Posted on 09/23/2013 11:16:53 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
No, the house must reject whatever the senate sends back to them and then send a new “clean” CR funding the entire government, except with ZERO funds for the departments charged with implementing Obamacare. And I believe that would be maily HHS and IRS. The senate will object, then they can negotiate the proper funding levels for those departments again, with zero funding for obamacare being approriated.
Absolutely agreed. I'm not asserting otherwise. The House doesn't have to vote to fund Obamacare. If they want to deny funds, as is totally and completely within their power under the Constitution, then they must vote to defund it. That is the point of the article.
The main elements of Obamacare (insurance exchanges, subsidies, and the individual mandate) will be funded even during a shutdown through mandatory funding that was provided for in the ACA and through multi-year and no-year discretionary funds.
Social Security and Medicare are continually funded in the same manner. A prior Congress provided for mandatory funding within the original legislation. To stop funding those programs, the House would have to vote to defund them.
” I know no method to secure the repeal oof bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.” Ulysses Grant
"Congress also may, and does, adjust, suspend, or repeal various provisions of law through appropriations acts. United States v. Dickerson (1940); Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992); United States v. Bean (2002). The Supreme Court has insisted, however, that Congress must clearly articulate its purposes when it uses the appropriations process to adjust, suspend, or repeal other provisions of law. United States v. Will (1980). Nevertheless, Congress has "wide discretion...in prescribing details of expenditures," Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (1937), and indeed has a long and consistent practice of setting conditions on the expenditure of appropriations. One particularly noteworthy example was the Boland Amendments of the 1980s, which limited the use of appropriated funds by any agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities to support the Nicaraguan insurgency against the Sandinista regime."
Scroll down a ways: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/67/appropriations-clause
Bingo! That's what the House JUST DID - last week - w/0Care! They could also vote to Defund welfare, SS, etc., but the MAJORITY of Americans don't want those programs completely defunded! The MAJORITY of Americans DO want 0care DEFUNDED, so the House followed the will of The People.
The House holds the purse strings...for ALL *programs*...and authorizes funding, each year.
See my later post. The congress most definitely may adjust, suspend or repeal various provisions of law passed through prior acts. See Federalist 58.
The current house has final control over funding or the denial of funding of the current government.
Yes, the House should reject anything from the Senate that doesn't match what the House just passed - which explicitly defunds Obamacare. If the Senate chooses a government shutdown, so be it. We'll starve the big-government beast until the Democrats vote to defund Obamacare. During the shutdown, however, the Democrats will continue implementing Obamacare as outlined in the CRS report. I'm not supporting that or saying it's legal. I'm saying that's what they'll do.
The congress most definitely may adjust, suspend or repeal various provisions of law passed through prior acts.
Absolutely, 100% agreed. The point of the article is that Congress must take affirmative action (i.e. vote) to "adjust, suspend, or repeal" those various provisions.
Therefore, if Congress doesn't pass legislation that explicitly adjusts, suspends, or repeals Obamacare funding, then it stays funded by means of prior provisions - because they remain in effect.
Ok, and that’s what I said above. The house should reject whatever the senate sends back and pass a new bill funding all but obamacare. There, it’s explicitly defunded. If Obama and Reid wish to cut their own throats by shutting down the goverment, go for it. We’ll have a Republican house and senate in 2014, plus the presidency in 2016. The vast majority of the American people are not stupid. Just the ones voting for socialism/fascism.
The House holds the purse strings...for ALL *programs*...and authorizes funding, each year.
No, not for all programs. Some programs are continually funded through multi-year/no-year discretionary funds and/or mandatory funding provided within prior legislation.
If the House does not take explicit action to adjust, suspend, or repeal prior funding for those special programs, then that funding remains in effect. The House does not vote every year to continue funding Social Security and Medicare. Those programs have funding unless and until the House says they don't have funding anymore. That's how it works.
Amen!
I’ll read it later when I get back to my desk. I’m on tablet now and it doesn’t load, but I still say the house has final word on spending, despite any prior congressional act, per the constitution.
Is that multi-year thing in the constitution or just a gentlemen’s agreement?
So, in other words, they’re knowingly lying to the American people when they say social security checks won’t go out and our soldiers won’t be paid?
Why, the dirty, rotten basturds.
Military salaries are included in the annual defense appropriations and, I think, require a CR. Let me check for sure and get back to you.
I kind of remember the demoncrats trying to defund the Vietnam war via the house denying funds. Or was it a later war? A bit fuzzy on that.
According to my research, the Constitution doesn’t stipulate how Congress must exercise the power of the purse. So the process itself would be up to Congress.
Here’s a brief analysis and flow chart.
http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/federal-budget-process/
Yes, Congress did cut funding for the Vietnam War, which some historians say resulted in the fall of Saigon. I was five, so I don’t know.
From what I can tell, military salaries are indeed appropriated annually in the Defense Budget. So when Congress doesn’t pass an annual budget, which they are legally obligated to do and as the Democrats have failed to do since 2009, Congress must resort to Continuing Resolutions to fund the government.
That’s why we ended up with the infamous Sequester. Democrats wouldn’t propose or pass a budget.
Which obviously means, the house still has the constitutional power of the purse and the power to adjust, suspend or repeal prior provisions of law enacted previously via so-called future appropriatons bills. The congress of 2011/2012 cannot bind the spending in fiscal years 2014 and beyond.
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.