Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question for those callling the shutdown an act of sedition [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)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.
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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
143 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Actually, conspiring to have the country go into default by not allowing a vote might be a violation
lostincalifornia
Oct 2013
#3
As contemptable as Republicans are, they are using the rules to hold the government hostage.
randome
Oct 2013
#5
Actually allowing the country to default is a violation of the 14th amendment, and I will guarantee
lostincalifornia
Oct 2013
#8
actually if you don't raise the debt limit for money spent, it means you are in default on your debt
lostincalifornia
Oct 2013
#55
The money is already spent. Raising the debt limit is a formality, but a necessary one
lostincalifornia
Oct 2013
#64
The shutdown is the budget, not the debt ceiling. It is a different issue
lostincalifornia
Oct 2013
#68
What? Where do you guys get this stuff? The debt is the cumulative deficits of all budgets.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#69
The offical postion of the Exectuive Branch (Obama) is that they do not authority under the 14th
Agnosticsherbet
Oct 2013
#16
Where in the world did you come up with the idea I think the House should get its way?
onenote
Oct 2013
#122
You keep saying that the Senate passed a bill that had been passed by the House. That's not true.
onenote
Oct 2013
#125
"You are correct that when the two houses pass different versions of the same bill..."
ProSense
Oct 2013
#136
When you advocate having the constitutional process subverted by force of arms
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#10
I'm sorry, but shutting down the government because they don't like Obamacare
Downtown Hound
Oct 2013
#25
So accept votes for stop-gap bills. VIOLA! You aren't holding out for politics, are you?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#30
No, you only care about now because you practice totalitarian political thuggery.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#100
Oh and, my idea may not sound progressive (not that I really give a shit)
Downtown Hound
Oct 2013
#77
I'm not the one ruining the United States of America so people can't get
Downtown Hound
Oct 2013
#91
You want to destroy everything about America: free speech, right to dissent, political process
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2013
#102
It's not the first time. In fact, I've always thought we agreed far more than we disagreed.
onenote
Oct 2013
#62
You ask what the penalty should be, censure for refusing to allow the house to vote. /nt
lostincalifornia
Oct 2013
#9
Even if they fold and raise that debt limit, the government will remain shut down.
Agnosticsherbet
Oct 2013
#20