General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question for those callling the shutdown an act of sedition [View all]onenote
(42,603 posts)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heartily support including a non-funding provision in a CR if it was a way to get a good policy enacted or a bad policy repealed.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.