They wrote at length about the need to shackle the federal government's power with the understanding that the Constitution must necessarily increase the federal government's power. The very weak federal government set forth in the Articles of Confederation simply did not work; the federal government had insufficient power to forge a republic, and a confederacy could not defend itself and its interests. Thus the purpose of the Constitution was to produce a stronger federal government, but also one whose power was sufficiently restrained to avoid tyranny.How can you say that with a straight face when they wrote at length about it?
They wrote at length about the need to shackle the federal government's power with the understanding that the Constitution must necessarily increase the federal government's power. The very weak federal government set forth in the Articles of Confederation simply did not work; the federal government had insufficient power to forge a republic, and a confederacy could not defend itself and its interests. Thus the purpose of the Constitution was to produce a stronger federal government, but also one whose power was sufficiently restrained to avoid tyranny.
It's perfectly valid to say that the Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government, but only with the understanding that the power of the federal government was being drastically increased over the existing Articles of Confederation. It's even more valid to say that the Constitution's purpose is to increase the power of the federal government because even with all the limitations imposed, both the driving force and the ultimate result were the increase that power.
As long as NASA stays closed, I'm all for this gov't shutdown deal.
No, it did not.
The House had a bill HR3590 which they gutted and replaced entirely with the already passed Senate bill. They had to go through this BS because the Dems lost 60 votes in the Senate and the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that Obamacare could not be passed under the Budget Reconcilliation Process.
Using this method the Senate did not need to re-vote on Obamacare. It's as clear as h3ll that the Senate passed it first. I.e., the bill originated in the Senate.
The House didn't like the Senate bill but were forced to pass it anyway. They rectified that by shortly afterward passing their bill to amend the Senate bill. In this way the senate could then get it through under Reconciliation thus avoiding the necessity of 60 votes.
It's funny watching you guys defend this crooked process but simultaneously scream about the Repubs in House merely exercise their constitutional role (originate taxing/spending bills) in the current hoo-haa about Obamacare.
Edit: Maybe you should contact wiki and tell them they have it all wrong too.
Fern
The House had a bill HR3590 which they gutted and replaced entirely with the already passed Senate bill.
And, uhh, so what? I doubt that the ACA is the only example of such. It's entirely acceptable for the Senate to alter a bill, *to any extent*, then send it back to the House for passage & alterations. The fact that the House accepted it as a modification of their own bill tells us so.
Righties are grasping at straws in their efforts to paint the ACA as unconstitutional. But, hey, when it's all you've got, it's all you've got.
Fern doesn't actually understand how a bill becomes a law. What is sad is that despite being repeatedly shown the exact legislative history of this law he still clings to something he heard on talk radio.
This explains conservatives in America perfectly. Ideology over reality.
Look guy, I've tried to be nice to you about this twice now. I'm through indulging your stupidity.
It does not matter if the senate takes every last word out of a house bill in an amendment and replaces it with their own language, it is an amended house bill. Funny that you mention the wiki article, which not only clearly states that it was a house bill, but lists the person introducing it as Charlie Rangel, a house member. (You will have to tell me how he got permission to introduce senate bills).
While HR3590 was not the house's health care bill, it was a revenue bill introduced by the house, which is all that matters. Its legislative history is exactly as I mentioned before.
I love how you accuse SCOTUS of being wrong, then when I correct you you accuse me of being wrong, all because you heard something on talk radio.
Shut up about things you do not understand.
Thank goodness that Republican Congress critters just happened to come by at just the right time.
Too bad those same Republican Congress critters laid off over 200,000 veterans today. :\
It's kinda like Jimmy Kimmel & the bit about Obamacare vs the Affordable Care Act...
I'd say that's an excellent way to describe it.Probably more accurate to say that, because they found the need to increase the size and power of the federal government they tried to add as many checks and balances as possible to limit it as much as they could.
I'd say it's entirely unacceptable for the Senate to alter a House bill by replacing it with a totally unrelated Senate bill to blatantly get around a Constitutional prohibition. It's akin to implementing a constitutionally prohibited income tax by calling it a right-to-work tax, or implementing an official state religion by replacing the state flower with Catholicism. However that needs to be adjudicated on a minor bill, not a major bill.And, uhh, so what? I doubt that the ACA is the only example of such. It's entirely acceptable for the Senate to alter a bill, *to any extent*, then send it back to the House for passage & alterations. The fact that the House accepted it as a modification of their own bill tells us so.
Righties are grasping at straws in their efforts to paint the ACA as unconstitutional. But, hey, when it's all you've got, it's all you've got.
And, uhh, so what? I doubt that the ACA is the only example of such. It's entirely acceptable for the Senate to alter a bill, *to any extent*, then send it back to the House for passage & alterations. The fact that the House accepted it as a modification of their own bill tells us so.
Righties are grasping at straws in their efforts to paint the ACA as unconstitutional. But, hey, when it's all you've got, it's all you've got.
See the bolded part. You've got it backwards, completely.
It was the House that took the Senate's bill.
That the Senate had passed the bill FIRST - BEFORE THE HOUSE - should inform as to where the bill originated.
And you're clearly not reading (or not understanding) the info I've quoted.
Fern
Legislative history
1. Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
2. Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
3. Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
4. House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
5. Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
It isn't about what is legally true, it is about what they emotionally want to be true. It is the same reason Fern stuck to the birther nonsense long after it was discredited.
See the bolded part. You've got it backwards, completely.
It was the House that took the Senate's bill.
That the Senate had passed the bill FIRST - BEFORE THE HOUSE - should inform as to where the bill originated.
And you're clearly not reading (or not understanding) the info I've quoted.
Fern
-snip-
I'd say it's entirely unacceptable for the Senate to alter a House bill by replacing it with a totally unrelated Senate bill to blatantly get around a Constitutional prohibition. It's akin to implementing a constitutionally prohibited income tax by calling it a right-to-work tax, or implementing an official state religion by replacing the state flower with Catholicism. However that needs to be adjudicated on a minor bill, not a major bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_ActWith Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate's bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, instead. Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill.[108] However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill.[104] With that option off the table, as any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.
You are a liar. I'm straight up calling you out.
You show where I followed the birther position, which is that the BC was forged or I'm reporting this post. It's against rules to knowingly post false info etc.
Fern
No. The house passed it first, then the senate amended it, then the house accepted the senate's amendments.
There is no arguing this, it is incontrovertible fact. You just don't understand how a bill becomes a law.
It is fucking HOUSE RESOLUTION3590. What do you not understand about this?
I didn't blame you for not understanding the first two times, but this is getting stupid. Your own wiki article clearly references where the bill originated. Govtrack has it's legislative history, etc etc.
The fact that you believe talk radio over these unarguable facts explains a lot. You were lied to, you swallowed it. Accept it and move on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_ActWith Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate's bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, instead. Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill.[108] However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill.[104] With that option off the table, as any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.
Look, somebody else has it backwards.
The Senate didn't alter a House bill. The Senate passed it (originated it) then the House took the Senate bill and slapped their label on it and passed it.
It's been adequately explained above in the quote from wiki.
Fern
Alright, everybody's getting this backward so I'll repost the info:
Please read it people.
Fern