Posted on 09/20/2013 8:30:18 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
For the second time in two days, Al Sharpton battled a conservative on Obamacare and the threat of a government shutdown. Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer argued that Democrats are the ones who want to shut the government down, but Sharpton didn’t buy it, saying at some point, conservatives need to accept Obamacare is the law of the land and stop trying to take it down.
Kremer argued that even Democrats have said the health care law is “not ready for primetime,” so the goal right now is just to delay. Sharpton went through all the steps of the law being upheld, from Congress approving it to the Supreme Court upholding it to Mitt Romney losing on a platform of repealing it, concluding, “You lost, it’s the law!”
Kremer shot back that Democrats used a “parliamentary trick” to pass it in the first place, while Sharpton brought up all the Republicans who are starting to sour on the defunding idea. Kremer was a lot more bullish, saying the very fact House leadership brought it to the floor is a victory, and citing several red-state Senate Democrats she believes might end up joining the GOP.
Towards the end of the debate, Sharpton pressed Kremer to say that if the Senate rejects the House bill, Congress can go ahead and fund the government without the Obamacare defunding provision. Kremer hedged, insisting the Republicans have no interest in shutting down the government.
The Agenda: Total surveillance, enslavement, depopulation.
The idea that the fight is over because it is the law is stupid. When has the left ever given up on overturning laws (and thousands of years of moral tradition)?
The fight is never ever going to be over. Let us never concede another issue. Let us never stop fighting. From here on out we should fight and squabble over every inch of territory, dump our Vichy Republican “leadership” and start digging trenches.
AH, but the LAW means nothing to this Regime. They only enforce the ‘Laws’ they want to enforce. They need a taste of their own medicine.
I agree !
The progressives constant encroachment, nibbleing away at the Constitution bit by bit, constantly erodeing personal liberties ,
ignoreing currently existing laws, or selectively enforcing some laws , just wears a body down.
But we constantly fight for oursleves , our honor , our nation's laws , our children , and for the Constitution .
There can be no greater good worth fighting for !
We fight ,.. because we have too !!
Holder’s people constantly referred to the 6-foot-plus thug, Trademark Martin, as a “child”. Doing their kind of age-based math, Al Sharpton is a boy.
I am tired of being the side that keeps backing up
Won’t be the law long. It will be repealed. Or it will destroy the nation. Or, simply ignore the d@mn law. That one there really upsets tyrants.
Slavery was once the law.
Prohibition was once the law.
Jim Crow was once the law.
Good post.
Well finally al got his check, deposited it and the money is in his account so now he will start his moronic rants.
I guess the Grand Wizard of the Black KKK, Al Sharpton, decided not to disarm white folks today....just tried to defend ObamaCare
That’s actually not a valid criticism. The ACA bill started in the House, as a measure dealing with military base housing funding. When it reached the senate, it was eviscerated completely, becoming a “shell bill”, which was then larded down with the ACA language. So technically, it did originate in the house as a funding bill and is therefore legal even though the language was changed completely.
That’s something that should be challenged. The Constitution clearly establishes that tax or revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. If the Senate can simply take any old bill the House sends their way, strip the language, and initiate their own tax or revenue bill, the way they did with ObamaCare, then that Constitutional requirement is rendered completely meaningless, obviously contrary to the intention of the Founders.
I’ve been dumbfounded as to why ObamaCare was not challenged on this basis the moment the Supreme Court deemed it a tax.
I think that, since the “original” bill was a funding bill, it meets the technical requirements. They can’t change the type of bill, so a shell bill used for funding has to have been a funding bill originally, but they can change everything else about the bill. Since the original bill “funded” military housing, they were able to use it to fund ACA.
It stinks that this can be done, but it’s the way the rules have been forever. We’d probably all be unpleasantly surprised by how often this kind of thing happens, though it’s likely never had such damaging results before now.
Even so, at any given time there are numerous House funding bills languishing in the Senate, never going anywhere — like all the budget bills Boehner has sent to Reid the past couple of years. No way the Supremes could argue that this was an end-run around the Constitution that the Founders had intended. If this simple, obvious technicality were constitutional, than why did the Framers even bother putting the language in the Constitution mandating that tax/revenue bills originate in the House?
This law is overreach, it’s blatant in it’s unequal treatment, and it’s being morphed into the bill that pelosi meant when she said pass it to find out what’s in it.
We should NEVER stop fighting.
The ability of the Senate to create "shell bills" stems from their authority to amend bills that originate in the house. They have apparently interpreted that authority as broadly as possible, which means that the ACA, all 2000+ pages, is merely an "amendment" to that original military housing bill (of which no language survives in the final bill). You are correct that this subverts the intentions of the founders in how they organized the Congress, and thus the challenge mentioned in the link I posted.
Decent people lost to the democrats with the Dred Scot decision. We didn’t say, “we lost, it’s the law”. We fought it because it was an evil law. It took over a decade and a civil war to get rid of Dred Scott completely, but those who opposed slavery resisted evil even after the Democrats won that one. Decent people lost to the democrats with Plessy v. Ferguson also, but again we didn’t give up. It took more than 50 years to overturn that terrible decision, but it was finally removed. The fact that evil is at least for now the law does not mean that decent people should surrender to democrats.
Today we face the same ideology, operating under the same name, but we will not surrender. ObamaCare is pure evil. Those who value individual freedom will not accept ObamaCare as a law that should be complied with in any way except grudgingly, with maximum effort to repeal/defund, maximum effort to avoid its evil intent, and maximum effort to make it fail. I have family whose lives depend on removing ObamaCare. I have older family members whose medical treatment will not be cost effective under death panels. I have two younger family members with serious and currently untreatable medical conditions. Under ObamaCare, no treatment will ever be developed. Their lives depend on repealing ObamaCare and restoring the incentive to extend medical research to improve quality of life, even if it costs more.
Nice find. This is a very practicl way to strike down ObamaCare. Much more sure and final than the delay/defund showdown playing out right now.
The constitutional arguments are compelling, since it is so obvious the Founders would never have sanctioned the Senate end-run around the Origination Clause. You don’t need to be a constitutional scholar
True. So you want us to just roll over and quit? We all look forward to the destruction of obamacare so we can say to you, ‘You Lost, It’s NOT The Law anymore!’
And we hope you roll over and quit.
Link to pdf, “The ‘Shell Bill’ Game: Avoidance and The Origination Clause”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271261
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.