The Glade 4.0

See, here's the disconnect. The only thing people "deserve" is not to be **** with. To be left alone so they can do the best with what they have.

That's what people deserve. Now, I'm open to discussions as to what society "should" do for these people, to help them. But it muddies the water to suggest that they are somehow owed this help. Veterans are owed help because they made a contract with the public for services and subsequent care. See the difference?

Rights are negative not positive.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So there is no right to education? To vote?

Arathain:

The House has passed individual appropriations bills to keep everything the government running. The House had these bills passed BEFORE the shutdown occurred. Currently, Harry Reid is demanding the House vote on a Senate Originated Appropriations Bill (which is so grossly unconstitutional I don't even know where to start).

It's not a matter of a perspective, because the petulant and childish behavior is SOLELY the responsibility of the Democrats.

Harry Reid has not allowed any of the individual appropriations bills that would keep the government running and funded to be voted on in the Senate. Our President has said he will refuse to sign any appropriations bill that doesn't give him a blank check.

And then there's still the fundamental issue at hand for almost everyone --

How do you borrow your way out of debt?

_________________

Education? No. Vote? Yes and no. Again, you deserve to be left alone, to do your own thing. Since anarchy is unworkable, a government is necessary. Thus, you have a right to representation in that government, so that you have some say in how it impacts you. We deal with that representation through a vote. I view representation as the right, not the vote specifically.

And that's fine. Then YOU should be the one to help those people. Just as I choose to help the ones I deem most need it with my own dollars. Stop trying to make the government the distributor of all things benevolent.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Told you so.

_________________

Other perspective: The House is only doing this to alleviate political pressure so they can continue to hold the remainder of the government hostage, with less political impact.



It's not unconstitutional to make demands. What section of the constitution is he violating by making such statements?



It's always a matter of perspective.

Told me what?

TheRiov:

There is no right to education; there is no right to vote; there is no right to privacy except by juridical edict. The contemporary American Liberal, and in this specific case this includes you, has a instutionally deluded understanding of what rights are. The media, liberal political rhetoric, and our Department of Education have conflated Entitlements (Legit or Not) and Rights (Legit or Not) for so long that people don't understand what rights are relative to the constitution.

_________________

Curious things; appropriations bills have been legally held to be revenue raising bills since the Constitution was enacted. The fact that the Senate has already passed a revenue raising bill and originated their own revenue raising bill is unconstitutional. Demanding that the House vote on the wholly unconstitutional bill originated in the Senate is merely a criminal malfeasance in the performance of his duty as a Senator.It's not. We're dealing with a codified axiomatic system of rules and regulations that dictate the operations of our government. Until such time as an Amendment grants the Senate the authority to issue revenue raising and appropriations bills, the party at fault is the Democrats.

_________________

You're writing your own dictionary again. The term, in modern parlance, and in all recent decisions of SCOTUS, etc mean something other than you want it to mean. So you're taking the classic middle-school approach to writing a paper: Question all definition, deny all terms.

The fact of the matter is, that Rights, in modern usage, do indeed include exactly those things you deny. You may not LIKE that fact, but as has been established both by zeitgeist, and by official sanction, mean something other than what you want.

TheRiov:

And for that, Jon Stewart is wrong. In fact, he's so wrong, I may never support his show again.

Harry Reid has refused to introduce any of the appropriations bills to the Senate Floor that would have prevented the shutdown. Harry Reid has refused to introduce ANY appropriations bills that do no include a blank check for the debt ceiling and Obama Care.

So tell me ...

Seriously, tell me ...

HOW DO YOU BORROW YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT?

Don't blame the Republicans; don't listen to the spin ...

Harry Reid and Barack Obama are lying. Call the Congressional Records Office and get your sunshine law documents on their votes for appropriations bills for the last 9 months. Those bills were signed, sealed, and delivered to the Senate. Harry Reid and the President rejected them out of hand; they didn't even get to committee in the Senate. But, yeah, this is the Republicans Shutdown. This is Teabagger Tyranny. This is someone else's creation.

Keep ignoring the fact that the ACA's passage was illegal.

Keep ignoring the fact that the original solicitor in its constitutionality challenge got to rule in its favor as a Justice.

Keep ignoring the fact that the Individual Mandate is a tax that required our Chief Justice to redefine the terms "Direct Tax" and "Indirect Tax" counter to the way they've been defined since this country's inception.

Blame the Republicans. That's fine with me, I know the truth because I took the time to research this matter. Jon Stewart doesn't. You apparently don't either. The Republicans did the homework to fund everything but the ACA and a Debt Ceiling hike. They did so to get negotiations on those two economically disastrous demands from the White House and Senate.

But, again, tell me ...

How do you borrow your way out of debt?

_________________

"...except by juridical edict".

I'd like to see any examples that support your argument where that qualifier isn't in effect.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Ummmm ...

I'd point out how my grammar indicates you didn't read my post, but you get all pissy when people do that.

Taskiss:

Don't forget the "... relative to the Constitution" qualifier

_________________

Why are you asking this? Its utterly irrelevant to the point I'm making. I'm not advocating for the senate bill. I'm not advocating for ANY particular bill.

I'm just not slapping a white hat on one party or the other and claiming they're blameless.

The Republicans can be blamed for a whole world of bad governance.

They are, however, blameless in the shutdown's occurrence. They are not the party demanding all or nothing, all-in funding.

_________________

I'd be a liberal if they advocated not increasing the debt and cutting back on spending. It's not a party thing for me. It's about money.

The good guys are the ones wanting to cut spending and the bad guys are wanting to keep it where it's at or even increase spending.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

When did the SC get to be the arbitors of the lexican, philosophy, or anything outside a specific narrow ang geographically restricited framework of law?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Are you talking about the bill that the Senate passed, with Obamacare funding, on or about 9/27? That originated in the house. Also, the Senate can propose a bill. It does need to be passed in the House and then in the Senate. The Senate can take up deliberations on whatever they want, it's not unconstitutional for them to prepare a budget, and send it to the House.

So no - I'm not seeing any constitutional problems, and I'm definitely not seeing any problem with Reid making demands.



The Senate is not required to rubber-stamp budgets. They are allowed to reject them, revise them, and propose the revisions to the House. This is what they have done.

Look, I'm not defending either side. I'm suggesting only that you are overly biased.

The Senate has originated its own bill and that's the one the House is wholesale rejecting at the moment. They cannot originating revenues and appropriations bills in the Senate -- I posted you the relevant part of Article 1 Section 7 -- those bills MUST originate in the House.

I didn't say they had to rubber-stamp budgets; but they are the party preventing funding from occurring in this situation. And they are solely the party preventing funding from occurring in this situation. And they haven't issued amendments. Reid is outright rejecting the piece-meal funding solutions that were prepared well in advance of the shutdown.

Harry Reid and Barack Obama are protecting their Golden Child; and it's going to destroy this nation. That's not really hyperbole, either.

And I'm not biased; I hate the Republicans just as much as I hate the Democrats. My issue is the media frenzy and popular opinion delusion going on that the Republicans started this nonsense. The Republicans didn't; they simply did their job.

_________________

Origination Clause



The Senate may not propose bills for raising revenue, which includes appropriating it to spending (since allocating funds from the treasury to spending is "raising revenue" for what it's spent on.) That's how the jurisprudence for this clause has gone. You're correct that the Senate may act on it as on any other bill, but they cannot propose their own bills.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As far as I understand that basically has been interpreted to mean that the house gets 'first go' - a bill the senate creates is still considered an amendment to the original.

(ie, senate can Counter propose)

Yes, but that does not stop them from writing a bill, handing it to a House rep, and saying "here, use this". It then "originates" in the House. Further, the bill they "passed" has already originated from the House. They amended it, passed it, and sent it back to the House.