Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    Here is a letter to the GOP that perhaps they should read.

     

    Dear GOP,

    For a crowd that loves to bray about the Constitution, it seems you have misplaced your copy. How else to explain your bizarre efforts to destroy the world unless you get your way?

    I'm just a bill on capitol hill -- Schoolhouse rock (VERTICAL) You don't like the Affordable Care Act. You've made it obvious. But it was passed the correct way, in a Congress that generally doesn't pass sh*t. It made it through the House, and it made it through the Senate. It wasn't passed in the "dead of night", nor was it "rammed down" anyone's throat like you jokers like to claim. It passed only after an excruciating 14-months of debate and negotiations. But all your hysterical shrieking about death panels and communism couldn't stop it. Finally, the president signed it into law.

    Us liberals weren't thrilled when it passed. Just relieved. We didn't get anything near what we wanted. After all, we're not in the business of fighting for Heritage Foundation-created ideas championed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and first adopted by Republican governors (the guy you nominated, in fact!). If we couldn't get single payer, we at least wanted a public option—an expansion of Medicare for all. But alas, we went to D.C. with the Congress we had, not the one we wanted. And really, given the dysfunction in D.C., it's amazing we got anything at all.

    So now that the law is about to be fully implemented, you're still not happy. You're still shrieking about death panels and communism, and even the death of freedom! Yeah, yeah, we get it. The 42 (or whatever) votes in the House to repeal Obamacare have made it very clear.

    But here's the thing: If you want to truly get rid of the law, you have to do it the proper way, as specified in that Constitution you pretend to cherish. Those House votes? Those are a good start! Great job! You're a third of the way there. Because you still have to get that bill passed by the Senate. And then, you have to get the president to sign it. And if the president doesn't sign it, then you have to overturn that veto which requires a two-thirds majority, which you don't have even in the House.

    So what are your options? Certainly not shut down the government and threaten a national default on our debt. That's not in that Constitution (seriously, read it!). Your options are to win some elections. Hold that ill-gotten gerrymandered-fueled majority in the House. Get a simple majority in the Senate and then get rid of the filibuster. Seriously, get rid of it. I won't complain. Then win the presidency. You'll have a better shot at that if you don't nominate Ted Cruz, and you might want to broaden your appeal by being less of a bunch of a**holes. But really do what you must. I'm not in the habit of giving you guys advice. Just anvils.

    What I do want to do is remind you that there's a right way to get rid of laws, and the undemocratic, extra-constitutional way you are trying to do it now.

    If you really truly believe that America is behind you, then you're golden. 2014 and 2016 will bear that out and you'll have all the governmental control you'll need to repeal to your heart's content. So put your trust on that American public you so fervently believe is behind you and let the chips fall where they may.

    Hugs and kisses, kos

     

     

     

     

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/01/1242925/-Dear-GOP-here-s-how-you-change-a-law?detail=email

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    Obamacare was jammed down our throats through the reconciliation process....now THAT's how you make a law that effects every man woman and child and business in America!!!!!!!!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    Ironic how we are lectured to about "changing a law".

    Here is how Obama changes a law: he issues an EDICT like a banana republic dictator!

    Where did Obama get his authority to delay for one year the employer mandate, in the ObamaCare law passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

    The President has no such authority.

    There was even some Democratic skepticism about whether the administration’s move is justified. “This was the law. How can they change the law?” asked Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

    Former Tenth Circuit Appeals Court judge Michael McConnell noted that,  according to a 1990 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the president “does not have the right to refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons,” McConnell writes that the health law has no provision allowing the administration to suspend the employer mandate. He points to Section 1513(d) of the law, which governs the employer mandate provisions, and states clearly that “the amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

    The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon offers further analysis to this effect. Although the law gives the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to determine when to collect the penalties that result from the employer mandate, he writes, it does not provide the authority to waive the penalty entirely. There is a provision allowing the Treasury Department (which is officially responsible for the delay) to waive the penalty on a state-specific basis if a state can show that it has enacted an alternate but equally expansive coverage scheme that does not add to the federal cost, which is clearly not the case here. But even if it was, the provision does not allow this waiver to go into effect until 2017.

    Nor does the law give Treasury the authority to delay the law’s employer reporting requirements.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    Obamacare was jammed down our throats through the reconciliation process....now THAT's how you make a law that effects every man woman and child and business in America!!!!!!!!




    You'd think that such a throat ramming would have resulted in him losing his reelection....but alas.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    How to make a law librul progressive style:

    1. Have a bunch of supporters, activist groups and lawyers draw up a 2100 page bill that hurts your hair to read.

    2. Hold a sham conference with the opposition party to hear their ideas but tell them to shut up because you won the election by a few million votes

    3. Circumvent the rules of the Senate by calling this bill something related to finance or some other area that lets  you pass it with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes.

    4. When demanded to tell what is in the bill for public debate, suppress the debate by saying you have to pass the bill before you find out what it in it.

    5. When challenged on the law, claim the  whole process was legit, open and transparent and everything is settled.

    6. When implementing the bill, make sure that  you fund your political supporters to function as some legitimate resource to make th ething work. In effect the law becomes a great way to launder money and create a slush fund.

    7. Exempt yourself and your supporters from having to particpate in the plan.

    8. Make sure potential opposition in the private sector is bought off.

    9. If the implementation messes up, have the President usurp legislative power by issuing an edict to delay certain parts of the law even though Congress voted on something different.

    10. Complain that the oposition that wants to fund government is "cherry picking" even though that is what you are doing to implement the law itself by choosing who gets exemptions and which parts of the bill get delayed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    How to make a law librul progressive style:

    1. Have a bunch of supporters, activist groups and lawyers draw up a 2100 page bill that hurts your hair to read.

    2. Hold a sham conference with the opposition party to hear their ideas but tell them to shut up because you won the election by a few million votes

    3. Circumvent the rules of the Senate by calling this bill something related to finance or some other area that lets  you pass it with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes.

    4. When demanded to tell what is in the bill for public debate, suppress the debate by saying you have to pass the bill before you find out what it in it.

    5. When challenged on the law, claim the  whole process was legit, open and transparent and everything is settled.

    6. When implementing the bill, make sure that  you fund your political supporters to function as some legitimate resource to make th ething work. In effect the law becomes a great way to launder money and create a slush fund.

    7. Exempt yourself and your supporters from having to particpate in the plan.

    8. Make sure potential opposition in the private sector is bought off.

    9. If the implementation messes up, have the President usurp legislative power by issuing an edict to delay certain parts of the law even though Congress voted on something different.

    10. Complain that the oposition that wants to fund government is "cherry picking" even though that is what you are doing to implement the law itself by choosing who gets exemptions and which parts of the bill get delayed.

     




    Someone is very angry that the opposing party won their elections and with it a majority in Congress.

     

    The wingnuts prefer to be in the anklbiting minority so they can feed their persecution complex.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Uh, Majority in the Senate. Glad to see you affirm my notion that for libruls, the ends justify the means.

    It is all about politics.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Ironic how we are lectured to about "changing a law".

    Here is how Obama changes a law: he issues an EDICT like a banana republic dictator!

    Where did Obama get his authority to delay for one year the employer mandate, in the ObamaCare law passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

    The President has no such authority.

    There was even some Democratic skepticism about whether the administration’s move is justified. “This was the law. How can they change the law?” asked Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

    Former Tenth Circuit Appeals Court judge Michael McConnell noted that,  according to a 1990 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the president “does not have the right to refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons,” McConnell writes that the health law has no provision allowing the administration to suspend the employer mandate. He points to Section 1513(d) of the law, which governs the employer mandate provisions, and states clearly that “the amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

    The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon offers further analysis to this effect. Although the law gives the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to determine when to collect the penalties that result from the employer mandate, he writes, it does not provide the authority to waive the penalty entirely. There is a provision allowing the Treasury Department (which is officially responsible for the delay) to waive the penalty on a state-specific basis if a state can show that it has enacted an alternate but equally expansive coverage scheme that does not add to the federal cost, which is clearly not the case here. But even if it was, the provision does not allow this waiver to go into effect until 2017.

    Nor does the law give Treasury the authority to delay the law’s employer reporting requirements.



    CLC,

    Are you not contridicting yourself?

    If you agree that Obama did not have the authority to delay one provision of the ACA for policy reasons, then you would have to agree that the HoR does not have the authority to delay the ACA itself for policy reasons?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Ironic how we are lectured to about "changing a law".

    Here is how Obama changes a law: he issues an EDICT like a banana republic dictator!

    Where did Obama get his authority to delay for one year the employer mandate, in the ObamaCare law passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

    The President has no such authority.

    There was even some Democratic skepticism about whether the administration’s move is justified. “This was the law. How can they change the law?” asked Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

    Former Tenth Circuit Appeals Court judge Michael McConnell noted that,  according to a 1990 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the president “does not have the right to refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons,” McConnell writes that the health law has no provision allowing the administration to suspend the employer mandate. He points to Section 1513(d) of the law, which governs the employer mandate provisions, and states clearly that “the amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

    The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon offers further analysis to this effect. Although the law gives the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to determine when to collect the penalties that result from the employer mandate, he writes, it does not provide the authority to waive the penalty entirely. There is a provision allowing the Treasury Department (which is officially responsible for the delay) to waive the penalty on a state-specific basis if a state can show that it has enacted an alternate but equally expansive coverage scheme that does not add to the federal cost, which is clearly not the case here. But even if it was, the provision does not allow this waiver to go into effect until 2017.

    Nor does the law give Treasury the authority to delay the law’s employer reporting requirements.

     



    CLC,

     

    Are you not contridicting yourself?

    If you agree that Obama did not have the authority to delay one provision of the ACA for policy reasons, then you would have to agree that the HoR does not have the authority to delay the ACA itself for policy reasons?

    No contradiction.

    The House has no authority to delay or repeal ObamaCare on its own, but does have the authority to pass a bill to fund the Government which doesnt fund Obamacare. Which is what it did. The Senate and the President need to compromise with the House.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Ironic how we are lectured to about "changing a law".

    Here is how Obama changes a law: he issues an EDICT like a banana republic dictator!

    Where did Obama get his authority to delay for one year the employer mandate, in the ObamaCare law passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

    The President has no such authority.

    There was even some Democratic skepticism about whether the administration’s move is justified. “This was the law. How can they change the law?” asked Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

    Former Tenth Circuit Appeals Court judge Michael McConnell noted that,  according to a 1990 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the president “does not have the right to refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons,” McConnell writes that the health law has no provision allowing the administration to suspend the employer mandate. He points to Section 1513(d) of the law, which governs the employer mandate provisions, and states clearly that “the amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

    The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon offers further analysis to this effect. Although the law gives the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to determine when to collect the penalties that result from the employer mandate, he writes, it does not provide the authority to waive the penalty entirely. There is a provision allowing the Treasury Department (which is officially responsible for the delay) to waive the penalty on a state-specific basis if a state can show that it has enacted an alternate but equally expansive coverage scheme that does not add to the federal cost, which is clearly not the case here. But even if it was, the provision does not allow this waiver to go into effect until 2017.

    Nor does the law give Treasury the authority to delay the law’s employer reporting requirements.

     



    CLC,

     

    Are you not contridicting yourself?

    If you agree that Obama did not have the authority to delay one provision of the ACA for policy reasons, then you would have to agree that the HoR does not have the authority to delay the ACA itself for policy reasons?

     

     

    No contradiction.

    The House has no authority to delay or repeal ObamaCare on its own, but does have the authority to pass a bill to fund the Government which doesnt fund Obamacare. Which is what it did. The Senate and the President need to compromise with the House.

    [/QUOTE]

    HAHA... funny post... they have to compromise with the House.... Ha ha ha ha ha ha... that's good. Its like saying the British and French had to compromise with Hitler in Munich. 

    You always come up with really good comments. Soooo funny. Its like.. you know... if someone threatens us, like say terrorists, we have to compromise with them. Maybe buy Bin Laden a house with a white picket fence and some of his favorite magazines and also just agree to a few of his other demands... 

    Any more and you might have us rolling on the floor.

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Dear GOP, Here's How You Change A Law

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]The Senate and the President need to compromise with the House.

     

     

    Why? Because a55hats like you say so?

    And what is the compromise the wingnuts are offering?

    What do they have that the Dems would want?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ACC,

    That is the key difference between this and all those 17 other government shutdowns the GOP keep referencing.

    In those each side had something the other wanted...something to bargain for.

    This shutdown is completely one-sided. The GOP have nothing to offer.

    What the GOP have done is backed themselves into a corner with no end game. 

    Obama has not caved and the shutdown is becoming increasingly unpopular every day not to mention detructive.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share