Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Constitutionally Fund the Government: It’s the House’s prerogative to supply funds, or not...
National Review Online ^ | September 28, 2013 | Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted on 09/28/2013 1:37:44 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

1 posted on 09/28/2013 1:37:44 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; onyx; trisham; TheOldLady; DJ MacWoW; RedMDer; musicman; Lady Jag; Alamo-Girl; bd476; ...

Constitutionally defund it ping!


2 posted on 09/28/2013 1:47:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I don’t think Cruz and Lee took Republican leaders seriously. I think they knew all about them and what they would do.


3 posted on 09/28/2013 1:53:09 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They should selectively fund the government — cutting funds from the most eggregiously liberal programs.


4 posted on 09/28/2013 1:53:52 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Great article!


5 posted on 09/28/2013 1:58:19 PM PDT by Warriormom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I sent the speaker this today via his email

In September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced H.R. 3590, titled the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 modifying the first-time homebuyers’ credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and John Boehner was the minority leader when this bill passed on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote. This bill went to the Senate where Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted H.R. 3590, deleted all the contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with what became the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” of November 19, 2009.

Article I, Section 7, which states that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” The key idea is that the Supreme Court recently upheld the individual mandate as a tax; so it is a bill for raising revenue. That means that the Affordable Care Act must have begun in the House of Representatives. And it did not.” Therefore the Senate is in violation of the Constitution by funding something the house cut.

Ignore Reid tell him to read Article I, Section 7 and the SCOTUS decision [see above] and send the bill to the president and tell him as a constitutional scholar he has to sign or veto. Call his “redline bluff” because you’re just following the oath everybody took.


6 posted on 09/28/2013 2:03:05 PM PDT by alphadog (2nd Bn. 3rd Marines, Vietnam, class of 68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Jim Robinson
Constitutionally defund it!

Amen to that!

Another great article by someone who knows how the government is "supposed" to be funded.

7 posted on 09/28/2013 2:03:20 PM PDT by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thank you Andrew for taking alot of posters here on FR to school.DEFUND IT AND KILL IT. Stop the stupid political games.


8 posted on 09/28/2013 2:06:06 PM PDT by DeWalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This sounds like it should be a good argument before the United States Supreme Court!


9 posted on 09/28/2013 2:09:28 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (Learn three chords and you, too, can be a Rock Star!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise

The Supreme Joke had it’s chance and ran away from it. That’s why they called it a tax. They weren’t up to the task of facing all the constitutional issues this monstrosity posed, so they kicked the can down the road. Cowards!


10 posted on 09/28/2013 2:14:28 PM PDT by DeWalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We need to defund or get rid of it; not delay it.


11 posted on 09/28/2013 2:15:21 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Congress should defund any and every program in the federal government. Who says that we should still have to slave under some ridiculous scheme conceived by a bunch of shysters that are all dead and buried? This practice that once a program is enacted its a permanent responsibility of future generations is absolutely despotic. In fact we should amend the Constitution so that every program should have to be reenacted every two years similar to Article I, Section 8, Clause 12.


12 posted on 09/28/2013 2:15:42 PM PDT by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Our framers came fairly close to grafting the British Parliamentary model onto the Constitution, in which the House of Commons alone determined spending.

To provide better protection from wild spending, concurrence of the senate and president were added.

Oh well.


13 posted on 09/28/2013 2:17:56 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Correct. The author is incorrect if he thinks Cruz and Lee ever took that bunch seriously. But, they have to “wave the dead chicken,” as it were, to prove to people watching the GOPe leaders are not serious about shrinking Big Government. Sometimes we have a good reason to follow what seems to be a futile course, not related to reaching the goal.


14 posted on 09/28/2013 2:19:14 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

They probably thought we weren’t stupid enough to go the party system.


15 posted on 09/28/2013 2:20:50 PM PDT by DeWalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The Senate and President were not supposed to be directly elected by “the people” either. The state legislatures got the shaft, but they have only themselves to blame because they ratified the 17th Amendment.


16 posted on 09/28/2013 2:23:17 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Constitution expressly provides (in Article I, Section 7): “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

And yet ObamaCare originated in the Senate.

17 posted on 09/28/2013 2:27:41 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Constitution expressly provides (in Article I, Section 7): “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This Origination Clause applies to all spending legislation. As the clause elaborates, when the subject at issue involves spending public money, the Senate “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills”; but it may not instigate spending. The Senate can tinker within the spending limits set by the House, but it must live within those limits. The continuing resolution to fund the government, which is the legislation at issue in the current controversy, is no exception. The Senate is not permitted to originate spending, as Majority Leader Harry Reid did on Friday, with the indulgence of Senate Republicans — who voted against his appropriation of Obamacare funds but did not challenge the validity of it.

The bold point (which is central to this part of the author's point) is a strained reading of Article I. The Constitution says (as the author quotes) that all "bills for raising revenue" must originate in the House, and that the Senate may concur or propose amendments. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate's amendments cannot include additional appropriations - all the Constitution says is that the bill itself must originate in the House.

18 posted on 09/28/2013 2:28:52 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeWalt
I don't profess to understand the Brit system very well, but having a king who is independent of party affiliation, who truly represents the long term interests of his kingdom, can be argued as a net plus.

Obama will blow up our republic, hopefully leave in 2017, and retire into a fantasy land of unearned wealth.

19 posted on 09/28/2013 2:33:51 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If the House wanted to it could fund it down to the specific toothbrush level. Iow They can fund what they want and not fund what they don’t want. Sadly the “What they want” has been the problem over the last few decades. Time to say ,”Goodbye” to the free spenders and anti-constitutionals.


20 posted on 09/28/2013 2:34:45 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson