cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Good to see you folks back in the hyperventilation mode


@kraft-t wrote:

The presidents job is to run the givernment. If congress attempts to stymie that effort he has no choice.

 

No one should expect the president to beheld hostage by anyone. BTW congress spent the money and they have a responsibility to generate the revenues to pay for it.


The President's jobs is the protection of the Constitution.

Husker-J
Senior Contributor

Re: Good to see you folks back in the hyperventilation mode

How will they get the funds elsewhere?

The Constitution clearly states that ALL spending bills, must originate in the House or Representatives.


Unless you are going to ignore the Constitution, the House has the power to cut funding to anything they want.

Of course, they will have to answer to it, with full elections every 2 years.

Husker-J
Senior Contributor

Re: Good to see you folks back in the hyperventilation mode

Did you spell it 'GIVErment' on purpose?

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Good to see you folks back in the hyperventilation mode

Nope fat fingers!

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Good to see you folks back in the hyperventilation mode

Does that mean he stands in the library of congress with an AK 47 protecting the constitution or does he have some executive managment duties as well.

Husker-J
Senior Contributor

Re: Good Stuff from a blog I found...this one on repealing Obamacare

The problem I have with defunding it, is the same one that I have with Obama picking and choosing what parts of the bill he wants to enforce, and not enforce.  
As much as I don't like to say it, Obamacare is a law, that passed Congress, and was signed in by the President.  It was challenged in court, and found to be Constitutional.   They are duty bound, to follow the law.

 

Now, if I was a GOP Congressman, instead of fighting a losing battle, I'd be on the ariwaves every chance I could, and in every debate where Obamacare comes up, and DEMAND that the President follow the law.   The law was written, passed, and even made it through the Supreme court (I know, what was promised as not being a tax, was contorted into one, but that ship already sailed).   Either the President needs his feet to the fire, for not adhering to the law he championed (as well as some in Congress for wanting special exemptions, as well).

 

The law needs to be OBEYED, CHANGED or REPEALED.  Those are our choices, under an honest rule of law.   However, the words 'honest' and 'rule of law' don't seem to apply in Washington.