US government shutdown - Page 49

On October 05 2013 03:27 aristarchus wrote:

The US Congress does on paper at least have to agree on a budget annually, though in practice they frequently can't agree and pass "continuing resolutions" that extend current spending for a couple months while they keep trying to come to an agreement. The issue here is that the Republicans are refusing to pass that, even when the Democrats have already met their demands as to the actual levels of spending it would include.

As to the other questions, it's a matter of opinion. I think it will hurt the overall Republican popularity in the US, and polls seem to be agreeing with me, but others disagree. It definitely has the potential to hurt them in future elections, and there are lots of very big name Republicans (current senators, Karl Rove, etc.) expressing the opinion that it will and trying to get the extremists to back down. Of course, you never really know until it happens.

On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote:
Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number


Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.

On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote:
Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number


Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.

On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote:
Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number


Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.

On October 05 2013 03:49 GTPGlitch wrote:


.... It was ruled constitutional by the supreme court, who's job is almost literally to just read the constitution and say yes/no....

I'm pretty sure they know the constitution better than you (sorry~)

House Democratic leaders believe they have hit on a new way to potentially force House Republican leaders into allowing a vote on a “clean CR” funding the government without any defunding of Obamacare attached.

At last count, as many as two dozen House Republicans appear prepared to vote for a clean CR. With Democrats included, that means a majority of the House of Representatives would vote right now to reopen the government. But the House GOP leadership won’t allow such a vote.

Dems have hit on a way to use a “discharge petition,” which forces a House vote if a majority of Representatives signs it, to try to force the issue. Previously, it was thought this could not work, because a discharge petition takes 30 legislative days to ripen, so if this were tried with the clean CR that passed the Senate, this couldn’t bear fruit until some time in November.
But now House Democrats say they have found a previously filed bill to use as a discharge petition — one that would fund the government at sequester levels.

The bill in question is the “Government Shutdown Prevention Act,” which was introduced in March by GOP Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma. As the Congressman’s release describes it:

If Congress fails to approve a budget by the end of each fiscal year, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act would ensure that all operations remain running normally without any interruption of services by automatically triggering a continuing resolution (CR) or short-term, stop-gap spending device. The bill creates an automatic CR for any regular appropriations bill not completed before the end of the fiscal year. After the first 120 days, auto-CR funding would be reduced by one percentage point and would continue to be reduced by that margin every 90 days.


This afternoon, Dem Reps. Chris Van Hollen and George Miller will announce that they are introducing a discharge petition for the Lankford bill. They will discuss the procedural ins and outs of this move. The upshot: Once the petition is filed, they will begin rounding up signatures from both Democrats and Republicans. If they can get 218 signatures, a House vote to reopen the government will happen.

Dems say that if they get enough signatures, they’d be able to force a vote by October 14th. Given that House Republicans are now talking about letting the government shutdown battle spill into the fight over the debt limit — which expires on October 17th — it’s very possible the government could still be closed at that point.

At a minimum, this should ramp up pressure on moderate Republicans who say they want a vote on a clean CR to make good on their public statements. Presumably, House Republican leaders would put pressure on them not to sign the discharge petition, throwing House GOP intransigence into even sharper relief.

Indeed, Democrats will point out that Republicans have previously supported using clean CRs to avert shutdowns in the past, as Roll Call detailed today. This discharge petition would provide them with a vehicle to do just that, even if the House GOP leadership remains opposed to allowing any vote. It will also be interesting to see how Senate Republicans who supported the clean CR in the Upper Chamber — some of whom are reportedly growing impatient with the degree to which conservatives are dictating House GOP strategy — will react.

The irony here, of course, is that Dems are effectively hijacking a Republican bill in an effort to undercut the whole House GOP strategy.

On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote:


Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.

On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote:

To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.

On October 05 2013 03:57 Djzapz wrote:

US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.

On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:


And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.

On October 05 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.

On October 05 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.

On October 05 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious. So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.

On October 05 2013 07:15 aristarchus wrote:
What on earth is this weird debate going on? Obviously you can disagree with the supreme court and think something is unconstitutional even when they don't. But if you are going to argue for that, you should really have a better argument than "it goes against one of the amendments". It pretty clearly doesn't. It is entirely in line with the basic commerce clause theory that most of the federal government is based on.

On October 05 2013 07:39 Djzapz wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PByJ7j7XST4

Rand Paul comforting Mitch McConnell. Cute and dirtay.

On October 05 2013 06:55 Doublemint wrote:


What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...

On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote:


Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.

On October 05 2013 08:44 Dazed_Spy wrote:
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.

On October 05 2013 09:04 Doublemint wrote:


You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.