[Gluteus Maximus]

Democrats now argue that ACA is the "law of the land." But this is a specious argument. If it was the law of the land, then Congress and the President would be treating it as such. But they're not. President Obama exempted big businesses, big unions, high ranking administration officials, the IRS (that will administer the ACA) at least tried to get itself exempted. Congress exempted itself and its core staff.

I don't think that the ACA actually allows for Presidential (Congressional?) exemptions.

In the USA we have a thing called "rule of law." The ACA either applies to all, or it applies to none. If its a "law" that can be ignored at will by our elites, then it is no law at all. To say otherwise is un-American.

It follows that ACA is not the "law of the land."

I'm not saying that the House Republicans are playing smart politics. But at this point I don't care. ACA has to be defunded in order to uphold the bedrock principle of the rule of law. And if it means driving this corrupt piece of crap government over a cliff then I'm all for it.

[Thom Pain]

Well said. Agree.

[Jim Robinson]

It’s not the law of the land if it gets no funding.

Pray Boehner’s newly found backbone stays stiff, so he can reject Reid’s amended bill and then starts passing individual bills funding each essential department one at a time. No funding for obamacare! Cut the funding for HHS and IRS so they cannot possibly implement obamacare. The House and the House alone wields the constitutional power of the purse, and the power to deny unconstitutional expansionist government! The Founders gave the House this power for this explicit purpose. So we the people can block out of control, runaway, government through our elected representatives in the House!

[VRWC For Truth]

There is no law when massive civil disobedience trumps it. 546 DC crooks cannot control millions of Americans. The numbers aren’t on their side.