Question for those callling the shutdown an act of sedition

[onenote]

I'm clearly on record that whatever the repubs may be doing, its not criminal. But let's assume for a minute that it was. What then? What would you have happen that would result in the government shutdown ending?

Would you have all of the House Republicans arrested and jailed? If that is your answer, how do you get a constitutionally required quorum to pass a continuing resolution?

Would you have a court mandate, under threat of imprisonment that the republicans pass a CR? WOuld you have the courts decide which CR the repubs would be forced to enact -- presumably the one that the Senate passed rather than the one that the House passed? Could the courts go ahead and increase the funding in the Senate passed CR and make the repubs vote for that? Would you simply skip over the whole legislative process and have the courts declare the government is funded without passing legislation?

I've heard of countries where the legislature is a rubberstamp body that can only vote one way or face severe sanctions. I don't think of those countries as democracies and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in them.

So, again, my question: How does charging the repubs with sedition (assuming that anyone in the Department of Justice would remotely consider doing such an absurd thing) end the government shutdown?

[NuclearDem]

1. Thinking about long term consequences is defending the fascists.

Or so I've been told recently.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. They never think that far.

Probably the same people who were all to eager to attack Syria, someone else is going to do it.

[Katashi_itto]

133. Rigghhtt....

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

142. could not disagree more!

Republicans planned this shutdown months ago!

Republicans have been disenfranchising older and darker Americans for years!

They're incredibly organized and methodical!

They plan long term.

Dems plan once every 4 years.

[lostincalifornia]

3. Actually, conspiring to have the country go into default by not allowing a vote might be a violation

Where is the evidence one might ask, by demanding the ACA, established law be dismantled as terms for lifting the debt ceiling

That is NOT negotiations

[madokie]

141. That is blackmail plain and simple

If I tried to pull similar shit I'd be in jail by nightfall. Hell anyone else would be too.

[ProSense]

4. Republicans need to vote to reopen the Government so

that people can feed themselves.

Food bank sending trucks to feed furloughed Grand Canyon workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807835

[randome]

5. As contemptable as Republicans are, they are using the rules to hold the government hostage.

It isn't a pleasant fact to admit but it's the truth.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[lostincalifornia]

8. Actually allowing the country to default is a violation of the 14th amendment, and I will guarantee

you, they will impeach the President if he decides to use it

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Not raising the debt limit isn't default.

It just says we pay debt service before any other government function gets funded, i.e. automatic balanced budget. Yes, it would suck too much money too fast out of the economy but an actual debt default would be accruing more debt than we could service / pay back.

Pick your poison.

[lostincalifornia]

55. actually if you don't raise the debt limit for money spent, it means you are in default on your debt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. You can't spend new money if it exceeds the DL -- hence the term.

[lostincalifornia]

64. The money is already spent. Raising the debt limit is a formality, but a necessary one

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. No it's not, that's why we're in shutdown.

[lostincalifornia]

68. The shutdown is the budget, not the debt ceiling. It is a different issue

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. What? Where do you guys get this stuff? The debt is the cumulative deficits of all budgets.

[lostincalifornia]

70. yes. Question can they raise the debt ceiling without a budget?

[oldhippie]

80. Of course ....

Why couldn't they? They have that authority in the Constitution.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. Yes, that's how it's actually done but

no budget deficit can cause the cumulative debt to exceed the debt ceiling.

[lostincalifornia]

96. Ok, thanks

[lostincalifornia]

98. Ok, thanks

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. The offical postion of the Exectuive Branch (Obama) is that they do not authority under the 14th

to use it to automatically raise the debt limit.

Obama Will Not Unilaterally Raise Debt Limit
“We do not believe that the 14th amendment provides that authority to the president,” the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said on Thursday. The president, he added, “completely” agrees with his advisers’ legal reasoning.

The administration, and Mr. Obama himself, have said in past confrontations with Republicans that the president does not have the constitutional power to act without Congress. But the issue has surfaced yet again, as another and seemingly more intractable impasse between the White House and Republicans threatens a debt crisis. After Oct. 17, the Treasury Department has said, it will no longer be able to borrow money to cover the nation’s obligations, including to creditors, precipitating a potential financial and economic crisis with global ramifications.

“Look,” Mr. Carney said, sounding slightly exasperated to reporters, “our view is, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to borrow money, and only Congress can increase the debt ceiling. Which is why it’s time that they do their job and raise the debt ceiling – you know, authorize the Treasury to pay the bills that Congress racked up.”

Even if they are violation the Constitution, there is nothing we can do about it.

That is what makes this a Constitutional Crises.

[lostincalifornia]

57. We will see soon enough

[truedelphi]

86. I stand with the Fourteenth Amendment solution.

But I am such a cynic these days - I really believe no one in the Beltway cares at all if the entire world economy goes down. The Political Class all know the in's and out's of where to put their money.

[ProSense]

59. Actually, they're not

"As contemptable as Republicans are, they are using the rules to hold the government hostage."

...using the rules. They're abusing their power. The "power of the purse" wasn't intended as a tool for Republican terrorists to hold the Government hostage because they lost an election, hate a law or can't get what they want.

They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. But will not the House of Representatives be as much interested as the Senate in maintaining the government in its proper functions, and will they not therefore be unwilling to stake its existence or its reputation on the pliancy of the Senate? Or, if such a trial of firmness between the two branches were hazarded, would not the one be as likely first to yield as the other? These questions will create no difficulty with those who reflect that in all cases the smaller the number, and the more permanent and conspicuous the station, of men in power, the stronger must be the interest which they will individually feel in whatever concerns the government. Those who represent the dignity of their country in the eyes of other nations, will be particularly sensible to every prospect of public danger, or of dishonorable stagnation in public affairs.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_58.html

What we're seeing is Republican belligerence. They're holding the country hostage, people are suffering, losing pay and their goal is to deny tens of millions of Americans health care.

[onenote]

60. All of which may be true. None of which is illegal.

Keep in mind that just as the House refuses to pass the Senate's CR, the Senate refuses to pass the House CR and the President has said he would veto a bill, even if passed by both the House and Senate, if it touches the ACA.

Each of those positions is perfectly legal. The position of the Senate and the President, drawing the line where they have chosen to draw it, is entirely defensible and faced with the reality, the House republicans need to move on or face the wrath of the electorate. But nothing in the Constitution requires them to be the one to blink in a stalemate between and among the House, Senate and President.

All of which brings me back to my question:

For those that think what the House repubs are doing breaks the law, how do they, consistent with the Constitution, break the stalemate.

[ProSense]

76. No,

"Keep in mind that just as the House refuses to pass the Senate's CR, the Senate refuses to pass the House CR and the President has said he would veto a bill, even if passed by both the House and Senate, if it touches the ACA. "

...the Senate already passed a compromise CR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023809001#post5

Their actions may not be illegal, but they're definitely immoral and unethical.

Shutdown madness: Boehner goes from it 'isn't some damn game' to needing 'points on the board'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023809216

[onenote]

93. No.

I generally agree and enjoy your posts, and while I agree that as a matter of public policy the position staked out by the repubs in the government shutdown battle is irresponsible and immoral (although I'd stop short of unethical since that makes it sound illegal), its not illegal and it is indeed the fact that the House and the Senate have each passed CRs but neither has chosen to pass the same CR as the other one and neither is legally obligated to do so. Yes, the Senate agreed to a CR with a lower number than the Senate's budget. That doesn't mean that the repubs are somehow legally barred from playing hardball to try and get more. And nothing stops the Senate from passing a new CR with a higher number and sending it to the House. Indeed, I wish they would have done that with the "partial" funding bills -- reopen the park service, but at the Senate's proposed funding level, not the lower funding level the House wanted.

So "No" seems like a strong response to the completely factual statement that House is refusing to pass the Senate's CR and the Senate is refusing to pass the CR sent to them by the House.

[ProSense]

97. I didn't say

I generally agree and enjoy your posts, and while I agree that as a matter of public policy the position staked out by the repubs in the government shutdown battle is irresponsible and immoral (although I'd stop short of unethical since that makes it sound illegal), its not illegal and it is indeed the fact that the House and the Senate have each passed CRs but neither has chosen to pass the same CR as the other one and neither is legally obligated to do so. Yes, the Senate agreed to a CR with a lower number than the Senate's budget. That doesn't mean that the repubs are somehow legally barred from playing hardball to try and get more. And nothing stops the Senate from passing a new CR with a higher number and sending it to the House. Indeed, I wish they would have done that with the "partial" funding bills -- reopen the park service, but at the Senate's proposed funding level, not the lower funding level the House wanted.

So "No" seems like a strong response to the completely factual statement that House is refusing to pass the Senate's CR and the Senate is refusing to pass the CR sent to them by the House.

...or imply that it was "illegal." And, no, the Senate passed a compromise offered by House Republicans. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023809676

[onenote]

108. Yes and no.

Yes, the Senate passed a CR that was based on the House budget level. But if the Senate had before them a bill, passed by the House (where spending bills originate) and had passed that bill, this wouldn't be happening. But that's not what happened. The Senate didn't pass a bill presented to them by the House. They passed a different budget bill. There is no requirement that a CR be the same as a previously passed budget bill. And there have been plenty of instances in which a CR is not identical to the budget bills of either house.

As I said, I wouldn't have blinked an eye if the Senate, having been presented with a CR that adding a material new demand to the House passed budget, responded by passing a CR that changed their previously passed budget.

That doesn't mean that I think this is a good or even acceptable way of doing the people's business. Indeed, not passing budgets and relying on CRs -- and in this instance its clear that the repubs were the holdup in terms of not appointing conferees -- is a terrible way of doing the people's business.

[ProSense]

111. Here's what happened.

"Yes, the Senate passed a CR that was based on the House budget level. But if the Senate had before them a bill, passed by the House (where spending bills originate) and had passed that bill, this wouldn't be happening. But that's not what happened. "

President Obama's remarks on government shutdown, Rockville, MD

<...>

Now, I want everybody to understand what's happened, because sometimes when this gets reported on everybody kind of thinks, well, you know, both sides are just squabbling; Democrats and Republicans, they're always arguing, so neither side is behaving properly. I want everybody to understand what's happened here. The Republicans passed a temporary budget for two months at a funding level that we, as Democrats, actually think is way too low because we’re not providing help for more small businesses, doing more for early childhood education, doing more to rebuild our infrastructure. But we said, okay, while we’re still trying to figure out this budget, we’re prepared to go ahead and take the Republican budget levels that they proposed.

So the Senate passed that with no strings attached -- not because it had everything the Democrats wanted. In fact, it had very little that the Democrats wanted. But we said, let’s go ahead and just make sure that other people aren’t hurt while negotiations are still taking place.

So that’s already passed the Senate. And we know there are enough Republicans and Democrats to vote in the House of Representatives for the same thing. So I want everybody to understand this: There are enough Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives today that, if the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, simply let the bill get on the floor for an up-or-down vote, every congressman could vote their conscience -- the shutdown would end today.

The only thing that is keeping the government shut down; the only thing preventing people from going back to work and basic research starting back up, and farmers and small business owners getting their loan -- the only thing that’s preventing all that from happening, right now, today, in the next five minutes, is that Speaker John Boehner won’t even let the bill get a yes-or-no vote, because he doesn’t want to anger the extremists in his party. That’s all. That’s what this whole thing is about.

We’ve heard a lot from congressional Republicans in the past couple of days saying they don’t want this shutdown. Well, there’s a simple way to prove it. Send the bill to the floor, let everybody vote -- it will pass. Send me the bill; I will sign it. The shutdown will be over and we can get back to the business of governing and helping the American people. (Applause.)

It could happen in the next half hour. National parks, monuments, offices would all reopen immediately. Benefits and services would resume again. Hundreds of thousands of dedicated public servants who are worrying about whether they’re going to be able to pay the mortgage or pay the car note, they’d start going back to work right away. So my simple message today is: Call a vote. Call a vote.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/03/1243894/-President-Obama-s-remarks-on-government-shutdown-Rockville-MD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023782420

[onenote]

114. The Senate did not pass a bill that had been passed by the House

If they had, we wouldn't be where we are. The House passed a year long budget. The Senate passed a year long budget. Those budgets differed in the amounts of funding for particular programs and overall. The Senate asked the House to appoint conferees so that the two bodies could try to work out their differences. The House, being run by jerks, never did so. Rotten behavior, but not illegal or immoral. Just bad policy.

Without appropriations bills passed to fund the government, the House passed a CR based on its budget plus a poison pill defund the ACA amendment. Again, not illegal, but shitty policy. The Senate then stripped out the text of the House passed CR and substituted a new CR based on the language of the House budget, but without the ACA language. The House refused to pass that and instead passed a new CR, again based on its budget and again with a poison pill ACA provision. (I say "poison pill" because they had to know it was unacceptable to the Senate and the WH). The Senate then stripped out that language and sent back a CR that again was based on the House budget but without the noxious ACA provision -- in other words, a bill that the Senate hoped the House would capitulate and accept but had no reason to believe the House would do so (i.e., just as the President had threatened to veto a bill passed by both Houses that had any ACA language, the Speaker made it clear that no CR without something addressing the ACA would be approved.

The result: stalemate. Without question, it is the House that initiated this game of Chicken when it included the ACA defunding language. That was bad policy and it would be great if the public would understand and punish the repubs for their behavior.

[ProSense]

118. You are wrong.

"The Senate did not pass a bill that had been passed by the House

If they had, we wouldn't be where we are. The House passed a year long budget. The Senate passed a year long budget. Those budgets differed in the amounts of funding for particular programs and overall. The Senate asked the House to appoint conferees so that the two bodies could try to work out their differences. The House, being run by jerks, never did so. Rotten behavior, but not illegal or immoral. Just bad policy."

The CR I'm referring to has nothing to do with the Senate "year long budget."

Harry Reid Compromised On Shutdown Negotiation, House Republican Acknowledges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/harry-reid-shutdown_n_4050400.html

Senate Passes 'Clean' CR to Avoid Shutdown, Punts to House

Finally, Friday afternoon, the body, in a vote of 54 to 44, passed its version of a CR to avoid a government shutdown on October 1. The Senate-passed version amended a previously passed version from the House of Representatives.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2013/09/27/senate-passes-clean-cr-to-avoid-shutdown-punts-to-house/

[onenote]

119. Huh? Are you saying the House and Senate passed the exact same bill?

You can't be since that's obviously not the case. So I'm somewhat perplexed by your declaration that I'm wrong. Wrong about what, exactly?

The House and Senate have never passed identical funding bills that would then become law when signed by the President. The House passed the first CR, and it had the ACA poison pill in it. The Senate, as Reid had indicated it would, passed its own version of the CR that gave in to the House on the overall funding level, but stripped out the ACA language. And the stalemate, started by the House playing chicken with the Senate, was on.

[ProSense]

121. So

"The House and Senate have never passed identical funding bills that would then become law when signed by the President. The House passed the first CR, and it had the ACA poison pill in it. The Senate, as Reid had indicated it would, passed its own version of the CR that gave in to the House on the overall funding level, but stripped out the ACA language. And the stalemate, started by the House playing chicken with the Senate, was on."

...you believe the House should get its way 100 percent? The Senate passed the House bill, amending it to strip out the ACA provision, which has nothing to do with the keeping the government open.

You previously talked about separate "year long budgets" because you were completely unaware of the CR that the House passed and the Senate passed on amendment.

It's the House bill. Its their bill. It's Republican crafted legislation.

[onenote]

122. Where in the world did you come up with the idea I think the House should get its way?

Last edited Wed Oct 9, 2013, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

I like most of your posts and consider myself a fan of your intelligent and thorough rebuttals of attacks on the administration (both from outside DU and inside DU).

But you've jumped the shark on this. I made it quite clear I don't agree with the repubs decision to insert a poison pill in the CR they sent the House and that the stalemate started with them. But this thread was about those who think that not passing a CR that the Senate and WH concur in is an act of criminal behavior by the House. Its not. Its bad policy. Its bad politics. Its bad bad bad. And the President (as I also have indicated) is right to hold the line.

And the statement that I talked about separate year long budgets because I was unaware of the House and Senate CRs. That's simply a lie on your part or maybe its just that you haven't paid attention to the several dozen posts I've made on this topic largely rebutting those who think that this stalemate constitutes a criminal act. I have repeatedly referred to the CRs in those posts, long before you decided to jump in with your misinformed (hopefully unintentionally) accusation.

To be honest, I'm still not clear what exactly you are trying to claim. The record is clear and available to anyone who cares to check:

With the end of Fiscal Year 2012 approaching in September 2012, the House and Senate approved,and the President signed, a CR that kept the government funded through March 27, 2013. In March 2013, the House and Senate each passed FY 2014 budget resolutions that were wildly different. The House proposed draconian cuts in spending while the Senate proposed a more modest combination of tax increases and spending cuts. There was never any conference to resolve the differences in the FY 2014 budget proposals. Meanwhile, the CR adopted in Sept. 2012 was about to run out and the House and Senate agreed to a new CR that extended funding for the government through September 30, 2013, the end of FY 2013. As the end of FY 2013 approached, the House and Senate still hadn't resolved their budget proposal differences or enacted any annual appropriations bills (although several appropriations bills had been passed by the House and Senate, those bills differed from one another and no conferences had been convened (largely due to House dilatory tactics) to reconcile those bills. Faced with another funding deadlin, the House proposed a short term CR that would fund the government at previous levels through December 15. That bill included the House ACA defunding proposal, despite clear warning from the Senate and the President that the ACA was off-limits. When the Senate received the House bill, they acted to strip out the House language and substitute their own CR, which maintained the funding level proposed by the House, but made two changes: it shortened the CR so that it only ran until November 15 and it also removed the ACA defunding language. This amended CR moved from the Senate back to the House, which amended it by adding an ACA delay provision and the repeal of the medical devices provision. That amended CR moved back to the Senate (it's like ping pong only each side changes the color of the ball before each return) which tabled those amendments, sending its clean short term CR back to the House again. The House, being obstinate, "receded" from its amendments, and accepted the Senate version, but only after amending it to add a different ACA delay provision. The Senate, as is its right (and as was correct as a matter of policy imo) tabled the House amendment and sent the bill back to the House which "insisted" on its language and asked for a conference. The Senate upon receiving the House language and request, voted to table them. And that's where we stand (not counting various partial shutdown lifting proposals that the House has made and the Senate, for the most part, has rejected as gimmicks).

Now, if I have any of that wrong, please advise.

[ProSense]

124. No,

Where in the world did you come up with the idea the House should get its way?

I like most of your posts and consider myself a fan of your intelligent and thorough rebuttals of attacks on the administration (both from outside DU and inside DU).

But you've jumped the shark on this. I made it quite clear I don't agree with the repubs decision to insert a poison pill in the CR they sent the House and that the stalemate started with them. But this thread was about those who think that not passing a CR that the Senate and WH concur in is an act of criminal behavior by the House. Its not. Its bad policy. Its bad politics. Its bad bad bad. And the President (as I also have indicated) is right to hold the line.

...I haven't. I stated here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807960#post59) that I didn't think their actions were illegal, simply immoral.

You then went on to claim that "The Senate did not pass a bill that had been passed by the House."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807960#post114

They in fact did. The bill is a compromise.

Senate Passes 'Clean' CR to Avoid Shutdown, Punts to House

Finally, Friday afternoon, the body, in a vote of 54 to 44, passed its version of a CR to avoid a government shutdown on October 1. The Senate-passed version amended a previously passed version from the House of Representatives.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2013/09/27/senate-passes-clean-cr-to-avoid-shutdown-punts-to-house/

Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00209

Tweet: Harry Reid calls out Republicans for not voting on compromise CR
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023809676

Harry Reid Compromised On Shutdown Negotiation, House Republican Acknowledges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/harry-reid-shutdown_n_4050400.html

So much for the BS false equivalency. Even Republicans and Fox know that the Democrats have compromised.

Republicans are not playing by the rules, they're abusing their power
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023808698

McCain: We Should Be 'Embarrassed' About Shutdown, GOP Pushed 'False Premise' on Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023809709

Bottomline: The House is refusing to accept the Senate's compromise on the House bill.

The Senate passed the House bill, amending it to strip out the ACA provision, which has nothing to do with the keeping the government open.

It's the House bill. Its their bill. It's Republican crafted legislation.

[onenote]

125. You keep saying that the Senate passed a bill that had been passed by the House. That's not true.

It is basic "how a bill becomes a law" stuff. In order for a bill to become a law, the exact same bill, in its entirety, has to be passed by both houses of Congress.

Neither house had passed any identical appropriations bills, so Congress had to proceed to keep the government funded via the continuing resolution route. The House started that process by passing a continuing resolution on September 20 that funded the government at the repubs desired level through December 15 AND defunded Obamacare. That bill went to the Senate, which stripped out the House text, replaced with identical text (thereby compromising by accepting the funding levels that the House wanted) and then made two changes to the House language: shortening the CR by a month (from December 15 to November 15) and stripping out the House language defunding the ACA. They sent that back to the House, which rejected it, not because the Senate hadn't compromised (which they had by accepting the House funding levels) but because the Senate hadn't accepted a portion of the original CR passed by the House that the House wanted -- namely the ACA defunding language.

Get it? The Senate has not passed the entirety of a CR sent to it by the House and the House has never passed the entirety of a CR sent to it by the Senate. Yes, the Senate compromised by accepting the funding levels proposed by the House, but the Senate, thank goodness, did not accept the House ACA defunding language. Thus, despite your apparent, and seemingly inexplicable confusion on the point, it is an unalterable fact that "The Senate did not pass a bill that had been passed by the House." And that is something to be eternally thankful for, because if you were right and the Senate had passed any of the CRs that the House has sent them, the president would have had to veto the measure because it would have fucked around with the ACA.

[ProSense]

126. Apparently

"It is basic "how a bill becomes a law" stuff. In order for a bill to become a law, the exact same bill, in its entirety, has to be passed by both houses of Congress. "

...you're arguing that unless the House or Senate pass the exact bill it doesn't become "become a law."

That is not how it works. The House and Senate often pass bills that are slightly different, and they hash out the differences in conference.

The Senate passed the House bill, amending it to strip out the ACA provision, which has nothing to do with the keeping the government open.

It's the House bill. Its their bill. It's Republican crafted legislation.

They got everything they wanted except defunding the health care law, which has nothing to do with funding the government.

Nat'l Journal: Republicans Close to Violating the Constitution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023814077

[oldhippie]

127. ProSense, how can you continue to say .....

The Senate passed the House bill, amending it to strip out the ACA provision, which has nothing to do with the keeping the government open.

... that the Senate "passed the House bill" when they amended it? An amendment changes the bill. There is no way you can stretch that into "they passed the House bill." Period. If the Senate had "passed the House bill", it wouldn't have gone back to the House. It would go to the President for signature.

You are hurting your creds this way.

[ProSense]

129. Such bills

... that the Senate "passed the House bill" when they amended it? An amendment changes the bill. There is no way you can stretch that into "they passed the House bill." Period. If the Senate had "passed the House bill", it wouldn't have gone back to the House. It would go to the President for signature.

You are hurting your creds this way.

...go to conference all the time. Republicans have been rejecting conference, until recently: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023760798

Thus far, you've refused to accept the fact that Republicans are fully to blame, that this isn't simply about the Senate being obstinate as the House is being, and that Republicans can simply accept the clean bill to reopen the government.

At the same time you've claimed that I have "jumped the shark" and now you're saying by pointing out these facts I'm "hurting" my "creds."

You disagree, but based on your arguments it's not my "creds" that are being hurt.

[oldhippie]

132. How can you say ..........

Thus far, you've refused to accept the fact that Republicans are fully to blame....

.... when I have never even discussed that issue? I was never talking about "blame", we are talking about procedure, and accuracy of statements. The purpose of this whole thread, I may remind you, was about procedure, not blame. (There are lots of other threads about blame.) This OP started with the question "What would you have happen that would result in the government shutdown ending?" Your posts didn't answer the question, they cast blame and made inaccurate statements. I have a thing about accuracy and precision of language.

And yes, bills go to conference all the time, except for when they don't. This one didn't, because both parties knew there would be no agreement. Are the republicans wrong? Yes. Are they within Constitutional and Congressional procedures? Yes.

My previous "jumped the shark" comment was not directed to you, it was toward a group of people in general. I don't think I had even seen a post of yours on this thread at that time.

As for our respective creds, well, I guess that is for others on the forum to judge.

[ProSense]

134. OMG, you jumped into the discussion, and I mistook you for the other poster

LOL!

[oldhippie]

128. And also .......

That is not how it works. The House and Senate often pass bills that are slightly different, and they hash out the differences in conference.

.... once they hash out the differences both houses vote on the same version. It's usually a formality, but they still have to do it.

[ProSense]

135. Right, but the differences are hashed out in conference. n/t

[oldhippie]

137. No, wrong. They are not ......

... ALWAYS hashed out in conference. We wouldn't be having this conversation if that was the case.

Why do so many people have trouble with plain English? When you say "differences ARE hashed out in conference", that means ALWAYS. ARE means it happens. Not usually, not sometimes, but they ARE hashed out. That obviously hasn't happened, so your post title is FALSE. You can call it nit-picking, but I call it improper use of language. Would it have been so much harder to have said "usually" hashed out in conference?

It's hard to have complex discussions on complex issues when we don't use a common language. I see that so much here.

[ProSense]

138. Good grief

"No, wrong. They are not ... ALWAYS hashed out in conference. We wouldn't be having this conversation if that was the case. "

My comment doesn't say "always," and clearly if one doesn't go to conference it can't be hashed out there. Sometimes a bill dies in conference.

[oldhippie]

140. It depends on what the definition of "ARE" is .......

I just couldn't resist.

I have to go work out now.

[onenote]

131. If the House and Senate don't pass the same bill it doesn't become law.

That is exactly how it works. You are correct that when the two houses pass different versions of the same bill, one way to reconcile those differences and end up with a law is for the two Houses to appoint conferees to work out their differences. Indeed, that is what the House ultimately requested at the last minute, but the Senate rebuffed them, saying no thanks to the request that the competing versions of the bill be taken to conference. (The Democratic position in refusing to take the competing measures to conference was completely defensible since it was the House that has refused to appoint conferees on any budget proposals and/or appropriations bills that the two Houses have passed during FY 2013.) Of course, and completely consistent with my statement, the only way a bill that is taken to conference becomes law is when the conference agreed upon version is approved without change by each house.

Conference, of course, is not the only way to reconcile differences in bills and get to a "law." The Senate could have accepted the House passed CR in its entirety. Or the House could have accepted the Senate passed CR in its entirety. There were several stages of back and forth where that was possible, but the two bodies stalemated over the House's insistence that the CR have something in it about the ACA and the Senate's equal insistence that it not have anything in it about the ACA. Had the bill been taken to conference the conference would have failed because neither side was going to budge. Thus, there was not, and at least to this point has not ever been a moment in which both the House and the Senate have agreed to the language of a CR in its entirety.

And of course your are correct that the ACA provisions have nothing to do with fundnig the government. And that is relevant to the issue of which side is being unreasonable. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether one side has acted unlawfully or is the one that has "forced" the shutdown. As is always the case when stalemate has been reached, both sides have "forced" that outcome simply by virtue that they both insist on their last position. That doesn't mean that they have both acted reasonably. In this case the repubs are clearly acting unreasonably.

[ProSense]

136. "You are correct that when the two houses pass different versions of the same bill..."

"You are correct that when the two houses pass different versions of the same bill, one way to reconcile those differences and end up with a law is for the two Houses to appoint conferees to work out their differences. "

I know I'm correct.

Conference, of course, is not the only way to reconcile differences in bills and get to a "law." The Senate could have accepted the House passed CR in its entirety. Or the House could have accepted the Senate passed CR in its entirety. There were several stages of back and forth where that was possible, but the two bodies stalemated over the House's insistence that the CR have something in it about the ACA and the Senate's equal insistence that it not have anything in it about the ACA. Had the bill been taken to conference the conference would have failed because neither side was going to budge. Thus, there was not, and at least to this point has not ever been a moment in which both the House and the Senate have agreed to the language of a CR in its entirety.

And of course your are correct that the ACA provisions have nothing to do with fundnig the government. And that is relevant to the issue of which side is being unreasonable. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether one side has acted unlawfully or is the one that has "forced" the shutdown. As is always the case when stalemate has been reached, both sides have "forced" that outcome simply by virtue that they both insist on their last position. That doesn't mean that they have both acted reasonably. In this case the repubs are clearly acting unreasonably.

What do you think should happen given that the bill is precisely the House bill without the defunding ACA, which "has nothing to do with funding" the Government?

[oldhippie]

139. "What do you think should happen..."

Well, gee, now we're getting back to the original question in this OP, which so far, you haven't addressed.

What DO you think should happen? Ignore the Constitutional process? Arrest the Republicans? Call AG Holder? Call Justice Roberts? Sue somebody? Storm the Congress? What?

Oh, I have an idea! How about we just express rage and righteous indignation on DU? Yeah, that'll fix it.

[onenote]

143. what do I think should happen?

I think the Senate and President should stick to their guns. Not because it is inappropriate to include a provision that is unrelated to funding the government in a CR, but because this particular provision (i.e., provisions weakening the ACA) is bad policy. I could easily see the day when I would heartily support including a non-funding provision in a CR if it was a way to get a good policy enacted or a bad policy repealed.

If as I think they should, the Senate and Presidnet stick to their guns, it could mean an extended shutdown until the House repubs finally cave in. If you have another solution, but one that doesn't involve the Senate and President giving in to the House, I'd love to hear it.

As for our fascinating discussion of how a bill becomes a law, I think we've ridden that horse into the ground. Let's leave it at the following:

You are right that the House and Senate have each passed a bill with the same bill number.
I'm right that the text of that bill as passed by the House and the text of that bill as passed by the Senate differ and thus the action of the two houses in passing a bill with the same number has not produced a law.
You are right that one way to resolve a conflict in the text of House and Senate passed versions of a bill is to take them to conference.
I'm right that a conference only produces a law if the conferees agree to identical language and each house passes that language.
Finally, I'm right that there has been no conference because the Senate refused the House's request for one (a decision that the Senate made for a variety of valid reasons). I'm also right, I believe, that if the parties went to conference, we'd still have a shutdown because the parties wouldn't be able to resolve their differences until one side or the other caves in and, hopefully, that would be the repubs that do the caving.

I'm not sure what exactly we've proven through our little exercise, other than the fact nothing in our discussion in any way undermines my initial point, which was that the actions of the House throughout this process are not and could not ever be considered criminal for among many reasons, the fact that it takes two parties each refusing to budge from their last position, to make a stalemate.

[Downtown Hound]

6. If Republicans are actively destroying the already damaged U.S. economy

for purely political ends, then I consider that treason. And yes, I would have them arrested for it.

How would it end the shutdown? Have them arrested, invoke the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling, pass a budget with whoever wasn't arrested, and then hold general elections next year as was going to happen anyways. That way democracy is restored.

You may not want to live in a country that does things like this. But I don't want to live in a country governed by reckless extremists that will hurt anybody to get their way. Take your pick. Both options suck, but desperate times call for desperate measures. And I like my option much better than the other one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. When you advocate having the constitutional process subverted by force of arms

you advocate sedition.

[Downtown Hound]

13. Isn't that what the Republicans are doing?

[NuclearDem]

14. I must have missed the arms then.

[Downtown Hound]

17. Well, they are subverting the constituational process

and they are protected by men with guns. So, there you go.

[NuclearDem]

21. After that stretch, I'm ready to go work out.

[Downtown Hound]

23. Have a good workout.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Except they aren't subverting the process

If you want the money spigot turned back on feel free to advocate that each branch of the federal government be given a searate appropriations vote.

[Downtown Hound]

25. I'm sorry, but shutting down the government because they don't like Obamacare

and threatening to let the nation default on its debts is subverting the process, and anybody that thinks it isn't is a fucking moron.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. So accept votes for stop-gap bills. VIOLA! You aren't holding out for politics, are you?

And not raising the debt ceiling won't cause a default. The feds are still collecting tax revenue, as such they are obligated to pay debt service first, ergo no default.

What WILL create a default is assuming more debt than we can pay back. So, if you press for unlimited debt then you -- by your own definition -- are again guilty of sedition. If you aren't for unlimited debt then you might want to negotiate.

[Downtown Hound]

31. Me thinks your true colors are starting to show.

Lots of Repuke talking points in that post.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. What part of what I worte was untrue and how was it untrue?

If your argument falls apart so easily it's not because you want to label me, it's because your argument is that fundamentally weak. If you can't raise counterpoints to a 20-something on the internet then imagine how poorly you'll lose the debate in the public venue where beer bottles and razor blades.

[Downtown Hound]

40. First of all, not raising the debt ceiling WILL CAUSE US TO DEFAULT

Second of all, we can absorb way more debt than we currently have and still be okay. Given our dire economic straights, most respectable economists actually think it would be better policy to let our debt go up and instead invest in our infrastructure, which would put people back to work and ultimately provide more tax revenue to fix our debt in the long run.

So pretty much every one of your points is bullshit. I just don't like to waste my time with silly little Republican wannabes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. See my example in post 41

Given our dire economic straights, most respectable economists actually think it would be better policy to let our debt go up

Disagreeing with economists isn't insurrection.

What about using stop-gap appropriations instead of omnibus? That would get those portions of the government that share consensus working again. Why not endorse that?

[Downtown Hound]

49. Why not endorse that?

Because it sets a bad precedent. It says to the Republicans, "Hey anytime you don't like what's happening, you can just shut down the government, hold it hostage, and fund it piecemeal until you isolate what you don't like."

FUCK THAT SHIT. You know why the official policy of the United States is to not negotiate with terrorists? Because if you do, then it validates their tactics, and sends them a green light that they can get whatever they want by taking a few hostages.

And I never said disagreeing with economists is treason. I said holding the United States hostage because you're not getting what you want is, and that's what the Republicans are doing.

They can disagree all they want. But they can't hold the country hostage and send it into financial ruin because they don't like Obamacare.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. "Because it sets a bad precedent"

So in other words, it's all about your political preferences.

Congratulations, you just made yourself an insurrectionist -- again.

i said holding the United States hostage because you're not getting what you want is,

Said the guy who refuses to immediately turn the money back on for the parts of the government both parties agree on. Hypocrisy much?

[Downtown Hound]

54. Not a hypocrite

I just don't negotiate with a gun to my head. The government is not something that you can shut down and re-open it whenever you want. What you (and the Republicans are proposing) is a recipe for disaster. Shutting the government down whenever you want and playing Russian Roulette with our country because you don't like Obamacare or this or that IS NO WAY TO RUN A FUCKING COUNTRY.

And yes, I would let the nation fall into ruins before I ever negotiate with terrorists like the republicans. Because I'd rather build a new country from scratch then live in a banana republic like that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Nobody has a gun to your head.

The government is not something that you can shut down and re-open it whenever you want. What you (and the Republicans are proposing) is a recipe for disaster. Shutting the government down whenever you want and playing Russian Roulette with our country because you don't like Obamacare or this or that IS NO WAY TO RUN A FUCKING COUNTRY.

That's your political opinion, not law.

And yes, I would let the nation fall into ruins before I ever negotiate with terrorists like the republicans. Because I'd rather build a new country from scratch then live in a banana republic like that.

So long as it's a single party, no dissent, controlled speech, rubber stamp congress, unitary executive with no public debate on the budget. Yeah, that's totally not a banana republic.

[Downtown Hound]

74. A metaphorical gun

And no, there is plenty of dissent allowed. But that dissent has to be within the proper framework. No party can just decide they don't like something so they're going to shut everything down and cause us to default on our obligations and hurt our economy.

Asking Congress to do its job is not a banana republic, and to suggest it is is downright stupid.

Shutting down the government because legislation is passed, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the president who wrote it is reelected by a landslide is not a banana republic, and if you think it is, you're really fucking stupid.

What the Republicans are doing however, is rapidly turning us into one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. "that dissent has to be within the proper framework."

It is within the proper framework.

Asking Congress to do its job is not a banana republic, and to suggest it is is downright stupid.

If only you were asking. This entire thread is about people not asking but demanding they get their way or else they want people with real -- not metaphorical -- guns to force the result they want outside of the constitution.

Shutting down the government because legislation is passed, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the president who wrote it is reelected by a landslide is not a banana republic, and if you think it is, you're really fucking stupid.

A democrat House and a Democrat Senate shutdown the government 6 times under a single term of a Democrat president. Grow up and get some facts.

[Downtown Hound]

95. I don't give a fuck what happened decades ago

I give a fuck about what's happening now. Stop living in the fucking past.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. No, you only care about now because you practice totalitarian political thuggery.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. You're running around here throwing f-bombs left, right and center

while demanding anyone who disagrees with you be deemed a traitor to your fictitious government. You ignore history. You ignore law. You have no argument except histrionic hyperbole. You want what you want.

Grow-up already.

[Niceguy1]

67. no it won't

You just have to not spend as much......

[Downtown Hound]

72. Okay then, fine

Every district that voted in a House member that supported the shutdown and the default gets no more federal dollars FOR ANYTHING.

How does that sound?

[Niceguy1]

73. not progressive.

It may suck, but no default is required. Just a 100% balanced budget

[Downtown Hound]

75. Fuck balanced budgets

We're in the middle of the greatest economic crisis in several generations. We can balance the fucking budget later when we get people back to work. Until then, fuck off.

This country can't afford your bullshit balanced budget purity right now, do you fucking get it? Too many people are going to be hurt.

[Niceguy1]

78. I was referring to

The current shut down and looming default. ...which can be dealt with until congress quits playing games. ..

Or is a default what you want? ?????

[Downtown Hound]

92. It's the Republicans, and ONLY THE REPUBLICANS

that are playing games. The ACA was passed, the Supreme Court approved it, and the American people reelected Obama. Get the fuck over it. Stop holding the country hostage because you don't like it.

We are not going to bow to their extortion. Not now, and not ever.

[onenote]

103. We shouldn't give in.

But it doesn't make their demands illegal. The fact a bill becomes a law and a bill is upheld by the Supreme Court doesn't immunize that law from being amended or repealed, either in the same Congress, the next Congress or any other Congress. Heck, amending the Constitution doesn't immunize the amendment from being repealed or modified by a future amendment.

[Downtown Hound]

106. So what about being in violation of the 14th amendment?

It's not a clearly defined law because it's never been tested like this before. But I think you can make a case that says if a party intentionally violates a constitutional amendment, then that is illegal and steps can be taken to restore constitutional law.

You asked me what I would do if I was in charge. Well, that's what I'd do. Let the pieces fall where they will.

[Downtown Hound]

77. Oh and, my idea may not sound progressive (not that I really give a shit)

But letting people starve, suffer, and go without affordable health care out of some petty ideological crusade doesn't sound to me the least bit Christian, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what all these yahoo Republicans say they are?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. "my idea may not sound progressive "

We wouldn't expect anything less from an authoritarian, anti-democratic seditionist.

[Downtown Hound]

91. I'm not the one ruining the United States of America so people can't get

affordable health care. So turn your anger on those that actually deserve it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. You want to destroy everything about America: free speech, right to dissent, political process

over your personal temper tantrum. Of sure, you want to preserve the ACA but most wolves prefer well-fed sheep.

[Downtown Hound]

109. So by restoring the government and constitutional law

and upholding the 14th amendment, I'm destroying America? Okay, then. LOL.

The Republicans are destroying America. Not me. This is not legitimate dissent. This is terrorism, plain and simple.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. None of your complaints have any bearing on the Constitution.

I've demonstrated as much and you've done nothing but resort to profanity instead of rebutting the arguments put to you.

[onenote]

115. How does endimg the government shutdown by executive fiat

-- having the President act to make law without the concurrence of the House and Senate -- restore constitutional law?

[Downtown Hound]

79. Oh and on a final note

Explain to me why districts that are going to vote in terrorists that would shut the government down in an effort to "slim" down the budget should get any federal money? After all, this is what they wanted, right? They wanted to destroy the government so they can be free and cling to their guns and religion and shit? Why should it have to be all the people who didn't want that to have to shoulder the burden?

If you want to shut down the government, then you don't deserve any of its help or support. Seems fair to me. And fairness is a "progressive" trait, no matter what you say.

[Niceguy1]

81. fair to the

Poor in those districts? Singling out districts idnt a good way to turn them blue...it is mean spirited. Its better to find a good candidate, Have a good message and turn it blue.. your way will make us bullies.

[Downtown Hound]

90. Sorry about the poor

But it's the Republicans who wanted this shutdown, and there's going to be casualties no matter what.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. If you deny them services do they get to keep their revenue?

[Downtown Hound]

89. Sure.

I'm sure that extra few bucks is going to make a huge difference the next time there's a hurricane, or they need a new bridge, or new schools, or anything else the government does for them.

Mississippi is the poorest state in the union. It also happens to be the most conservative. Coincidence? I think not. Just imagine where they'd be if they didn't have the federal government to bail them out after Katrina.

So go ahead, cling to that extra few hundred or few thousand dollars every year. You're going to find out one day that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

I got $300 dollars from Bush's tax cut. Whoopee shit. I'd gladly trade that in for a do-over of his whole presidency.

[demwing]

110. what makes you think arms are required?

18 U.S.C. § 2384 : US Code - Section 2384: Seditious conspiracy

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2384

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. They aren't having anyone arrested by armed personnel

[Downtown Hound]

22. No, they're just letting them starve and killing their futures

And just wait. This goes on long enough and enough people get hurt by it, you'll be seeing people arrested before too long.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Crime by abstraction doesn't count

You might as well claim a father refusing to buy concert tickets for his teenage daughter has removed her from the location of her choice by force ergo he is guilty of kidnapping.

[Downtown Hound]

27. No, that's a really stupid comparison. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. It's pretty much what the "It's TREASON!" crowd is arguing.

Every party believes the other party would harm the country with its policies. You can't criminalize people based on your partisan fantasies.

[Downtown Hound]

36. The 14th amendment:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

What the Republicans are doing is insurrection. And it's in violation of the the 14th amendment. THAT IS TREASON.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Insurrection requires armed force. You're the only advocating that.

And no, we will not default.

You have a law that says you are obligated to pay your debts. You earn $1,000 a month in income. You owe $200 a month in interest on your current debt. You want to spend $900 a month on new stuff and recurring expenses. Without more credit you can still pay your $200 interest and thereby fulfill your legal obligation, but now you're limited to only $800 instead of your originally intended $900 for new/recurring expenses.

[Downtown Hound]

46. We're not talking about your new Xbox One here, sonnyboy

or whatever else your "monthly expenses" are. We're talking about the future of the nation.

And no, insurrection doesn't require armed force. But as I said before, everything the Republicans do is backed up by force. go ahead and try and arrest them, you will be lucky if you don't get shot. That is armed force that they have backing them up.

And there have been many cases throughout history of insurrections happening without armed force. Ever hear of Gandhi?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. I swear I can see spittle flecks on your monitor.

It was an illustration and it holds true. Feel free to explain any faults in the analogy. The debt will be serviced from tax receipts so no we will not default.

Yes, insurrection does require armed force as we are governed by US law, not British, and US law specifically states it has to be armed force because our legislators didn't want us criminalizing non-violent political opposition -- like the British did to Gandhi.

[Downtown Hound]

52. That's your own monitor you're looking at, not mine

No, insurrection doesn't require armed force, but as I've now told you several times, the Republicans have it behind them.

And WE WILL DEFAULT. You really think you're right and just about everybody else is wrong on that one? Take my word for it, little boy, you're not anywhere near as smart as you think you are.

[onenote]

61. So you would subvert the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, an arrested member of Congress is still a member of Congress. And under the Constitution you need a quorum to pass legislation. And you need to pass legislation to fund the government.

So how are you going to pass the legislation?

And as a follow up question: if the Senate had caved and passed a CR that re-opened some or all of the government and the President carried out his threat to veto such a bill, passed by a majority in both houses, would you say the President is guilty of treason?

[Downtown Hound]

71. Given that the Consittution is already subverted

Then yes, I would.

And in your example, no, using a constitutional veto is not treason. Holding the government hostage until it defaults on its financial obligations in violation of the 14th amendment is.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Ermagerd

onenote and I agree about something.

[onenote]

62. It's not the first time. In fact, I've always thought we agreed far more than we disagreed.

[lostincalifornia]

9. You ask what the penalty should be, censure for refusing to allow the house to vote. /nt

Last edited Tue Oct 8, 2013, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. "Bad! Bad Republicans!"

Satisfactory?

[Ranchemp.]

18. LOL.

[lostincalifornia]

58. 2014

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. Exactly. GOTV 2014

[onenote]

88. I think you mean "censure"

And that is merely a slap on the wrist that wouldn't result in a member losing the right to vote.

Again, there are two Constitutional hurdles that the proponents of punishing House republicans (not at the ballot box but through the invocation of the criminal law): getting a quorum and getting members to vote a particular way (or vote at all). There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow the judiciary to coerce a member of Congress to vote or not vote or to vote a particular way.

Expulsion requires a 2/3 vote of the members of Congress -- while its not plainly addressed the only logical reading of that requirement is a vote of 2/3 of all of the members and there is no way republicans are going to vote to expel their own members.

In other words, if the goal is putting an end to shutdown without shredding the Constitution in the process in more ways than can be counted, folks better think of something other than arresting members who are voting for a bill that would fund the government but not in a way that is acceptable to the Senate or the President.

[lostincalifornia]

104. Thank-you

[Abq_Sarah]

15. How well did the Aliens and Sedition Acts work out for Adams?

He lost the election and his party was destroyed.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. Even if they fold and raise that debt limit, the government will remain shut down.

until a continuing resolution is signed or a budget passed and signed.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. is your name Johnny?

[Rex]

39. :drumroll:

[oldhippie]

29. Pretty simple, actually .....

Once all the Republican are jailed there won't be a quorum in either house of Congress. The President can then justifiably declare a simultaneous Constitution Crisis and Economic Emergency. He can then govern by decree until the next Congressional elections in 2014. No sane citizen could argue with that. The President then just runs the Federal government and it's financial affairs as necessary.

And as long as he is governing by decree, he ought to be able to find a way to get the courts to ban Tea Party types for running for election.

The trials for the Republican would not begin until the economy has stabilized and the government is running a surplus from the increased taxation of the rich and corporations.

How's that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. And the war will be over by Christmas!

[oldhippie]

43. Who wins? nt

nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Syria

[onenote]

101. How's that? Its' fabulous

Best sarcasm I've seen. Particularly the "no sane citizen could argue with that" part! Brilliant!!

[oldhippie]

107. I though that was pretty good ....

... myself.

[Arkana]

35. You don't get to jail your political enemies because they do stupid things.

End of story.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

37. I'm not going to shut someone down for saying it.

Let people vent.

Looks suspicious if you don't.

[Rex]

38. Since when did we start living by minority rule in Congress?

As long as we never look back, we are free to make the same horrendous mistakes as before.

[truedelphi]

87. Minority rule became the law inside the US House of Reps,

Back when the Hastert Rule was first invoked. (Even though Hastert himself later said how he hated the rule, and didn't want it to mention his name.)

[onenote]

99. There has always been an element of minority rule.

For example, when President Clinton vetoed a CR passed by a majority in both the House and Senate, one could argue that it was an instance of "minority rule."

And if the Senate had caved and passed one of the CRs that passed the House (with a majority) and President Obama had (correctly in my view) vetoed it, it would be another example of "minority rule."

[Rex]

116. So your argument is going to be right no matter what anyone says.

nt.

[BKH70041]

42. Cut It Out!

You're placing obstacles between members and their totalitarian fantasies.

"In my hand I hold a list..."

[oldhippie]

47. ^^ Best Comment Yet! ^^ nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

48. Relax,

no one in charge is going to charge you or the OP's party with sedition.

It's just some people venting about your party's behavior.

Tell them to pass a clean CR and raise the debt ceiling.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. You are using logic

and that just falls so short with some folk.

[ecstatic]

56. Defaulting and shutdowns shouldn't be an option for ANY party

I'm not sure that anything can be done, but it would be nice if causing irreparable harm to the nation's economy or its citizens were considered a crime. Bush would be considered guilty under that model as well.

There are people who won't be able to pay their rent/mortgage this month because of these assholes!

[onenote]

94. Then the Constitution should be amended to change how the government is funded

so that it doesn't require both Houses of Congress to pass a law appropriating the money and the next time the debt ceiling is raised, Congress should give the President authority to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional authorization.

[GeorgeGist]

117. NDAA has a provision for dealing with enemy combatants ...

as defined by the President.

[Ranchemp.]

123. Are you suggesting the president declare the GOP as enemy combatants

and have them arrested?

[dairydog91]

130. Hey, it's not dictatorship if YOU support him!