"Obamacare has existed strictly at the sufferance of the House leadership since that majority took office in January 2011."...
9/17/13, "The Obama-Boehner Project," Angelo M. Codevilla, libertylawsite.org
"The Republican Party owes its majority in the House of Representatives – and John Boehner his speakership thereof – to the American people’s dislike of Obamacare. Because the US Constitution is explicit that the US government may expend only funds appropriated by Congress, Obamacare has existed strictly at the sufferance of the House leadership since that majority took office in January 2011. But John Boehner and his chosen band have thwarted the majority of Republican congressmen’s desire to use the constitutional power they have to refuse to appropriate money for Obamacare. In this, Boehner & co. have worked in bipartisan coordination with the ruling class, including the media, including Fox News.
By September 2013, spurred by the Party’s constituent groups, Republican congressmen and senators had vowed to exclude Obamacare from the omnibus spending bill that funds government operations. (the existence of such bills, which neuter Congress’ constitutional authority over spending, will be the subject of another column).
Boehner and his band responded with a proposal to vote on the omnibus spending bill, twice: once without Obamacare, so as to allow Congressmen to feign evidence of faithfulness to the principles for which they were elected, and another with Obamacare. The latter would pass with the votes of all Democrats and just enough of the Republican leadership to put it over the top. It would become law, and satisfy the ruling class’ constituent groups: the insurance companies, the hospital lobby, as well as left wing ideologues....
Support for Obamacare was dwindling daily to the ruling class’ inner core as the membership of organizations whose leaders had supported its passage now demanded that these leaders lobby for exemptions from it. The labor movement, one of the ruling class’ key constituencies, was turning against it as vehemently as the Republican rank-and-file. Hence Boehner’s continued fidelity to Obamacare was especially boneheaded.
The ruling class’ foolishness and insincerity, its willingness to insult the American people’s intelligence, are no joke. But we can take comfort in its transparent ineptitude."
====================
Second citation that Boehner has opted since Jan. 2011 not to use power of the purse, granted solely to the House, to hold a standalone up or down vote to defund ObamaCare spending:
12/12/2013, "The Nuclear Option: Misplaced Conservative Outrage," American Thinker, by Lester Jackson
"When ObamaCare was a major issue, in 2010, Republicans decisively captured the House.
The only reason for continuation of this unpopular disaster is tyranny. And this is tyranny not of the majority, but of the ruling class -- executive, legislative, judicial and media....
It is galling that John Boehner became speaker in 2011, because Tea Party Republicans campaigned on a promise to avert the current ObamaCare disaster. In January 2011, Obama had not yet been re-elected, and the House Republican mandate was at its pinnacle. All Republicans had to do was not vote for money to implement ObamaCare. It is absolutely absurd to say that this required approval of the president or the Senate. The Constitution is crystal-clear: if the House refuses to vote for appropriations, there is nothing anybody else can do about it except scream to high heaven....
.
Future historians will have ample reason to conclude that the great tragedy of the Obama dictatorship was not the demise of the filibuster, but that, at a critical moment, House leaders blocked fulfillment of the very promise that made them leaders."...
Lester Jackson, Ph.D., a former college political science teacher, views mainstream media truth suppression as essential to harmful judicial activism. His recent articles are collected here."
=======================
 |
| 1/5/11, House Speaker-designate Boehner on day 1 |
Image: "House Speaker-designate John Boehner of Ohio walks out of his home on Capitol Hill in Washington Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2011, prior to the start of the 112th Congress. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)"
.
=======================
Third citation for Boehner nullifying House power of the purse. In this case GOP also tries to convince the public that it doesn't have such power:
1/21/14, "Will Boehner's House Unilaterally Nullify Its Power of the Purse?" CNS News, Terence P. Jeffrey
"The Constitution is unambiguous about which branch of the federal government has the authority to make laws governing immigration and control all money spent from the Treasury. It is Congress.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
For President Obama to succeed in carrying out his plan to unilaterally change the status of illegal immigrants, two things must happen:
1) He must usurp the constitutional authority of Congress to make immigration laws, and
2) Congress must decline to use its constitutional power of the purse to stop him.
Now a third thing could happen: The Republican-controlled House, led by Speaker John Boehner, may not only decline to use its power of the purse to stop Obama from usurping authority over immigration laws, it may also try persuade the nation it does not actually have that power when it comes to immigration laws.
On Thursday, a New York Times blog published a statement from the House Appropriations Committee that suggested Congress had no control over the funding of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and that therefore the agency could "expand operations as under a new executive order" no matter what Congress said in a continuing resolution to fund the government.
I contacted the committee via email to confirm the statement published by the Times and to ask if the committee believes that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution applies to CIS.
The committee sent me verbatim exactly the same statement that had been published by the Times. It said:
"The primary agency for implementing the president's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the 'E-Verify' program. Therefore, the appropriations process cannot be used to 'de-fund' the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown."
Responding on background, an Appropriations Committee aide said in an email: "You could 'defund' the CIS, but it would take an authorization/change to underlying statute that impacts their use of fees. This is an authorization issue, not an appropriations issue."
"Even if such an authorization change were to be attached to an omnibus bill via a rider, the president would veto the bill, and the government would shut down," said the aide. "At that point, the CIS would still not be defunded and would continue to operate, given that it is fee-funded."
I followed up by sending the staffer a passage from Justice Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States." Story was named to the court by President James Madison, a leading Framer of the Constitution.
"The object is apparent upon the slightest examination," Story wrote about the Article 1, Section 9 power of the purse. "It is to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money. As all the taxes raised from the people, as well as the revenues arising from other sources, are to be applied to the discharge of the expenses, and debts, and other engagements of the government, it is highly proper, that congress should possess the power to decide, how and when any money should be applied for these purposes. If it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure."
I asked: "Is it not a different thing to say the president would veto it than to say the committee does not have the power to stop the expenditure of funds on this? Also, does the committee reject Joseph Story's interpretation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 when he said that it applied to "all the taxes raised from the people, as well as the revenues arising from other sources"? ... Does the committee believe that fees collected by a federal agency and then drawn from the Treasury and spent are not covered by its power under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7?"
Speaking again on background, the committee aide responded via email: "As per the underlying statute, CIS is funded outside of appropriations. The fees are collected and spent according to the underlying authorization (The Immigration and Nationality Act), and are not subject to the appropriations process. Congress can indeed change CIS's ability to collect and spend fees, but it would require a change in the authorization."
Three observations:
1) If Obama spends "fees" collected into the Treasury by CIS to implement unilateral executive actions he is not acting on the "underlying authorization," he is defying it.
2) It does not matter whether the government brings money into the Treasury through a tax, a fee or selling debt to the People's Republic of China, the Constitution says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
3) It appears that Republican congressional leaders do not want to take any effective action to protect either the constitutional authority of Congress to make the immigration laws or the power of the purse that protects Americans against a president spending money from the Treasury "at his pleasure.""
==========================
Being indifferent to America, Boehner finds it easy to lie on the campaign trail then reverse himself once safely elected:
12/8/14, " Boehner Broke Pledge to Give Americans ‘At Least 72 Hours’ to Read Every Bill," CNS News, T. Jeffrey
 |
| Boehner, 9/23/10 |
"House Speaker John Boehner has broken his pledge to give Americans “at least 72 hours” to read every bill taken up by the House before it is brought to a vote on the floor.
In his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference held in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 18, 2010, Boehner vowed that if he became speaker members of Congress and the American people would be given “at least 72 hours” to read all bills before they were brought to a vote.
That promise was later repeated on Fox News and then formalized in the Republican’s “Pledge to America."
“They've ignored the cries of outrage from the American people by forcing a vote on bill after bill without giving lawmakers enough time to even read the bill,” Boehner complained to CPAC about the Democratic leadership.
“If I'm the speaker next year, we're going to get the reform movement moving again in the United States Congress,” Boehner said. “One of my first orders of business would be to post every bill online for at least 72 hours before it comes to the floor of the House for a vote.”
“We'll require every committee to quickly post the bills that move out of their committee and put those bills online so that you can read them,” Boehner said.
In an interview with Bill Hemmer on Fox News on July 22, 2010, Boehner made this promise again.
"Then if we're lucky enough to be in the majority, and I'm lucky enough to be speaker, I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours," he told Hemmer. "The American people have a right to see what happens here."...
.
On Sept. 23, 2010, the Republican House leadership traveled to a lumber yard in Virginia to unveil a campaign document they called “A Pledge to America.”
“We will give all representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote,” the forward to “A Pledge to America said.”
A section of this pledge was titled: “Read the Bill.”
“We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives,” said this section of the Pledge.
What did these Republicans mean here by “at least three days?” Did they mean the same thing Boehner meant by “at least 72 hours” when he addressed CPAC? Yes....
In the 2010 midterm election, the Republicans regained control of the House, gaining a net of 64 seats. The newly elected Republican-majority House convened on Jan. 5, 2011. In its first roll call vote, it elected Boehner as speaker.
In his first speech as speaker on that day, Boehner said: “Let’s start with the rules package that the House will consider today. If passed, it will change how this institution operates, with an emphasis on real transparency, greater accountability, and a renewed focus on our Constitution.”
“Legislators and the public will have 3 days to read a bill before it comes to a vote,” said Boehner. “Legislation will be more focused, properly scrutinized, and constitutionally sound.”
So did this new rule say the House would need “to post every bill online for at least 72 hours” before bringing it up for a vote—as Boehner had vowed at CPAC? Did it follow through on the “Pledge to America”—which Chaffetz said meant all bills must be posted online for “at least 72 hours” before a vote?
No, it said something subtly, and significantly, different.
It said: “It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which such measure has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.”
Did “until the third calendar day” mean the same as Boehner’s vow to let Americans have “at least 72 hours” to read a bill before the vote?
Not as Boehner himself has interpreted it. On multiple occasions, the House Boehner leads has called votes on major bills far less than 72 hours after the bills were posted online.
The latest example came last week, when the House voted on the National Defense Authorization Act. This 1,648-page bill was posted online by the House leadership at 10:32 pm Tuesday night. It was approved on a roll call vote at 2:37 p.m. Thursday—40 hours and 5 minutes after its late-night posting.
Penny Starr asked Boehner on Thursday whether he himself had read the 1,648-page bill. Now, Boehner did not repeat the rhetoric of the Republicans' "Pledge to America" about giving "citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote."
He said this: 'I've been through almost every part of that bill, as it was being put together. So, trust me, I am well aware of what's in that bill.".
Boehner said that if he became speaker “one of my first orders of business would be to post every bill online for at least 72 hours before it comes to the floor of the House for a vote.”
He has broken that promise."
Image above caption: "Then-House Minority Leader John Boehner holds the Republicans' Pledge to America at a Sept. 23, 2010 press conference. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)"
============================
Codevilla on the Beltway Ruling Class:
July-August 2010 issue, "America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution," Angelo Codevilla
"As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class."...
=====================
2/20/13, “As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned,” Angelo Codevilla, Forbes
.
“Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old.”…
.
No comments:
Post a Comment