Another take on the likely passing of healthcare? (Page 5)

This user's post has been ignored.

I didn't mean to pin the blame on one party or the other, I know both are equally guilty of it.  But it seems to me this type of deal making has been going on in politics since Grok ran for Chief of cave #76.  Whether it's an earmark for a pet project or a promise to vote on this bill in exchange for the same support for some other bill.  This sort of deal making, while distasteful, I think is somewhat necessary for a multi-party government to function.  The question becomes when does it turn from geting business done to something worse to something criminal? 

The one thing I think you have wrong is that signing statements have never been used like this in the past to basically write law.  ANY signing statement is basically writing law.

He can't sign anything into the bill. The bill is what it is as passed by the house and the Senate. He's using a signing statement which is NOT a bill and it will never be Law. They have become popular under Bush and now under Obama. They are simply a statement the President signs along with the bill. The president can change, rescind, or amend his signing statements at will and when he or she is no longer in office his or her successor can do the same. Even the signing statement he will sign already carves out exceptions that say money can be used for abortion in certain cases.

There isn't a whole lot of case law on the signing statements but "In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers". If a person receiving subsidies from the government for health insurance wants an abortion, it's a likely scenario that she could easily sue the federal government and win. You don't need the Bar Association to tell you that, it's common sense. This isn't a Dictatorship, the President can't say something and make it so.

While I won't engage you specifically on Abortion (a different thread but even then...). This is what I'm trying to point out. You feel some sense of security in the signing statement when you shouldn't. For better or worse, your voice should have been heard in the bill itself and voted on as necessary.

That's the point I was attempting to make. Deal making is necessary, it is ugly, and sometimes it is disgraceful. But no matter what it is, it has to be done in the open and brought to a vote in both chambers (the same text) and then sent to the president for signature. That much should be clear. To break that precedent is criminal as it is unconstitutional. Based on what just happened, what stops 10 Reps and the President from making a deal on every single bill that their issues will be addressed with a signing statement?

Signing statements have no basis in the constitution. And there is 0 precedent for the amazing power grab by the Executive branch we've witnessed under Bush and now Obama. I can't see how we get too far before the SCOTUS gets a case that hits this squarely on the head.

So if its all about power and influence, why did Mr. Obama publicly chastise the SCOTUS for their decison on campaign contibutions?  It only allows groups to spend money and use their power to influence elected officials.  I guess power and influence is fine within the walls of our gov. just not on the outside.  Personally I am tired of the do what we say, not what we do attitude in Wash.  What a bunch of hypocrits.

It still takes more than 10 reps to pass a bill so I guess I'm still not seeing how this is any different from a rep agreeing to vote for a bill in return for having an earmark inserted or the pres agreeing not to veto another bill in exchange for a vote on some other bill.  The fact that we're discussing this means that it was done out in the open - is your worry that in the future maybe it won't be?  That maybe a group of reps will agree to vote for a bill in private that the pres would later alter after it had already passed?  That I could see problems with, but if all the quid pro quo bargains are out in the open at the time a bill is voted on, it might be distasteful, but I don't see as much of a problem with it.

I agree 100% about the signing statements though.  I'm somewhat amazed none have been challenged in court yet and I hope sometime soon one will be and they'll be found unconstitutional.  I haven't been able to find anything to clarify this - was the bargain with Stupak a signing statement or an executive order?

My concern is, it doesn't respect the Constitution, Democracy, history, and foundation of this country. The deals are fine when they're made of people at the same level and then are put to a vote out in the open. For example, Reps will wheel and deal with one another to get stuff done. That's the point of a legislature. As I mentioned above, it can still fail us in giving us pork laden garbage but it doesn't obliterate check and balances.

Next time around, the House may be voting on a bill on war appropriations, another stimulus, a car manufacturer takeover bill and, if this precedent stands, a Rep need only phone the President demanding a signing statement in trade for his or her vote. Nothing says that the bill and signing statement need be related because there is no law, constitutional clause, or precedent governing this kind of backroom deal.  The fact of the matter is trusting those in Washington to do the right thing is a dead concept. Both parties rail against injustices only to change their tune when the shoe is on the other foot. The Democrats railed against signing statements, as did Obama only now to use them. The Republicans used them and now rail against them. As with everyone, the rules are good until there is something they really believe in then who cares. This is supposed to be a nation of law and order.

I know some make the argument this wasn't rushed or rammed but I would also point towards the student loan portion of this bill that was slipped in and rarely talked about, if at all. Believe it or not, it's a pretty major change to the system and one that stands to affect many, many people. If you don't know about it, look around the internet it is there but suffice it to say the Fed. Government basically just took over the entire student loan industry. Stupak got his signing statement on abortion and therefore allowed the bill to pass (he brought about 9 people with him to vote YES on the bill). That has nothing to do with student loans but so it goes. When you have no system, you destroy the foundation and structure designed to protect us all.

Moreover, why would anyone want a signing statement or even an executive order? They mean next to nothing and are subject to whim of a single individual. How is that having voices heard, due deliberation, and diligence? Where are the checks and balances?


Edited by merlin2375 2010-03-22 12:10 PM

Heh,

You folks are assuming that governments expenditure equals its income.  It doesn't.  No one is paying for health insurance, and they won't until the budget is balance.  We have an incredibly large national debt, we're not balance and we're not paying against the principle so - yeah.  At some point the money is going to have be paid back, and that's going to come from two sources - taxes and cut benefits.

We live in a representational democracy and, for better or worse, the theory is that representatives represent the interests of their constituency.  Well, the overwhelming majority of American opposed the bill as it was designed, and our representatives decided that they knew better.  And, in fact, the fact that many of them aren't even sure of everything in the bill only makes that worse.  It's not even that people oppose universal healthcare per se, but instead the irresponsible and careless way the government has decided to implement it.

Our government is designed around the idea that state government is responsible for the health, safety, and well being of its citizens - not the federal government.  There are just so many things wrong with what's happening that it defies description.  This isn't just about healthcare, this about the amount of power the federal government holds, how it impacts our political theory, and the apparent uselessness of democracy by representation.  Some states already had mandatory healthcare, and it didn't work out very well for them.

Our president - who apparently taught constitutional law, has championed a bill that probably should be unconstitutional.  It suborns state agencies to enforce federal mandates, it's not uniform and treats states differently in terms of their financial obligations, and it does something that has never been done before by the federal government - it forces individuals to enter into contractual relationships or imposes civil and criminal penalties.

This user's post has been ignored.

Exactly!

The Dems don't worry about the little thing we like to call the Constitution!!

I would go as far as to say neither party is particularly concerned with staying within the powers granted to the federal government in the constitution. I saw an interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal recently. While portions of it were the typical over the top rhetoric, one portion in particular caught my eye.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html



Apparently the 10th amendment isn't required reading to be a Congressman.

And those on the right that were standing behind him saying something along the lines of: "He's not going to base his policies on polls because they waive in the wind.  He's staying the course"

But now, it's all about the polls...got it.