And now Republican's are the majority in the House, thanks to the passage of the ACA. If the majority thinks it needs to be defunded, the Constitution gives them the authority to do so.
The highest LAW in the land, gives the house of representatives the power of the purse. If the Senate can't persuade enough congresscritters to pass a "clean" CR, then their idea obviously isn't good enough to pass muster.
It took a civil war in the case of the FSA. And it took the imprisonment of 120,000 Americans for us to see the injustice of the AEA. It was only in 2007 that the census bureau finally admitted to providing names and addresses to the feds for rounding up people to be interned. You should keep that in mind, if you're one of the people who say there's no problem with the activities of the IRS or NSA.
They are doing exactly what they were twice elected to do. Of course they planned it. I noticed you still haven't mentioned what the Senate and Administration are willing to compromise on.
So the oil that is millions of years old that we pump out of the ground, and then pump back into the ground to stockpile suddenly goes bad if we dont use it in several years?
They were explicitly given this power by the Constitution. Which is a law that was drafted, passed, and ratified. Get over it. The Constitution is the law.
Actually the House passed a bill (any bill take your pick) The Senate then removed the language from it, replaced it with the ACA and passed the ACA first. Then the House passed the Senate Bill, and then the President signed it the next day violating his promise to let the public view laws for 3 days before he signed them into law.
So really, it happened nothing like the process outlined in "I'm Just a Bill".
So was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. What's your point? It seems Democrats keep getting themselves into these situations. Hopefully we can end this one before there's another Civil War. Judging by the comments, that's not likely.
Yeah. And I've never seen a functional representative democracy in which a majority vote can be overridden by simply putting the whole government on hold until the minority gets its way. It's a childish, undemocratic waste of resources.
That is a perfect description of how the Senate is denying the majority vote that tool place in the House, by putting the entire government on hold. Thank you.
But what I really wonder is how you managed, to write what essentially could be the longest story on this page, and post it with the same timestamp as the original story? How does that work?
You mean they didn't have the poison pill known as funding for the ACA attached. The Senate doesn't have a problem with something the house passed, they have a problem with the fact that the house didn't fund everything they wanted, so they refuse to fund anything.
Why golly gee they sure did didn't they - they passed those bills all big and purty! They just forgot to fund a particular LAW, you know that affordable health care thingy.
That particuluar LAW is not causing the shutdown. Democrats are, and will, as long as they continue to withhold funding as ransom for their albatross known as the ACA (or health care thingy).
If you are talking about CR's, I'd agree. The senate should immediately pass a budget. But if they're not going to pass a budget, it would be helpful to look at the history of CR funding. The historical norm is to pass individual CR's, rather than a "clean" CR. The House and the Senate were perfectly willing to fund by ala carte funding from 2007-2010, when Democrats were still in control of the House.
Slashdot Mirror
What incentive do they have to get it right? Whether they're outsourced or American? Do they lose customers if they fail? Do they still get paid?
Just follow the money, and there you will find your answer.
Making them all convex would be geometrically impossible, but you could make a rule disallowing acute corners.
And now Republican's are the majority in the House, thanks to the passage of the ACA. If the majority thinks it needs to be defunded, the Constitution gives them the authority to do so.
The highest LAW in the land, gives the house of representatives the power of the purse. If the Senate can't persuade enough congresscritters to pass a "clean" CR, then their idea obviously isn't good enough to pass muster.
It took a civil war in the case of the FSA. And it took the imprisonment of 120,000 Americans for us to see the injustice of the AEA. It was only in 2007 that the census bureau finally admitted to providing names and addresses to the feds for rounding up people to be interned. You should keep that in mind, if you're one of the people who say there's no problem with the activities of the IRS or NSA.
That's nice, but no one said they put it back in the same place it was found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)
They are doing exactly what they were twice elected to do. Of course they planned it. I noticed you still haven't mentioned what the Senate and Administration are willing to compromise on.
We don't stockpile refined oil, at least not like we stockpile crude in the Strategic Oil Preserve.
So the oil that is millions of years old that we pump out of the ground, and then pump back into the ground to stockpile suddenly goes bad if we dont use it in several years?
Yes, after we fought a bloody civil war, in which the supporters lost.
They were explicitly given this power by the Constitution. Which is a law that was drafted, passed, and ratified. Get over it. The Constitution is the law.
Actually the House passed a bill (any bill take your pick) The Senate then removed the language from it, replaced it with the ACA and passed the ACA first. Then the House passed the Senate Bill, and then the President signed it the next day violating his promise to let the public view laws for 3 days before he signed them into law.
So really, it happened nothing like the process outlined in "I'm Just a Bill".
It should be added that, for the denser among us, the ACA did not contain a severability clause.
You should read a little about law, before you comment on it, to avoid absurdity.
So was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. What's your point? It seems Democrats keep getting themselves into these situations. Hopefully we can end this one before there's another Civil War. Judging by the comments, that's not likely.
Yeah. And I've never seen a functional representative democracy in which a majority vote can be overridden by simply putting the whole government on hold until the minority gets its way. It's a childish, undemocratic waste of resources.
That is a perfect description of how the Senate is denying the majority vote that tool place in the House, by putting the entire government on hold. Thank you.
Except, in this case, it's the left that's denying the funding.
I think he was referring to the federal government.
But what I really wonder is how you managed, to write what essentially could be the longest story on this page, and post it with the same timestamp as the original story? How does that work?
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 passed, and it's water under the bridge. Get over it.
The Alien Enemies Act passed, and it's water under the bridge. Get over it.
No. Bad laws, are bad laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4
You mean they didn't have the poison pill known as funding for the ACA attached. The Senate doesn't have a problem with something the house passed, they have a problem with the fact that the house didn't fund everything they wanted, so they refuse to fund anything.
Why golly gee they sure did didn't they - they passed those bills all big and purty! They just forgot to fund a particular LAW, you know that affordable health care thingy.
That particuluar LAW is not causing the shutdown. Democrats are, and will, as long as they continue to withhold funding as ransom for their albatross known as the ACA (or health care thingy).
If you are talking about CR's, I'd agree. The senate should immediately pass a budget. But if they're not going to pass a budget, it would be helpful to look at the history of CR funding. The historical norm is to pass individual CR's, rather than a "clean" CR. The House and the Senate were perfectly willing to fund by ala carte funding from 2007-2010, when Democrats were still in control of the House.