Who seriously thinks that anyone was keeping track of several competing versions of a 2000 page, constantly changing bill?
The hundreds of Congresscritters and their staff who are responsible for doing this. Just like with all other proposed legislation.
Of course, your argument trivially absurd: a group of people wrote it, so of course it was possible for at least some humans to keep track of it. Just because you're too slow to cope, it doesn't mean everyone is.
IIRC the tests are that it is plain that Congress would have enacted with the unconstitutional provisions eliminated (Illinois C. R. Co. v McKendree), and that an invalid provision is separable (US v Reese), though I only briefly know US law from my study of English law!
Or, put another way: why do we have a Senate, or even a Presidency, when the House could just halt government whenever another part doesn't do precisely as the House wants? Sure, the first time it happens, the people might get pissy with the House, but once it's established that the House always wins, everyone else becomes irrelevant.
The whole concept of freeform annual budgeting bills originated by the House is daft. No branch of government should be able to deny the ability to implement a law by holding the whole government (hence, whole country) to ransom.
An ability to halt the working of government for any reason gives you effective supremacy. Without the need to involve other branches, it defeats the concept of checks&balances. Two years without a working government is "quick" in the same way that 10 minutes to return oxygen supply to a brain is "quick".
There are lots of good checks&balances in the US system of government, but this one is faulty - instead of keeping government slow and clean of corruption, this one allows the House to bring the government to a standstill for any reason it likes, in effect giving it supremacy over all other parts of government.
This is the ability to hold a whole government to ransom for perhaps more than a year. It could be used to repeal or enact any law ("we're not passing a budget you'll accept unless abortion is outlawed again"). Checks and balances are designed to slow the pace of change and to minimise corruption, not to allow the whole country to be brought to a standstill and thereby give effective total control to the House.
"Some new law will make me personally worse off, so taking advantage of this exploit in the US system of government is okay this time."
You surely realise that this tactic could effectively be used to put an end to the balance of powers in US government. Are you sure that's what you want, just because it might once specifically help you in the short term?
"Well, this torture is okay, because it was of someone who seemed pretty evil this week..."
Google "Cornhusker kickback". There would never be a conviction, the DOJ is bound to ideology, not law.
Yeah, that's not actually what a bribe is, son. But it's sweet that you think the DoJ would not convict because CONSPIRACY AGAINST YOUR PoV rather than because there's nothing illegal about pushing for the best possible outcome for your electorate. (Repealed anyway, IIRC.)
A law of such impact should have been dealt with more openly.
Remaining vague.
This wasn't a typical piece of legislation. Can you think of an act passed by the feds in recent times that has caused as much confusion and chaos as this one?
Not sure what's so been confusing or chaotic, except the panic felt that tens of millions of people will no longer be kept in desperate poverty or ill health, making it harder for the usual Republican sponsors to exploit more vulnerable members of society. But e.g. PATRIOT has been a far bigger deal as far as (overtly) changing the balance of power between government and people.
It wasn't about compromise. If that were true, there would have been bipartisan approval.
Erm, no. Unless you really simplify politics along Rep vs Dem lines. And Republicans received lots of concessions.
It's tyranny of the majority.
My father grew up under a dictatorship. That was tyranny. It's embarrassing when Americans use that word to describe democracy.
Legal or not, it led to the situation we're in now.
Nah, that's all about fear of the right re empowerment of poorer Americans.
Judging from the administration's inability to work on both sides of the aisle, I don't see the impasse ending anytime soon.
OK. I look forward to a Democrat-controlled House in the future simply refusing to create a workable budget until every single Republican-led law is repealed. It's a fault in the system and it's being abused, as happens from time to time.
Seriously? Keeping the debate going during what's normally a recess for the holidays kept them from hearing from their constituents. You can argue if it was intentional or not, but it happened.
They had no way at all to receive constituent feedback, you say? And were forced to vote Yes anyway? Did they use Faraday cages, blindfolds, gun held to the head... what, exactly?
No one forced folks to vote for the GOP either, and here we are. No one is forcing them to not vote on a budget that includes the "affordable" healthcare act.
Indeed. They're abusing a fault in the system which could be used to repeal any number of laws every year. Fortunately, the House doesn't behave like this most of the time.
The unrestricted House privilege on budgeting is a fault in the system which is only rarely abused. It could be used to force reconsideration of absolutely anything in any year, but it isn't.
You do realise that the House could stop ANY law it doesn't like in this way, right? By simply refusing to pass ANY budgeting bills unless ANY other law is repealed.
The norm is that the House exercise its responsibility to budget in order to implement the law. "I allocate zero to this, because I dun like it," isn't doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad example, since contract law is far more harsh than democracy.
But if you think I should be able to hold you and everyone hostage until I get to cancel the contract, that's p. fucked up.
Dude, passed in the House in October 2009. Everyone was on the same page.
Fuck you.
Ah, the last refuge of the lost argument.
Who seriously thinks that anyone was keeping track of several competing versions of a 2000 page, constantly changing bill?
The hundreds of Congresscritters and their staff who are responsible for doing this. Just like with all other proposed legislation.
Of course, your argument trivially absurd: a group of people wrote it, so of course it was possible for at least some humans to keep track of it. Just because you're too slow to cope, it doesn't mean everyone is.
And, like I said, it's embarrassing. You can attach emotive words to things to make them seem like other things, but a rose by any other name.
"...the way the Democrats passed the ACA..."
Be specific.
Agreed. Hostage is not debate, though.
Eh, there is no crime - it's a fault in the system.
At the simplest level, it's inappropriate to separate the passing of a law from the passing of a budget to enable the law to be implemented.
You're making an extraordinary (well, impossible) claim. I want extraordinary evidence.
IIRC the tests are that it is plain that Congress would have enacted with the unconstitutional provisions eliminated (Illinois C. R. Co. v McKendree), and that an invalid provision is separable (US v Reese), though I only briefly know US law from my study of English law!
A severability clause just makes it more obvious.
And that's not cool either.
And which court declared this illegal?
Thought not.
Or, put another way: why do we have a Senate, or even a Presidency, when the House could just halt government whenever another part doesn't do precisely as the House wants? Sure, the first time it happens, the people might get pissy with the House, but once it's established that the House always wins, everyone else becomes irrelevant.
The whole concept of freeform annual budgeting bills originated by the House is daft. No branch of government should be able to deny the ability to implement a law by holding the whole government (hence, whole country) to ransom.
Evidence please, that on the date of passing this legislation, the text of the legislation was not available.
(I assume it also hadn't been discussed, and the 160 odd Republican amendments were made to thin air, etc.)
An ability to halt the working of government for any reason gives you effective supremacy. Without the need to involve other branches, it defeats the concept of checks&balances. Two years without a working government is "quick" in the same way that 10 minutes to return oxygen supply to a brain is "quick".
There are lots of good checks&balances in the US system of government, but this one is faulty - instead of keeping government slow and clean of corruption, this one allows the House to bring the government to a standstill for any reason it likes, in effect giving it supremacy over all other parts of government.
How often do votes for a new House occur?
How often does a new budget need to be passed?
This is the ability to hold a whole government to ransom for perhaps more than a year. It could be used to repeal or enact any law ("we're not passing a budget you'll accept unless abortion is outlawed again"). Checks and balances are designed to slow the pace of change and to minimise corruption, not to allow the whole country to be brought to a standstill and thereby give effective total control to the House.
"Some new law will make me personally worse off, so taking advantage of this exploit in the US system of government is okay this time."
You surely realise that this tactic could effectively be used to put an end to the balance of powers in US government. Are you sure that's what you want, just because it might once specifically help you in the short term?
"Well, this torture is okay, because it was of someone who seemed pretty evil this week..."
An unconstitutional provision does not render a whole Act void. That would be absurdly arbitrary.
Google "Cornhusker kickback". There would never be a conviction, the DOJ is bound to ideology, not law.
Yeah, that's not actually what a bribe is, son. But it's sweet that you think the DoJ would not convict because CONSPIRACY AGAINST YOUR PoV rather than because there's nothing illegal about pushing for the best possible outcome for your electorate. (Repealed anyway, IIRC.)
A law of such impact should have been dealt with more openly.
Remaining vague.
This wasn't a typical piece of legislation. Can you think of an act passed by the feds in recent times that has caused as much confusion and chaos as this one?
Not sure what's so been confusing or chaotic, except the panic felt that tens of millions of people will no longer be kept in desperate poverty or ill health, making it harder for the usual Republican sponsors to exploit more vulnerable members of society. But e.g. PATRIOT has been a far bigger deal as far as (overtly) changing the balance of power between government and people.
It wasn't about compromise. If that were true, there would have been bipartisan approval.
Erm, no. Unless you really simplify politics along Rep vs Dem lines. And Republicans received lots of concessions.
It's tyranny of the majority.
My father grew up under a dictatorship. That was tyranny. It's embarrassing when Americans use that word to describe democracy.
Legal or not, it led to the situation we're in now.
Nah, that's all about fear of the right re empowerment of poorer Americans.
Judging from the administration's inability to work on both sides of the aisle, I don't see the impasse ending anytime soon.
OK. I look forward to a Democrat-controlled House in the future simply refusing to create a workable budget until every single Republican-led law is repealed. It's a fault in the system and it's being abused, as happens from time to time.
Seriously? Keeping the debate going during what's normally a recess for the holidays kept them from hearing from their constituents. You can argue if it was intentional or not, but it happened.
They had no way at all to receive constituent feedback, you say? And were forced to vote Yes anyway? Did they use Faraday cages, blindfolds, gun held to the head... what, exactly?
No one forced folks to vote for the GOP either, and here we are. No one is forcing them to not vote on a budget that includes the "affordable" healthcare act.
Indeed. They're abusing a fault in the system which could be used to repeal any number of laws every year. Fortunately, the House doesn't behave like this most of the time.
I assume you're agreeing with me. You're quite right.
That was a long straw man.
It takes an American to believe that anything in America is remotely on the left of the political spectrum.
Until there is one party which supports worker control of the means of production, nobody's even left of centre.
Unless one party supports a comprehensive welfare state (in the French, Spanish or even German sense), none is even at the centre.
The unrestricted House privilege on budgeting is a fault in the system which is only rarely abused. It could be used to force reconsideration of absolutely anything in any year, but it isn't.
You do realise that the House could stop ANY law it doesn't like in this way, right? By simply refusing to pass ANY budgeting bills unless ANY other law is repealed.
The norm is that the House exercise its responsibility to budget in order to implement the law. "I allocate zero to this, because I dun like it," isn't doing that.
You blame right-wing but yet they were the ones that agreed to everything else so long as obamacare does not pass which is a ridiculous bill to pass
tl;dr "When any law I don't like is passed, it's democratic to indirectly force its non-implementation. This is okay because I don't like the law."
OK, let's both pretend that there's no lobbying of government by large private business, because only certified nutjobs would suggest it.