Article

2011-03-06 Home Front: Politix

Obamacare bill includes $105B of self-funding for next five years

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2011-03-06 00:21|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 The planned usurption of congressional authoriity would indicate the Obama administration had at least some doubt about the future Democratic congressional makeup even while writing the bill.

Posted by Besoeker 2011-03-06 01:25|| 2011-03-06 01:25|| Front Page Top

#2 After the experience with Cromwell, the former Englishmen known as the Founding Fathers made sure that written into the Constitution were specific limitations on the time that the Army could be funded.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Guess its time for another amendment to cover all departments.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-06 09:09|| 2011-03-06 09:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Maybe someone in congress should have read it.

Posted by Skidmark 2011-03-06 09:12|| 2011-03-06 09:12|| Front Page Top

#4 Whats written in there is not something that is illegal, in the arrest people sense. That would send a crazy precedent that nobody would want to see followed through. It might be unconstitutional however, and the way to remove it is to have it struck down as so by the Supreme Court.

Posted by rjschwarz 2011-03-06 09:30|| 2011-03-06 09:30|| Front Page Top

#5 This isn't illegal or even unconstitutional. Congress has the right to appropriate funds and allocate them to programs and departments. That is part of its job.

However, what this shows is that Team Bambi and friends knew this turd wouldn't fly long out of the gates and put funding in so it would be implemented no matter what. I suspected they knew that defunding calls would be made and they funded it as law as it was heading out the gate. You will get Obamacare whether you like it or not and Team Bambi are hoping this becomes too entrenched to be moved after several years of court fights.

Really the only way to get rid of Obamacare is to have the supreme court nullify the whole thing.

Oh, and be sure to thank Snowe and the rest of the RHINOs that allowed this to be made into law come 2012. Send those fuckers to the unemployment line.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-03-06 10:57|| 2011-03-06 10:57|| Front Page Top

#6 What we need is a constitutional amendment that sunsets all laws, regulations and budgetary items after 4 years (50%+1 majority) or 6 years (60% supermajority) or 8 years (2/3 +1 majority) Both houses.

Posted by OldSpook 2011-03-06 11:03|| 2011-03-06 11:03|| Front Page Top

#7 I like that idea, OS.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-03-06 13:04|| 2011-03-06 13:04|| Front Page Top

#8 A poison pill in the bill?

I thought that was a Capitalist concept?

Posted by Bobby 2011-03-06 14:45|| 2011-03-06 14:45|| Front Page Top

#9 a Congress cannot force obligations and spending on future Congresses. This is nonsense. Overturn this crap-on-a-stick and send Sebelius packing

Posted by Frank G 2011-03-06 15:05|| 2011-03-06 15:05|| Front Page Top

#10 This isn't illegal or even unconstitutional. Congress has the right to appropriate funds and allocate them to programs and departments. That is part of its job.

Last I checked, there are constitutional checks on Congress budgeting more than two years or so at a time.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-03-06 15:16|| 2011-03-06 15:16|| Front Page Top

#11 I suspect you're thinking of Art 1, Sec 7 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Now if no congress might commit a future congress, as no parliament may commit a future parliament, this limitation would be unnecessary. But as the government, through the Senate, is continuous in operation, it may make commitments beyond the term of the current congress. So legislation may be passed that does make commitments beyond the current congress. But there is nothing to preclude future congresses from reneging on those commitments legislatively. There may be consequences that disincent congress from doing so.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 15:54|| 2011-03-06 15:54|| Front Page Top

#12 But as the government, through the Senate, is continuous in operation, it may make commitments beyond the term of the current congress

I'd have to politely disagree on part of that. The Senators have terms of 6 yrs, but each Congress is reconstituted every two years, and spending commitments cannot be enforced past the terms of each Congress.

Posted by Frank G 2011-03-06 16:32|| 2011-03-06 16:32|| Front Page Top

#13 If that is the case, why was Art 1, Sec 7 necessary?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 16:40|| 2011-03-06 16:40|| Front Page Top

#14 they anticipated Pelosi, Reid, and Obama 225 yrs ago?

Posted by Frank G 2011-03-06 17:19|| 2011-03-06 17:19|| Front Page Top

#15 Maybe they had some world-class a-holes and morons back then?

Posted by gorb 2011-03-06 18:10|| 2011-03-06 18:10|| Front Page Top

#16 George III, Lord Bute and Lord North come to mind.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 20:43|| 2011-03-06 20:43|| Front Page Top

#17 Man doesn't change. The FF were brilliant.

Defend HHS by that amount + some..........

Posted by anonymous2u 2011-03-06 22:18|| 2011-03-06 22:18|| Front Page Top

23:56 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:41 Bill Clinton
23:40 Bill Clinton
23:38 Bill Clinton
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:04 Nimble Spemble
22:46 Hupose Barnsmell6744
22:25 Herman Clineck6144
22:18 anonymous2u
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:05 JT
21:50 phil_b
21:29 Frank G
21:28 Frank G
21:25 Skidmark
20:56 CrazyFool
20:52 CrazyFool
20:50 Procopius2k
20:48 CrazyFool
20:43 Nimble Spemble