What? The House can pass whatever bills it wants. I seem to remember that they've voted to repeal Obamacare 80 times or something like that already. They've got a voice and they are using it. It's just that no one gives a shit what they are saying, because they don't have power and they aren't interested in (or aren't any good at?) persuasion. barfo
Obama isn't very persuasive either. He can't get much of what he wants passed (Clinton could with a republican house and senate that impeached him). That doesn't give him any authority to spend $400M on the military if congress passed a $500M military budget. All that kind of thing does is prove he's incompetent or blatantly violating the constitution.
They'll bring another lawsuit? What other recourse does congress have? Remember, republicans want immigration laws enforced, too, no matter how draconian they are and the effect on people. Their gripe about the executive not executing the laws as they wrote them goes beyond this one case. If all else fails, I think you see a prolonged government shutdown. Their only recourse at that point is to close the purse.
I agree with all of your points except I feel there is a flawed base for thought. You are taking the stance that the House is an accurate representation of the people. However, I would suggest that the districts are strongly gerrymandered for the Republicans. I really don't trust the House to be an accurate representation because of this. With that point aside, you are making an argument with which I may not fully agree, but I find logical.
Who makes those boundaries? In almost all cases, it is the Legislature of each state. http://redistricting.lls.edu/who.php Again, those are people who are elected, each of whom are elected more directly than the US House. How is that not representative?
Yes, someone was able to get elected first. And then they restructure it so they stay in power. I just wish someone could establish boundaries that are less biased.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...ans-your-citizens-dont-get-their-tax-credits/ ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber: "If You're A State And You Don't Set Up An Exchange, That Means Your Citizens Don't Get Their Tax Credits" [Updated] The plaintiffs’ interpretation became even more plausible with the discovery of a January 2012 presentation by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber. I’ll get to why Gruber is significant in a moment. For now, note how he unequivocally agrees with the plaintiffs’ interpretation: the PPACA only allows tax credits in states that establish Exchanges. Here’s the relevant excerpt: Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states. Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this. Skip ahead to 31:25 and see it for yourself: [video=youtube;GtnEmPXEpr0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0[/video]
