"What right do they have to pick and choose what part of government gets funded?"

[Revmitchell]

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

 

[FollowTheWay]

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

That's not the question. What right do the Republicans have to try to block funding for a law that was passed 4 years ago and upheld by the Supreme Court?

 

[Revmitchell]

That's not the question. What right do the Republicans have to try to block funding for a law that was passed 4 years ago and upheld by the Supreme Court?

Same answer, because all funding must begin at the house. And they have the right to decide what to fund.

 

[Aaron]

This should be a sticky till the shutdown ends.

 

[Salty]

That's not the question. What right do the Republicans have to try to block funding for a law that was passed 4 years ago and upheld by the Supreme Court?

IN part becasue, the SC only upheld it becasue it was a tax, before it was not a tax.

 

[Zaac]

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

According to the Constitution, as the story rightly points out, they do not INDEPENDENTLY have the right.

Both the House and Senate give their suggestions of what should be funded and they BOTH have to be in agreement to get it funded.

 

[Zaac]

That's not the question. What right do the Republicans have to try to block funding for a law that was passed 4 years ago and upheld by the Supreme Court?

Because the Republicans are as vindictive and partisan as they like to blame the Democrats for being. They are still mad that they lost two elections to this man and if they can't beat him in an election, they have to do everything they can to defeat his policies so that they can let every one know that their way is superior to his way.

This is all a bunch of posturing. They probably all go drinking after the cameras disappear and pat themselves on the back for putting on a good show for the American people.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That's not the question. What right do the Republicans have to try to block funding for a law that was passed 4 years ago and upheld by the Supreme Court?

Check your facts. It was not strictly upheld by SCOTUS. It was redefined by SCOTUS, from a "program" to a "tax," which opens it up to a whole host of challenges in the lower court system. The Roberts decision actually made it much easier to repeal or defeat in court.

And you and others continue to act as though laws that are passed are unassailable by future legislation. Same act your Great Pretender is trying to pull off. It isn't going to work. We've changed or repealed laws on the books before. Pick up a civics book, learn something about the way government works, and stop joining that A/H in the White House in trying to deny history.

 

[Zaac]

Check your facts. It was not strictly upheld by SCOTUS. It was redefined by SCOTUS, from a "program" to a "tax," which opens it up to a whole host of challenges in the lower court system. The Roberts decision actually made it much easier to repeal or defeat in court.

And you and others continue to act as though laws that are passed are unassailable by future legislation. Same act your Great Pretender is trying to pull off. It isn't going to work. We've changed or repealed laws on the books before. Pick up a civics book, learn something about the way government works, and stop joining that A/H in the White House in trying to deny history.

Does all of that make it any less of a law that the Republicans are trying to block just as Followtheway pointed out?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Does all of that make it any less of a law that the Republicans are trying to block just as Followtheway pointed out?

I didn't say they weren't trying to block it. Thank God they are. FTW's implication, as well as the Great Pretender, you, and others on this board act as though the law is unassailable. It isn't. You act incensed that Republicans would dare attempt to change or repeal it. It's been done before. It will be done to the ACA. Like it or not.

 

[saturneptune]

Because the Republicans are as vindictive and partisan as they like to blame the Democrats for being. They are still mad that they lost two elections to this man and if they can't beat him in an election, they have to do everything they can to defeat his policies so that they can let every one know that their way is superior to his way.

This is all a bunch of posturing. They probably all go drinking after the cameras disappear and pat themselves on the back for putting on a good show for the American people.

As much as I despise liberal politics and socialist ideas, what I despise more are liars that claim to be conservative and for the Constitution, which is exactly what the Republican leadership in the Congress represents. Mitch McConnell does not have a conservative bone in his body, nor any leadership ability. He sways with the establishment wind. He has no moral compass nor a backbone. Speaker Bonehead is just as bad, except he is a crybaby.

The whole lot of them are yesterday's garbage. Until the Republicans become Constitutional conservatives they are going to continue to lose elections. I would say there is a very high chance the Democrats will take the House next year which solves nothing. Until the Republicans stop picking leaders like Bonehead and McConnell, and stop nominating liberals like McCain and Romney, they are going down in flames.

 

[just-want-peace]

Yeah, what SN said!!! :BangHead::thumbsup::BangHead:

 

[FollowTheWay]

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

Take a minute to think about the position you're taking. What right do the Republicans have to chose what parts of the law they are willing to fund or not fund (ObamaCare)? I agree with you. NONE.:BangHead:

 

[Salty]

Take a minute to think about the position you're taking. What right do the Republicans have to chose what parts of the law they are willing to fund or not fund (ObamaCare)? I agree with you. NONE.:BangHead:

So you agree that Obama was wrong for instructing his administration NOT to enforce DOMA?

... Mitch McConnell does not have a conservative bone in his body, ...

That is a broad statement. Salty Reports, you decide. Here his voting record.

Would the liberals wanted him defeated? Would this be considered a perfect score?

 

[Revmitchell]

Take a minute to think about the position you're taking. What right do the Republicans have to chose what parts of the law they are willing to fund or not fund (ObamaCare)? I agree with you. NONE.:BangHead:

You really need to take a course in how our government works. They have the right as the house of representatives to choose to fund or not fund any part of any law they want.

 

[FollowTheWay]

So you agree that Obama was wrong for instructing his administration NOT to enforce DOMA?




That is a broad statement. Salty Reports, you decide. Here his voting record.

Would the liberals wanted him defeated? Would this be considered a perfect score?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had also effectively barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, or receiving federal marriage benefits.

The way I read this DOMA is a federal law that allows STATES to not accept same-sex marriages granted in other states. I don't understand how the President could have had anything to do with blocking it. The STATES have the power.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Check your facts. It was not strictly upheld by SCOTUS. It was redefined by SCOTUS, from a "program" to a "tax," which opens it up to a whole host of challenges in the lower court system. The Roberts decision actually made it much easier to repeal or defeat in court.

And you and others continue to act as though laws that are passed are unassailable by future legislation. Same act your Great Pretender is trying to pull off. It isn't going to work. We've changed or repealed laws on the books before. Pick up a civics book, learn something about the way government works, and stop joining that A/H in the White House in trying to deny history.

It prevailed in the Supreme Court test. I'm not aware that's been overturned. Maybe you could provide us with the case that the SP ruled on that did that.

 

[Zaac]

As much as I despise liberal politics and socialist ideas, what I despise more are liars that claim to be conservative and for the Constitution, which is exactly what the Republican leadership in the Congress represents. Mitch McConnell does not have a conservative bone in his body, nor any leadership ability. He sways with the establishment wind. He has no moral compass nor a backbone. Speaker Bonehead is just as bad, except he is a crybaby.

The whole lot of them are yesterday's garbage. Until the Republicans become Constitutional conservatives they are going to continue to lose elections. I would say there is a very high chance the Democrats will take the House next year which solves nothing. Until the Republicans stop picking leaders like Bonehead and McConnell, and stop nominating liberals like McCain and Romney, they are going down in flames.

:applause: This is what eats me up. They say they are conservative, but they continuously compromise the country into non-conservative positions. That's why I seriously think these folks are in cahoots.

I mean why on earth would they nominate either McCain or Romney knowing full well that it would be darn near impossible to get the base behind and excited about either one?

Perhaps the GOP is like some churches. You have to let it die and then start over.

 

[Zaac]

I didn't say they weren't trying to block it. Thank God they are. FTW's implication, as well as the Great Pretender, you, and others on this board act as though the law is unassailable. It isn't. You act incensed that Republicans would dare attempt to change or repeal it. It's been done before. It will be done to the ACA. Like it or not.

I could care less if the thing is repealed or not. At worst, all it's gonna do is take more money that already has government markings on it out of my pocket. It doesn't stop me from doing what God commissioned me to do.:thumbs:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It prevailed in the Supreme Court test. I'm not aware that's been overturned.

Again, it was redefined as a tax. If you fail to understand the implications of that action, then you are unqualified to discuss the matter.