Democrats Have the Votes to Pass Health Care
[Guest post by DRJ]
As noted in previous posts, President Obama has agreed to an Executive Order that has turned Bart Stupak and other pro-life holdouts’ No votes to Yes. At NRO, Andy McCarthy thinks the Democrats’ use of an Executive Order is remarkable:
“I know we tire of the hypocrisy, but I really think this is remarkable. We spent the eight years through January 19, 2009, listening to Democrats complain that President Bush had purportedly caused a constitutional crisis by issuing signing statements when he signed bills into law. Democrats and Arlen Specter (now a Democrat) complained that these unenforceable, non-binding expressions of the executive’s interpretation of the laws Bush was signing were a usurpation Congress’s power to enact legislation.
But now Democrats are going to abide not a mere signing statement but an executive order that purports to have the effect of legislation — in fact, has the effect of nullifying legislation that Congress is simultaneously enacting?”
Alcee Hastings was right when he said Democrats are making up the rules as they go along, and pundits were right when they said Obama would be transformative. Now he even makes law.
— DRJ
There’s no point in donating to campaigns now–donate to the legal challenges that must be made if we are to survive as a Republic.
We are not Venezuela!
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/21/2010 @ 12:44 pmExecutive orders are law.
Until the next Executive Order.
I’d call Stupak a fool except that I know he understands this game. He needs to be target #1 in November.
Cue Carmen Miranda! Banana republics for all!!
Ed from SFV (7f3244) — 3/21/2010 @ 12:49 pmDid Sub-Zero freeze the Drudge Report, or am I missing something? This news is more than half an hour old, and I don’t see where Drudge mentions any of it.
Alan (07ccb5) — 3/21/2010 @ 12:51 pmbuy more ammo….. there will be plenty of deserving targets when the war breaks out.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/21/2010 @ 12:56 pmExecutive orders are law.
Until the next Executive Order.
Nope. They can’t alter the law passed by Congress. If they contradict the law passed by Congress, it is the executive order which is void.
Subotai (3da0ad) — 3/21/2010 @ 12:58 pmLet’s meet at the Alamo.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:01 pmbetter yet, lets attack. the best defense is a good offense.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:06 pmAn Executive Order cannot fly in the face of enacted law. So Obama’s EO is moot. He can promise Stupak the moon, and a beer to go along with it, but if the law, as enacted, reads that abortions will be covered under the new health care bill, Stupak was duped (my guess is that Stupak knows this and was simply looking for a way out of his own mess).
What bothered me the most was that the acting speaker, Jesse Jackson, Jr., refused to allow the Republicans a call on parlimentary rule. And yes, Alcee Hastings, one of only six judges in our history to have ever been impeached, was correct when he said they are making up the rules as they go along. Why don’t the Dems just have a public shredding of our Constitution?
All I can tell you is this: at the darkest hour in 1836, it seemed that Texas had lost the battle to Santa Anna. We all know how that turned out.
Fly your Goliad flags, laddies. We have just begun the fight.
retire05 (1e885c) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:17 pmMight as well just dispense with having a Congress, when the President can rule by executive decree.
Long Live the King!
AD - RtR/OS! (4c0b43) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:28 pmGotta watch it when your own side calls you out as being just as bad as the guy before you.
Icy Texan (3c6969) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:30 pm…or better yet:
Sic semper tyrannis!
AD - RtR/OS! (4c0b43) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:30 pmForgive my liberal use of the word “law.” My intention was that of how Dads all over the world “rule” with “law” in their homes.
However, the Dems screamed bloody murder when Bush issued signing statements that he expected to be honored by the government. To my knowledge, as a practical matter, he was never compelled to withdraw any of these, and W got the practical effect he wanted. I fully expect BHO to enjoy the same privilege. Stautory law? No. Daddy law? Yep.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the USG would devolve into a decree and deem entity given its incredible size and responsibility. How can congress ever really hope to maintain a proper oversight of the whole enterprise? But it still stinked to high heaven.
Ed from SFV (7f3244) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:38 pmForgive my liberal use of the word “law.” My intention was that of how Dads all over the world “rule” with “law” in their homes.
However, the Dems screamed bloody murder when Bush issued signing statements that he expected to be honored by the government. To my knowledge, as a practical matter, he was never compelled to withdraw any of these, and W got the practical effect he wanted. I fully expect BHO to enjoy the same privilege. Stautory law? No. Daddy law? Yep.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the USG would devolve into a decree and deem entity given its incredible size and responsibility. How can congress ever really hope to maintain a proper oversight of the whole enterprise? But it still stinks to high heaven.
Ed from SFV (7f3244) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:39 pmForgive my liberal use of the word “law.” My intention was that of how Dads all over the world “rule” with “law” in their homes.
However, the Dems screamed bloody murder when Bush issued signing statements that he expected to be honored by the government. To my knowledge, as a practical matter, he was never compelled to withdraw any of these, and W got the practical effect he wanted. I fully expect BHO to enjoy the same privilege. Statutory law? No. Daddy law? Yep.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the USG would devolve into a decree and deem entity given its incredible size and responsibility. How can congress ever really hope to maintain a proper oversight of the whole enterprise? But it still stinks to high heaven.
Ed from SFV (7f3244) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:39 pmAs retire05 says
Apparently the same type of Executive Order was made with the original Medicaid Bill, and was struck down by the court for the reason given, hence the Hyde Amendment…
I’m looking forward to the first time someone raises the question about the Exec order with Stupak. Santorum said, “It isn’t worth the paper that it is printed on”.
But there are still issues of unconstitutionality, conflict with previous medicare legislation, the need for the amendments to pass the Senate, and for the “fat lady to sing”
It will be interesting to see if the Senate votes on the bill and what happens to it, and who will be content and who will be screaming mad
Meanwhile, Scripture says to “Fret not because of the wicked..”. Time to practice.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:40 pmObama will sign the Executive Order (EO) after he signs the nationalized health care bill – all on his way to Air Force One for his next campaign stop.
Regarding this EO, the first thing Monday an action will be filed seeking to void the EO. The filing party will prevail since Obama has no authority delegated by Congress either in the health care bill or any other bill. Thus, as most have pointed out, it’s a charade for Stupak, et al.
An alternative scenario would be for him to defer signing until Congress delegates the authority to him. This might be a useful ploy as an attempt to enlist some GOP folks to approve a bill they otherwise would not.
Time to go read Article Five since there are already 36 states that have either passed or have legislation introduced to not implement Obamacare in their states. Article Five only requires 34 states.
cedarhill (d7f057) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:40 pmThere is also the question as to whether the bill can affect Social Security/Medicare funds as ruled by the SCOTUS.
This entire bill, which is going to the Supreme Court, I assure you, could be (mind you, I say could be) struck down as unconstitutional as it affects the funding of Social Security and Medicare.
But we have now been exposed to how Democrats make sausage. And it ain’t pretty. And while Republicans may never be able to repeal this bill, they could repeal so much of it, using line by line, that the bill is all but dead.
retire05 (1e885c) — 3/21/2010 @ 2:03 pmThis whole thing with Stupak and his cronies has been a charade. It’s been the misdirection ploy, to keep our attention while our wallets are being lifted.
Put not your faith in princes.
Beldar (ed2ed1) — 3/21/2010 @ 2:14 pmIt may have been misdirection and totally contrived but it didn’t change the ultimate outcome. They always had the votes, but the GOP and the public pushed hard on substance and process and many, many Democratic members of Congress will be hurt by this.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/21/2010 @ 2:33 pmDeMint expects House to pass health care bill today– source, Greenville Times 3/21/10
Memo to Senator Jim DeMint, (R), South Carolina-
Subject: ABBA DABBA DOOOO
Time to sing a new tune, Jimmy: “Waterloo – I was defeated, you won the war…” — source, lyrics, ‘Waterloo’ performed by ABBA
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 3/21/2010 @ 3:21 pm^You and yours will enjoy the consequences of Ezekial’s special style of rationing. It’s in the bill. You own it, and your celebrating today will come back to haunt you.
Read the bill.
Vermont Neighbor (0e568c) — 3/21/2010 @ 3:30 pmAnyone else think that DCSCA is a few fries short of a Happy Meal and needs an adjustment in his government paid medications?
Weird posts, even ignoring ABBA.
Eric Blair (2ad2b1) — 3/21/2010 @ 4:49 pmVermont Neighbor, I’ve been trying to figure out, when this does come back to bite them in the butt (which it inevitably will), how they will manage to tie it’s failure to Bush and blame him…. it will be a stretch but somehow he’ll end up the root cause for the misery to come.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 3/21/2010 @ 4:57 pmDana that should be the RNC tagline: have a screenshot of Pelosi and Reid blathering about the most honest, transparent, and ethical Congress in history. Then a translation running below: “What WE want, by any means necessary.”
Then: VOTE REAL CHANGE.
Where is Joe Izusu when you need him?
Eric Blair (2ad2b1) — 3/21/2010 @ 5:09 pmDana, maybe not Bush. But knowing dems, it might be possible for them to tie it to the GOP, if and when the GOP takes over Congress. Then all decisions, tax hikes and number crunching will be handled by a conservative majority. Which may help Soros and the boy look good, strategically speaking, for 2012.
Vermont Neighbor (0e568c) — 3/21/2010 @ 5:20 pmVN – Good to see you.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/21/2010 @ 5:23 pmThanks d-rocks. Like everyone, I’m shocked to see this duplicitous imposter get carte blanche from his benefactors. It’s surreal what with the monumental corruption this thug has commandeered. IG Walpin’s firing… the New Black Panthers… Czars working w/o oversight… Acorn… Van Jones, Anita Dunn… Stimulus slush fund… Rezko’s land deal. I could go on. The mind-numbing narcissism and constant braying in front of a teleprompter… and a totally thin-skinned arrogance, unlike anything we’ve seen at this level of leadership.
The Huffpo types think this is all just a left-right conflict, or a democrat-republican problem. But the future is here and they’re going to experience the same taxes and rationing, the gov’t intrusion and the acceleration of state control. Can they happily live off a gov’t check? They think so. I’d say from the arrogance on display at Huffington, they don’t really expect to do without. They think ‘ the man’ in the gucci loafers will keep America afloat. I for one see the producers rejecting taxes and pulling a mass exodus, like in NY and CA. Then who will pay the entitlements.
The website to watch is Tenth Amendment Center (dot com).
Vermont Neighbor (0e568c) — 3/22/2010 @ 12:33 am