Obamacare – Law Of The Land

So, as the country moves into a government shutdown, I’m reflecting on politics.

Consider North Carolina.  We here have elected a republican governor, a republican controlled house and a republican controlled senate.

All legitimate.

Together, these bodies have submitted, debated, passed and vetoed laws; only later to be over ridden.

One of the most controversial laws passed is the Voter ID law; of which the United States has sued to challenge.

Is there a democrat alive that would not support using any means legally necessary to overturn that law?  Shenanigans or not.

Now, consider the opposition.  That is how they feel concerning Obamacare.

And like it or not, it is the House of Representatives that are negotiating and compromising, not the Senate.

12 responses to “Obamacare – Law Of The Land

  1. Exactly. And if the GOP would play to win, they’d make a mockery of flint-hearted Harry by sending him spending bills for anything and everything, except Obamacare, until he relented.

    But they aren’t playing to win, thus they really do want Obamacare to go through.

    • But they aren’t playing to win, thus they really do want Obamacare to go through.

      They’re trying. Boehner just allowed three votes that would fund government programs – though he did it using shenanigans. In all three cases he couldn’t get enough democrat votes.

      • Well, he did it in a valid way, but in order to avoid any chance of a clean CR also coming to a vote he had to require a supermajority. The GOP is terrified of having to vote against a clean CR, hence the clusterfuck that happened yesterday.

        • he had to require a supermajority.

          And he wanted to put the dems in a pickle. If they vote for it they vote for it. If they don’t vote for it they hate people and kittens and stuff.

          And it worked – See Harry Reid, he now hates people with cancer.

  2. Congress is obliged to pass legislation to fund the government. That is their job. They may also repeal laws through normal legislative means. None of these things are happening. Why is that? Why can’t the Tea Party simply repeal Obamacare? Oh right, they’ve tried over and over and over and failed every time.

    The US Government is pursuing judicial rulings on an unconstitutional law. If the courts decide that the law is constitutional, the US Government can’t send people down to run for NC State offices and then refuse to fund any polling places that vote to elect Republicans. THAT is the comparison you’d need to make these apples-to-apples.

    • Congress is obliged to pass legislation to fund the government.

      So, first, the senate hasn’t submitted a budget in what, 4 of 5 years?

      Net, the congress is obliged to pass legislation that funds the government, but that does not mean that they can’t object to what they fund. I’ve run several organizations with budgets and every time it comes to budget time, we debate what is in the budget.

      There is one school of thought that says we motioned, seconded and passed a bylaw that calls for steak and not hot dogs for dinner. Therefore the budget committee should budget for steak.

      The other school of thought is that the budget committee, thinking that steak is foolish and simply pass a budget that doesn’t include the funding for the steak.

      It’s hard, really hard, to judge one school over the other.

      Oh right, they’ve tried over and over and over and failed every time.

      To be fair, Reid won’t allow such votes on Obamacare.

      The US Government is pursuing judicial rulings on an unconstitutional law.

      Many people don’t feel this to be the case. Many people feel it is perfectly allowable for states to build election laws.

      But really, that’s not the point. My point is that if North Carolina democrats could do to the state government what the republicans are doing to the federal government, the liberals would rejoice.

      People here feel that the laws being passed by the General Assembly are illegitimate. They feel that a super majority in the statehouse don’t represent the people of North Carolina. I am simply positing that many in America feel the government after 2008 was “illegitimate” and that the laws they passed, Obamacare, don’t represent the will of America.

      These House members, the Tea Party folks, were elected for the EXPLICIT job of repealing Obamacare. They are absolutely doing exactly what they were elected to do. Given that, is it right to blame them?

      • As to your first point, the proper means of getting rid of a law is to repeal it. In the absence of a repeal, Congress must fund the government programs that are in place.

        Your steak analogy glosses over a lot, but that’s not really the analogy. It’s as though a family voted on dinner, and Dad and Son voted for steak over Mom’s choice of salad. But then Mom throws out the car keys so no one can shop for dinner, or go to work, or get Son to the hospital, unless they agree to revote and let Mom win. Democratic decisions must remain in force even when the voting blocs change in number, until they are repealed. Otherwise there is no stability or law.

        As to your second point, you are off in la-la land. The government is raising a constitutional challenge in the courts, as is allowed in our process. They are doing exactly what they are allowed to do. You seem to be claiming that they shouldn’t because states make election law. While you are clearly on the wrong side of the debate as far as reality is concerned, that doesn’t matter. If you’re right, the courts reject the challange, and democracy wins.

        The GOP could have raised a constitutional challenge to Obamacare, too. In fact, they should try that. Oh right, they did, they lost, and Obamacare entered into effect. Democracy wins. And because of that, the GOP is burning down the house.

        • The government is raising a constitutional challenge in the courts, as is allowed in our process. They are doing exactly what they are allowed to do.

          I agree with you here. People disagreed with Obamacare and took it to the courts. Those people lost.

          Holder disagrees with NC and is taking it to the courts. Obviously we’ll see who wins.

          We’re kinda mixing posts, but….

          You can’t be making the point that once a law is voted in that there can be no changes to it, right? I will agree with you that this isn’t the process by which that gets done, but clearly laws can be amended.

          • You can’t be making the point that once a law is voted in that there can be no changes to it, right? I will agree with you that this isn’t the process by which that gets done, but clearly laws can be amended.

            Nope, laws can and should be amended and repealed when appropriate. But it needs to be done through the legislative process and not the budget.

            I wouldn’t even be against this kind of tactic if it were an emergency, for example to stop the PATRIOT act from entering into effect, But I think such a challenge should only be done when they haven’t had a chance to litigate the issue in courts or repeal the act legislatively. But the House GOP has attempted to repeal the act and failed over and over. The courts had ruled it constitutional in large part (and the invalid part is now gone). So, this is now just obstructionism.

          • I wouldn’t even be against this kind of tactic if it were an emergency, for example to stop the PATRIOT act from entering into effect, But I think such a challenge should only be done when they haven’t had a chance to litigate the issue in courts or repeal the act legislatively.

            I happen to think that the law won’t ever be repealed. And think that the shenanigans is just that – with the added benefit that less government is, by definition, better.

            My point is this; we all have our hill we’re willing to die on. For you, an example is the Patriot Act. I bet for some NC dems, it’s the Voter ID Act. Why is it not okay for someone to have a hill different than yours?

          • You’re not understanding my point. I’m saying these tactics might be acceptable when a law is implemented illegally and you need time to challenge it before it goes into effect. If Obamacare hadn’t gone through the courts and posed a serious threat to people’s liberties, then go ahead and pull the pin. But that’s not the case here. And, as for Voter ID, the courts are going to weigh in. If Voter ID is upheld, I wouldn’t support Democratic efforts to shut down NC just because they hate it. If Voter ID is struck down, I would hope you similarly wouldn’t support the GOP shutting the govt down until the courts changed their minds.

            We have a judicial branch that determines whether a law is constitutional. It’s not the province of Congress to use the budget to line-item veto the federal code.

          • You’re not understanding my point.

            Ahh, I see.

            You are right, I was not understanding your point.

Leave a Reply to Pino Cancel reply