willwash
10-05-2013, 01:19 PM
I posted this in an exchange with a liberal friend of mine. Took some time to craft it so i thought I'd share:
My initial post:
There is no disrespect to the Constitution or to the rule of law for the House of Representatives to make use of its duly appointed power of the purse to withhold funding from objectionable legislation. That the HOR is entrusted with this power is not random and it is not coincidence; on the contrary, it is one of the most important checks and balances we have against the excesses of our federal government.
How many on the liberal left would be screaming bloody murder, as they are now, if the same tactic were being employed by the Democratic Caucus to defund the PATRIOT ACT? Like Obamacare, the PATRIOT ACT is a deplorable trash heap pushed through Congress in a fit of emotional blindness, and is something the American people, by and large, do not want.
Let us hope and pray that members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle come to the table with concessions soon. In the meantime, respect the process.
Her response:
What is there to negotiate or compromise? It's a law. Its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court. If the representatives who don't like the law wish to change it, they should follow the democratic process by running again and winning majority in the Senate. They're acting like a passel of spoiled brats who need a nap.
And my final reply:
As you know, there are more checks and balances than just presidential signature into law and review by the Supreme Court. To come into effect, laws must be passed by both houses, not be vetoed by the President, be upheld by the Supreme Court if challenged, AND funded every year (if the law in question requires funding) by both houses of Congress with the bill to fund originating in the House. The system was intentionally designed this way--so that any of these tripwires would be able to stop objectionable legislation. You are correct that Obamacare has passed the muster of all of the other checks and balances save the funding one...but it needs to pass them all. House Republicans are not exploiting some obscure loophole that was discovered by happenstance; they are making employment of a check on government that was deliberately written into our Constitution.
Unlike most who are taking place in this debate (and most debates generally), I will openly admit a personal bias against Obamacare. I don't like it, I don't want it and I'm happy to see an effort in place to stop it, so long as that effort does not amount to blatant usurpation of the constitutional processes by which our government is designed to operate...and although I've heard many on the left make exactly such accusations, I fail to see it as such per my above reasoning, reasoning which I really can honestly say I do not believe is clouded by that personal bias.
There are many laws I would see passed if I were to have my way--but if those laws could only be passed by bypassing the system of checks and balances that was put into place for good reason, I could not consider myself justified in insisting on their passage and implementation anyway without assuming the role of dictator.
I don't know your personal beliefs on the subject--perhaps you have an opposite bias which inclines you to oppose any effort to block Obamacare--which is fine if that is the case--but I will say, then, that your efforts would be better directed by working to convince House Republicans to fund Obamacare, by compromise if necessary, than by shouting such emotionally charged but ultimately false accusations as "usurpation" and "ransom".
My .02--thanks for the discussion, and I must say I do appreciate your correct usage of "its" versus "it's". That is rare to find these days.
My initial post:
There is no disrespect to the Constitution or to the rule of law for the House of Representatives to make use of its duly appointed power of the purse to withhold funding from objectionable legislation. That the HOR is entrusted with this power is not random and it is not coincidence; on the contrary, it is one of the most important checks and balances we have against the excesses of our federal government.
How many on the liberal left would be screaming bloody murder, as they are now, if the same tactic were being employed by the Democratic Caucus to defund the PATRIOT ACT? Like Obamacare, the PATRIOT ACT is a deplorable trash heap pushed through Congress in a fit of emotional blindness, and is something the American people, by and large, do not want.
Let us hope and pray that members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle come to the table with concessions soon. In the meantime, respect the process.
Her response:
What is there to negotiate or compromise? It's a law. Its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court. If the representatives who don't like the law wish to change it, they should follow the democratic process by running again and winning majority in the Senate. They're acting like a passel of spoiled brats who need a nap.
And my final reply:
As you know, there are more checks and balances than just presidential signature into law and review by the Supreme Court. To come into effect, laws must be passed by both houses, not be vetoed by the President, be upheld by the Supreme Court if challenged, AND funded every year (if the law in question requires funding) by both houses of Congress with the bill to fund originating in the House. The system was intentionally designed this way--so that any of these tripwires would be able to stop objectionable legislation. You are correct that Obamacare has passed the muster of all of the other checks and balances save the funding one...but it needs to pass them all. House Republicans are not exploiting some obscure loophole that was discovered by happenstance; they are making employment of a check on government that was deliberately written into our Constitution.
Unlike most who are taking place in this debate (and most debates generally), I will openly admit a personal bias against Obamacare. I don't like it, I don't want it and I'm happy to see an effort in place to stop it, so long as that effort does not amount to blatant usurpation of the constitutional processes by which our government is designed to operate...and although I've heard many on the left make exactly such accusations, I fail to see it as such per my above reasoning, reasoning which I really can honestly say I do not believe is clouded by that personal bias.
There are many laws I would see passed if I were to have my way--but if those laws could only be passed by bypassing the system of checks and balances that was put into place for good reason, I could not consider myself justified in insisting on their passage and implementation anyway without assuming the role of dictator.
I don't know your personal beliefs on the subject--perhaps you have an opposite bias which inclines you to oppose any effort to block Obamacare--which is fine if that is the case--but I will say, then, that your efforts would be better directed by working to convince House Republicans to fund Obamacare, by compromise if necessary, than by shouting such emotionally charged but ultimately false accusations as "usurpation" and "ransom".
My .02--thanks for the discussion, and I must say I do appreciate your correct usage of "its" versus "it's". That is rare to find these days.