Sowell Explains why it is Obama and Reid who are Responsible for the Government Shut

[JimBowie1958]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/994953_655176557836718_1364223825_n.jpg

Best explanation I have seen thus far.

The GOP passed a budget that did not include Obamacare because they want it revised or or eliminated. This is a power the House has always had in our Republic, and every prior Senate and President negotiated to allow the government to reopen.

That is until this wannabe dictator and his ass-kissing Majority Leader in the Senate came along and refused to negotiate at all.

Then Herr Obama punitively shut down every office he could that he thought would hurt the American public, using us as hostages for his political leverage.

Obama is a disgrace to our country and the Presidency.

The Republican Senate was willing to pass ACA (which is needed because a Republican President screwed with the HMO act) if environmental regulations were lifted/reduced and the Keystone pipeline was passed. YES, that is a DISGRACE.

Lol, so a handful of neocon GOP Senators want a pipeline, some environmental regs reduced, and so forth in order to vote for a bill; is that what you think is preventing them from voting for the ACA funding? That is how votes are done on EVERY bill, not just this funding bill. Fighting for room for their cronies at the federal tax payer's cash trough is the normal in DC. That you don't seem to realize that means that you are either a neophyte or a liar.

When the votes come down to the wire in the HOUSE the GOP is trying to reign in the Federal governments self-destructive spending. But then destroying this country has always been on the Democrat agenda.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Right, because you can't actually rebut what I've said.

Again....power of origination does not mean sole determination of all aspects.

Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs.

You haven't offered anything that requires a rebuttal. My statement is an accurate and true statement.

You misinterpret what SCOTUS has ruled on or you're deliberately being stupid.

Twin City National Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897)

The case is not one that requires either an extended examination of precedents, or a full discussion as to the meaning of the words in the constitution, 'bills for raising revenue.' What bills belong to that class is a question of such magnitude and importance that it is the part of wisdom not to attempt, by any general statement, to cover every possible phase of the subject. It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which, in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute, is clearly not a revenue bill which the constitution declares must originate in the house of representatives. ...

Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906) cites Twin City v Nebeker and Justice Story

The first contention of appellant is that the acts of Congress are revenue measures, and therefore should have originated in the House of Representatives, and not in the Senate, and, to sustain the contention, appellant submits an elaborate argument. In answer to the contention the case of Twin City Nat. Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 , 42 L. ed. 134, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 766, need only be cited. It was observed there that it was a part of wisdom not to attempt to cover by a general statement what bills shall be said to be 'bills for raising revenue' within the meaning of those words in the Constitution, but it was said, quoting Mr. Justice Story, 'that the practical construction of the Constitution, and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question, proves that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue.' 1 Story, Const. 880. …
Whatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act.

So how am I misinterpreting them? How are they not saying that the Senate can originate bills that impose taxes?

Those were not " revenue " bills. Do try to keep up.

 

[pinqy]

You haven't offered anything that requires a rebuttal. My statement is an accurate and true statement.

You misinterpret what SCOTUS has ruled on or you're deliberately being stupid.

Twin City National Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897)


Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906) cites Twin City v Nebeker and Justice Story

The first contention of appellant is that the acts of Congress are revenue measures, and therefore should have originated in the House of Representatives, and not in the Senate, and, to sustain the contention, appellant submits an elaborate argument. In answer to the contention the case of Twin City Nat. Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 , 42 L. ed. 134, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 766, need only be cited. It was observed there that it was a part of wisdom not to attempt to cover by a general statement what bills shall be said to be 'bills for raising revenue' within the meaning of those words in the Constitution, but it was said, quoting Mr. Justice Story, 'that the practical construction of the Constitution, and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question, proves that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue.' 1 Story, Const. 880. …
Whatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act.

So how am I misinterpreting them? How are they not saying that the Senate can originate bills that impose taxes?

Those were not " revenue " bills. Do try to keep up.

I didn't say they were, did I? I said "Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs." You claimed I misinterpreted the SCOTUS, but I've shown they did indeed rule as I claimed...the senate can originate taxes for specific programs.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Twin City National Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897)


Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906) cites Twin City v Nebeker and Justice Story

So how am I misinterpreting them? How are they not saying that the Senate can originate bills that impose taxes?

Those were not " revenue " bills. Do try to keep up.

I didn't say they were, did I? I said "Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs." You claimed I misinterpreted the SCOTUS, but I've shown they did indeed rule as I claimed...the senate can originate taxes for specific programs.

And you continue to miss the forest for all the trees.

The House has supremacy in budgetary matters as you have admitted by it having dominant revenue authority.

It is Obama and Reid who are being unreasonable little fascists, not the GOP House.

 

[pinqy]

Those were not " revenue " bills. Do try to keep up.

I didn't say they were, did I? I said "Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs." You claimed I misinterpreted the SCOTUS, but I've shown they did indeed rule as I claimed...the senate can originate taxes for specific programs.

And you continue to miss the forest for all the trees.

The House has supremacy in budgetary matters as you have admitted by it having dominant revenue authority.

Power of origination is not supremacy. Nor is it dominant. The Senate is free to make any changes they want.
They can't start it, but that doesn't mean they have any less say.

It is Obama and Reid who are being unreasonable little fascists, not the GOP House.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the Senate is only supposed to rubber stamp budget bills? It was the tea partiers who insisted on making Obama are a condition for passing the bill.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I didn't say they were, did I? I said "Add on that the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Senate can originate bills that incidentally raise taxes to fund specific programs." You claimed I misinterpreted the SCOTUS, but I've shown they did indeed rule as I claimed...the senate can originate taxes for specific programs.

And you continue to miss the forest for all the trees.

The House has supremacy in budgetary matters as you have admitted by it having dominant revenue authority.

Power of origination is not supremacy. Nor is it dominant. The Senate is free to make any changes they want.
They can't start it, but that doesn't mean they have any less say.

It is Obama and Reid who are being unreasonable little fascists, not the GOP House.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the Senate is only supposed to rubber stamp budget bills? It was the tea partiers who insisted on making Obama are a condition for passing the bill.

Do you actually READ people's posts? I am just wondering, because I never said the Senate cannot negotiate.

My point is that the HOUSE is not holding America hostage, etc, because they are doing EXACTLY what they are SUPPOSED to be doing when they do not like law or programs that are in the budget; that is they DEFUND it as all the previous Democrat controlled houses did.

You leftists are so fucking hypocritical. When Bush is in the WH, it is the HOUSE that is supposed to speak for the people and run the budget and the President is responsible for all the budget over-runs, meanwhile they object to raising the debt ceiling but do so reluctantly.

Then when they have a wannabe dictator like Obama in the QH, since he is a Democrat, EVERYTHING he does is golden to you. He breaks with ALL PRECEDENT and REFUSES to negotiate with the House as EVERY previous President and Senate has done, and you kiss his ass like a bunch of little thralls who cant wait to slobber all over him.

You are not only dishonest, and stupidly dishonest, but you are disgusting, and you are KILLING this country.

But it isn't going to work out like you think it will. It might take ten or twenty years, but the people of this country are going to retake this country from the lobbyists, the corporate whores and the liars in office and we will clean house. Count on it, you little shit.

 

[pinqy]

And you continue to miss the forest for all the trees.

The House has supremacy in budgetary matters as you have admitted by it having dominant revenue authority.

Power of origination is not supremacy. Nor is it dominant. The Senate is free to make any changes they want.
They can't start it, but that doesn't mean they have any less say.

It is Obama and Reid who are being unreasonable little fascists, not the GOP House.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the Senate is only supposed to rubber stamp budget bills? It was the tea partiers who insisted on making Obama are a condition for passing the bill.

Do you actually READ people's posts? I am just wondering, because I never said the Senate cannot negotiate.

You certainly implied it with claims of "supremacy" and "dominance" implying the Senate has a lesser say.

My point is that the HOUSE is not holding America hostage, etc, because they are doing EXACTLY what they are SUPPOSED to be doing when they do not like law or programs that are in the budget; that is they DEFUND it as all the previous Democrat controlled houses did.

And the Senate is doing what they're supposed to do when they don't like a provision in a bill, pass a different version and/or add ammendment s.

You leftists are so fucking hypocritical. When Bush is in the WH, it is the HOUSE that is supposed to speak for the people and run the budget and the President is responsible for all the budget over-runs, meanwhile they object to raising the debt ceiling but do so reluctantly.

I'm not a leftist...I voted against Obama twice. And you're not talking about anything I've ever said. Don't shit out what you think I believe, don't generalize like a moron and assume all kinds of things. You respond to me, the you better damn well respond to ME, not some straw man you've erected in your head because you're so blindly partisan you're incapable of any kind of objectivity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Power of origination is not supremacy. Nor is it dominant. The Senate is free to make any changes they want.
They can't start it, but that doesn't mean they have any less say.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the Senate is only supposed to rubber stamp budget bills? It was the tea partiers who insisted on making Obama are a condition for passing the bill.

Do you actually READ people's posts? I am just wondering, because I never said the Senate cannot negotiate.

You certainly implied it with claims of "supremacy" and "dominance" implying the Senate has a lesser say.

My point is that the HOUSE is not holding America hostage, etc, because they are doing EXACTLY what they are SUPPOSED to be doing when they do not like law or programs that are in the budget; that is they DEFUND it as all the previous Democrat controlled houses did.

And the Senate is doing what they're supposed to do when they don't like a provision in a bill, pass a different version and/or add ammendment s.

You leftists are so fucking hypocritical. When Bush is in the WH, it is the HOUSE that is supposed to speak for the people and run the budget and the President is responsible for all the budget over-runs, meanwhile they object to raising the debt ceiling but do so reluctantly.

I'm not a leftist...I voted against Obama twice. And you're not talking about anything I've ever said. Don't shit out what you think I believe, don't generalize like a moron and assume all kinds of things. You respond to me, the you better damn well respond to ME, not some straw man you've erected in your head because you're so blindly partisan you're incapable of any kind of objectivity.

Lol, you are dense;

1. the House has a superior role in the budget and has thus a supreme role; all taxation must originate in the house except for piddly shit.

2. The GOP is not solely at fault for the government shutdown; Obama has far more blame.

3. The Big Media are lying their asses off telling the American people that its the GOP's fault when it isn't.

But you will act like I didn't respond and repeat your same bullshit, lol.

 

[Kathy58]

"However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters."

Constitutional FAQ Answer #125 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

First, what does the Constitution say? "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" Revenue, not spending. Your own link explains this.
That by custom spending bills also originate in the House does not mean it's a Constitutional requirement.
But in any case, why does origination even matter (except exposing those who don't know what the law actually is) ? Especially in this case where the defunding was an ammendment, not the original bill. Even for revenue bills, the Senate has the right to ammendment or vote on their own version.

"Yeah, and why does the Constitution matter anyway?" - typical liberal statement.

It matter to those of us who are LOYAL to the Republic and its Constitution; don't expect you to understand that or get it.

And your hair splitting on whether something is a spending bill or a revenue bill is not supported by actual practice, hence the origination of Obamacare law, which raises revenue, came from the Senate, not the House and should thus be held to be unconstitutional, by your point of view in and of itself. Except that you apparently don't find any concern over that question anyway.

The House has the supremacy in revenue generation and SPENDING, and all other matters pertaining to the budget. The Senate was originally intended as a means of gaining consent from the states, but liberals fucked that up too.

The EXECUTIVE is supposed to execute the laws passed by Congress, not pick and choose which laws should be enforced or not and not re-interpret the laws into exactly opposite impact on federal regs and conduct.

This President is trying to destroy the power of the House over the budget, a critical power in our federal system, do you understand that or is that just a quibble to you as well?

This President is a fascist in mindset and hostile to our Republican form of government. All good Americans should wake up and stop this wannabe dictator BEFORE he is successful in gathering ALL the levers of power in this country, and the power of the budget is a HUGE one he is trying to steal.

Thank you!! You explained much better than I could.