This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This clause could be a source of leverage for the President in the debt ceiling fight. Suppose Harry Reid says that the Senate will adjourn tomorrow unless the House passes a debt ceiling extension with funding for the Affordable Care Act. The House refuses to do this or to adjourn. The President can then "adjourn them to such time as he thinks proper." Why could he not say that "such time" is when the House Republicans agree to do what he wants? 'Till then, no Congress. And it's very unlikely that any court would get involved.


And Congress stays in session anyway which makes the President’s attempt to force Congress to adjourn when it doesn't want to as empty and toothless as the “red line” he drew on Syria.




 

Aside from guaranteeing a government shutdown and default, (The House needn't do anything for them to happen. Literally, nothing.) I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.

The Constitution was designed, consciously, to set up a system of legislative supremacy. Short of going full dictator and illegally ordering the members of Congress arrested, the President has very little real leverage over the legislature. I doubt Obama can turn a tie breaking provision into a lever big enough to force the House to enact legislation on his terms.

Thanks, though, for admitting that the point of contention is not whether the debt ceiling will be increased, but whether it will be increased with all the spending Democrats want.

 

All the spending on the Affordable Care Act, you mean.
 

Ack. This reminds me too much of English monarchs dismissing Parliament to get their way for my tastes.
 

The power to prorogue (as it is called, perhaps not altogether accurately) Congress has never been used before. (You also quoted the power to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions, which has).

I would think the first step in invoking this power would be that the Senate would have to pass an adjournment resolution. I doubt that Harry Reid’s announcement would suffice. Then I would think that the House would have to be given an opportunity to agree or disagree with the resolution. Then I would think the Senate would have to formally ask the President to exercise his power.

I also think that the President would have to adjourn the Congress to a date certain, not to “whenever you agree to what I want.” And I seriously doubt that the date could be later than January 3, 2014, when the 20th Amendment requires the Congress to meet.

Assuming for a second that this actually worked, and the House adjourned in accordance with the President’s demand, it is hard to see how this would advance the President’s goals in any way. Indeed, it would seem that this would be exactly what House conservatives would want because it would prevent Congress from either raising the debt ceiling or funding Obamacare.

But I seriously doubt that the House actually would adjourn. It is far more likely that it would stay in session and denounce Obama for attempting to set aside representative government and rule as a king. Which, of course, is exactly what you are proposing that he do.
 

Well, it's not a kingly action to do something that the Constitution expressly says that the President can do. Now the point about a Senate filibuster is valid, though the tradition is for the Majority Leader to have the right to adjourn when he sees fit.

Arguably, the adjournment provision in Article II, Section III is one of those poorly thought out provisions that Sandy is complaining about.
 

"All the spending on the Affordable Care Act, you mean"

Point: All the spending only some Democrats want.

Here's what happened in a nutshell: You, just barely, got the first draft of Obamacare through the House. An election then guaranteed you'd never repeat the feat. Rather than admitting that the public didn't want what you were planning, you then passed in the Senate the original draft, buggy as hell even by your standards, version, to avoid it being shot down in the House. Did this thinking eventually people would start to like it.

People never did, and it's actually getting LESS popular as it kicks in. So unpopular that, should you ever return to the subject, the predictable outcome would be the whole mess being repealed. To avoid this, you've decided to let the train wreck happen, instead.

The House, the popularly elected branch, is responding to popular opinion by doing what it can to bring the mess to a stop before it can get any worse. They can't repeal it by themselves, but since all spending has to originate in the House, they can defund it.

And Democrats, determined to force this abomination down everyones's throats, (Not everyone, you've spared the bureaucracy by fiat, now.) are threatening a constitutional crisis rather than allow a debt ceiling increase that doesn't keep the unpopular mess in place.

You're not only playing chicken, you're playing chicken to perpetuate an increasingly unpopular program. At this point the destructive effects are getting so bloody obvious that I can only conclude that destroying the health care finance system in the US is the whole point of the exercise.

Like burning down the home because your spouse won't let you remodel, you're going to destroy the system that finances most people's health care, so that they'll have no choice but to let you impose a new system on them. And THIS is what you're willing to destroy the Federal government's credit rating over.

Even by the standards of politics, this is sociopathy. Even with most of the US media so deep in the tank for you they're dying of nitrogen narcosis, I doubt you can spin this positively unless you can get some RINOs to take a dive for you.

I'd rather we had the crash, frankly, and got this fight over.
 

Brett: "Here's what happened in a nutshell: You, just barely, got the first draft of Obamacare through the House. An election then guaranteed you'd never repeat the feat. Rather than admitting that the public didn't want what you were planning, you then passed in the Senate the original draft, buggy as hell even by your standards, version, to avoid it being shot down in the House. Did this thinking eventually people would start to like it."

Which is stone cold legal.
 

Brett, it's so cute that you think the Dems are going to be blamed for the debt ceiling mess. You need to get ready for a nasty surprise.
 

Well, it's not a kingly action to do something that the Constitution expressly says that the President can do.

Actually it says the President can do so in “extraordinary circumstances” not “whenever he thinks doing so will give him leverage over Congress when they don’t do what he wants.” Which is why I think the House would laugh in his face and continue going on about its normal business.



 

Brett, it's so cute that you think the Dems are going to be blamed for the debt ceiling mess.

Honestly I have no idea who will be “blamed” for the debt ceiling mess but considering that Republicans can truthfully point out that (a) they’re passing bills to fund the government, (b) the President is one saying he refuses to negotiate and (c) the only reason they reached a deal last time around is because his own side kicked Obama out of the room, I think it might help rather than hurt Republicans especially if they can tie it to ObamaCare which is increasingly becoming unpopular.




 

Obamacare does not poll nearly has badly as the GOP attempts to sabotage it.
 

Notice that people like Brett cannot identify anything in the bill itself that they don't like. Does Brett prefer that sick children who got insurance because of ACA be kicked off now? Does he prefer that extremely sick people with insurance lose their coverage when they hit a lifetime cap? Would he like to see young adults who haven't been able to find a job with benefits be kicked off their parents' insurance? Does he want to make sure that someone with a chronic medical condition who loses a job and benefits will be unable ever again to get insurance? Does he want to make sure insurance policies will be as impossible to compare as they have been before the exchanges and minimum standards kick in?

People like Brett rely entirely on lying about what's in the bill. It's sick.
 

Notice that people like Brett cannot identify anything in the bill itself that they don't like. Does Brett prefer that sick children who got insurance because of ACA be kicked off now? Does he prefer that extremely sick people with insurance lose their coverage when they hit a lifetime cap? Would he like to see young adults who haven't been able to find a job with benefits be kicked off their parents' insurance? Does he want to make sure that someone with a chronic medical condition who loses a job and benefits will be unable ever again to get insurance? Does he want to make sure insurance policies will be as impossible to compare as they have been before the exchanges and minimum standards kick in?

People like Brett rely entirely on lying about what's in the bill. It's sick.
 

You know, saying it twice doesn't make it true. To give but one example, how about the FSA contribution limit? That both FSA and HSA can no longer be used for over the counter medicines without a prescription?

I didn't even have to strain my brain to cite a way in which Obamacare has explicitly made my situation worse.
 

Brett with this:

"I'd rather we had the crash, frankly, and got this fight over."

confirms his "anarcho-libertarianism.
 

Brett's:

"I didn't even have to strain my brain to cite a way in which Obamacare has explicitly made my situation worse."

demonstrates his "The Tin Man" complex as he follows "The Yellow Brick Road" back to antebellum years.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Brett with this:

"I'd rather we had the crash, frankly, and got this fight over."

confirms his "anarcho-libertarianism."

Asking me would have confirmed it just as well; It's not like I keep my views on politics a secret.
 

I'm not asking, but it's not like Brett keeps his views on racism a secret either. Rather it's a matter of reminding visitors to this Blog, including "moderate libertarians," that Brett is not like them (or so I think as I don't recall "moderate libertarians" distinguishing themselves from Brett).

 

The fundamental problem for Republicans the Senate will not pass, and Obama will not sign, any law that defunds Obamacare. So it's either pass a law that doesn't, or shut down the government.

What the conservatives in this thread are doing is saying "well, if that happens, Obama will be blamed". I doubt it, but even if he will, the government will remain shut down until the House passes a bill that funds the government and does not defund Obamacare. So tell me, again, the point of passing something that can never become law?
 

@Dilan

Because (a) it’s the right thing to do and (b) it’s only “something that can never become law” until it does become law.
 

You know, saying it twice doesn't make it true. To give but one example, how about the FSA contribution limit? That both FSA and HSA can no longer be used for over the counter medicines without a prescription?

Good example, I’d say another major problem with ACA is that it codifies first dollar coverage and third party payment for routine medical expenses. Health insurance should be like insurance and kick in when you suffer a catastrophic event. It shouldn’t be used as a way to prepay for routine medical care or letting the government mandate what is required to be included as an ‘essential benefit” (based on whoever has the right lobbyists with the Secretary of Health and Human Services) is wrong way to reform health care financing.


I’d prefer an approach like the one that Republicans passed in the House until it was killed in the Senate by Democrats during the Bush administration of allowing people to purchase health insurance across State lines and to buy high deductible policies that covered catastrophic illnesses and major medical instead a prepaying for whatever benefits had the best provider’s lobbyists at their State capitols. That’s the direction we should be going with health care reform – have insurance act as a safety net but have the power and responsibility lie with the consumer.




 

Because (a) it’s the right thing to do and (b) it’s only “something that can never become law” until it does become law.

It can't become law by tapping your shoes together three times and saying "there's no place like home".

You need a scenario where it passes the Senate and Obama signs it. There is none.

If your opponent in bargaining says "go ahead and shoot the hostage, I'm not making the concession", at that point the hostage has no value to you anymore. The Republicans are engaging in wishful thinking.

And while repealing Obamacare may be the right thing to do, shutting down the government over it would not be the right thing to do.
 

Here's the scenario, Dilian: The Democrats decide that destroying our credit rating and having a constitutional crisis isn't worth it to preserve an unpopular law whose provisions they're putting off so they can survive another election cycle. So they pass the bill defunding Obamacare, and the crisis is averted.

The problem with blaming this on the Republicans is that the Republicans' actions only cause some horrible crash if Democrats value getting their way over avoiding a horrible crash.

The Republicans just passed a bill, the Democrats either pass it, too, or the blame is on them.
 

"'m not asking, but it's not like Brett keeps his views on racism a secret either."

That's right: My view is that YOU are the racist. I'm not the one advocating legally mandated racial discrimination here. You are.
 

Here's the scenario, Dilian: The Democrats decide that destroying our credit rating and having a constitutional crisis isn't worth it to preserve an unpopular law whose provisions they're putting off so they can survive another election cycle. So they pass the bill defunding Obamacare, and the crisis is averted.

And how likely is that scenario?

The Republicans just passed a bill, the Democrats either pass it, too, or the blame is on them.

Attempting to blame the Democrats is different from saying they will back down.

Here's my question for you. Let's say the Democrats do not back down. How long will conservatives demand that the government shutdown continue before admitting that they have to fund the government on terms the Democrats agree to?
 

How long do Republicans have to refuse to fund Obamacare before Democrats admit they have to fund the government?

You're trying to set up a default rule that it's Republicans who have to be the ones to give up. I reject that, entirely.

There is a bill before the Democrats that funds the government. It isn't entirely to the Democrats' liking. Big deal. They aren't entitled to get everything their way.

You can't set up a rule where, if there's a crash in a game of chicken, it's automatically the other guy's fault. Or rather, you can, but don't expect me to take it seriously.
 

I am not setting up any default rule. I am simply saying that if I am right about the Democrats' belief that Obamacare will not be defunded, there will only be one result here, sooner or later. And there is good reason to think I am correct.

What you are doing is shifting to "they will look bad" or "they are wrong". But that doesn't matter. So long as they stand firm, this has no other outcome.
 

All the polling indicates that the GOP will be blamed for the shutdown. Apparently lunatics like Brett and Blankshot don't understand how polling works.
 

Based on the polling I've seen, the correct term might be "credit", not "blame". There are an awful lot of people out there who want spending controlled, and the debt to stop increasing, even if some kind of crisis is necessary to accomplish it.

That a lot of people would be pissed off at Republicans for this is somewhat limited in the damage it can cause, if most of them are Democrats, who'd never have voted Republican anyway.
 

I take no position on who will be blamed. The last time, the GOP was. But nobody knows for sure.

And I also take no position on Brett's point that people want lower spending. Getting rid of Obamacare isn't really a spending cut (the law raises some spending and cuts other spending), but if the Republicans shifted and sought spending cuts, they probably could get them.

But they can't defund Obamacare, because the Democrats will not allow them to.
 

Not only do people oppose shutting down the government to stop Obamacare, the numbers are pretty overwhelming. Even Republicans who are not Tea Party morons are opposed to it.

http://www.politico.com/morningmoney/
 

Ah, but they precisely CAN defund Obamacare, because Democrats have no real say in the matter: Spending bills must originate in the House, which is controlled by Republicans. If the House refuses to fund Obamacare, Democrats can scream all they like, but they can not, constitutionally, fund it themselves.

Democrats have the power to refuse to cooperate in funding anything else until Republicans cave, but there is no step Democrats can take by themselves to fund it. Republicans really do have the power to unilaterally defund Obamacare.
 

Actually, everything I have read indicates that Obamacare will still be funded during the government shutdown.
 

Bartbuster is right. Most of Obamacare is the sort of mandatory spending that is exempt from government shutdowns. So the only way the Republicans can defund Obamacare is to get the Senate and Obama to agree. Otherwise, Obamacare continues to get funded and the government gets shut down.
 

The power to prorogue (as it is called, perhaps not altogether accurately) Congress has never been used before. 英雄联盟代练价格 league of legends boosting  Buy Fifa 15 Coins  LOL boosting

 

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
 

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya