happen, it doesn't cost money to NOT have an abortion. :lol:

 

-

 

:lmao:  :lmao:  :lmao:  :lmao:  :D

Hypothetical:

 

It would be a utopian piece of legislation if they were to pass a bill that would deposit a million dollars a week in everyone’s banking account.  If it were to be presented, passed, and signed into law; everyone would be happy. 

 

The fact exist that when you exceed your ability to produce you exceed your ability to consume. 

We know a one time deposit for everyone of a million dollars would be a disaster because:  With in a year or so the libs would be crying they were out of money (as they wasted it all on flatscreens and phones) while the conservative crowd would have invested it and turned it into more money.  Now the battlecry will be from the libs to tax this away from those nasty investors it isn't fair for them to have more because they make better lifestyle choices and practice restraint from wasting money!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.


This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.


As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.


Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.


ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.


But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.


The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.


Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.


The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?


If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.


You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.


When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.


Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.


Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.


Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.


None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.