David Ihde: 14th Amendment

Advertisement

It’s time to end the shutdown.

In this showdown of shutdowns, I would like to clear up some major misconceptions on the part of supporters of the Affordable Care Act. Many liberals and other supporters claim that the ACA, better known as Obamacare, is the law of the land.

Well, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution also is the law of the land. Barack Obama has changed the law 19 times, including giving big business and other cronies a delay in their compliance that others, like the average American, does get to enjoy. This is a clear violation of the president’s oath of office and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, the power of the purse strings and the power to fund or defund any program lies with the party that controls the House of Representatives. Currently, that belongs to the Republican Party.

It is time for America, and particularly the Democratic Party, to tell their leaders (President Obama and Sen.Harry Reid) to get to the negotiating table and knock off the nonsense. They do not get to have everything they want, and the Republican Party is not there to just rubber stamp whatever they want. Remember what Obama has said many times in his campaigns, “elections have consequences.”

As Thomas Sowell, professor emeritus of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, so eloquently wrote recently, “if President Obama and Senator Reid refuse to accept the money to run the government because it leaves out the money they want to run Obamacare, that is their right, but it is also their responsibility.”

David Ihde

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Scott Wedel 10 months, 1 week ago

The Thomas Sowell quote is insipid. By that logic then the Democrats could attach an immigration reform bill to the debt limit and if the Republicans don't accept it then the Democrats can claim the Republicans must accept responsibility.

In a sane world, the responsibility is assigned based upon what is being requested under what circumstances. The continuing resolution and debt limit are not naturally tied to the ACA, immigration or any other legislation. Either side insisting upon attaching extraneous measures to the CR or debt limit are the ones that become responsible for the consequences of the shutdown or debt limit.

When the Senate Democrats agreed to accept the House Republican spending limit, but refused to accept the Obamacare measures then they laid a trap for the Republicans. The House Republicans could have declared victory on spending, but instead refused that deal and now have to accept responsibility for the shutdown.

0

David Ihde 10 months, 1 week ago

Except your missing my main point here and that is negotiations for which Obama and Reid have refused! So the liability is with them!

0

mark hartless 10 months, 1 week ago

It's the american people (voters) who are "responsible" for the financial mess of this nation.

And if they think it's such a pitty to have their beloved government partially shut down for a few days by the critters in DC; or that life without government isn't worth living, then they should consider the ramifications of the eventual complete shutdown that will eventually be forced upon this nation for an extended period by our creditors.

1

John Fielding 10 months, 1 week ago

The 14th amendment and the principle it represents are no longer valid in practice. The laws are selectively enforced or ignored, quite blatantly. Various reasons are given, often "allocation of resources", not being able to enforce every law one must prioritize.

This is the inevitable result of having too many laws. We have come to this condition because on the whole, Americans have been successful in instituting governments that have served their needs well without too much infringement on their rights. We find government very useful for many purposes and so naturally tend to use it more often than might be prudent.

Governmental policy took a pronounced shift around the early 20th century with the ascendency of the Progressive movement. In other nations it ran to its logical conclusion quickly, hence the Soviet Union, the Chinese regime and other state dominated societies. In this nation it has taken longer, but the size and scope of our federal government, together with pervasive regulation even on a municipal level, makes it clear that we too have arrived at a point that the government dominates rather than simply serves.

We were warned by leaders of every generation since the founders that this could happen, that it was the natural tendency of government, that only eternal vigilance would prevent the slow sacrifice of liberty and rights in the name of security, economic interest, or social justice. But perhaps we have finally arrived at the point where the pendulum may swing back and balance be restored. In theory we still have the ability to reform our government. Many fear that it has grown so powerful that that is no longer possible. The selective enforcement of laws is an effective tool for preventing such reforms, and for rewarding those who support the regulators.

1

Scott Wedel 10 months, 1 week ago

The Sowell column is insipid. It basically argues that the Senate and the President have to accept whatever the House proposes. It manages to forget that the Senate has the right to amend a bill and return it to the House.

Who is responsible is not decided by a discussion of parliamentary procedures, but by who agreed to what. Senate Democrats agreed to the House Republican spending limits, but not the extraneous ACA stuff. They sent back a "clean CR" to the House.

Thus, the House faced the choice of passing a clean CR or insisting upon a CR with extraneous stuff. They have chosen extraneous measures. Thus, the public generally blames the House Republicans because they declined the clean CR and they refused to put the clean CR up for a vote.

The Republicans can spin it however they want, but they were tactically schooled by the Senate Democrats. The Senate Democrats were expected to set a higher spending limit. That would have allowed the House to talk about spending limits and the ACA. But when the Senate agreed to the House's spending limits and sent back a clean CR then the House was left without a negotiating position. But instead of claiming victory on the spending limit and passing the clean CR, the House left itself arguing that they need the CR to include something in order to save face.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 10 months, 1 week ago

Insipid - flat, dead, flavorless, savorless, tasteless, unsavory. I guess that means you don't agree with Mr. Sowell. My guess is it has more to with your political bias, then the actual content of the article.

0

Martha D Young 10 months, 1 week ago

The recent issue of the "New Yorker" has a good editorial regarding Amendment 14 and the government's obligation to meet its debts.

0

mark hartless 10 months, 1 week ago

Scott occasionally... often... has some good points. Having read Thomas Sowells works for many years I'll have to come down on Sowell's side on this one. I wish he would have been our first black President.

0

mike cooksey 10 months, 1 week ago

government programs were created to help those in time of need, not to provide income for a life time. The fact of the matter, it will never get better.....nobody will ever vote out "Santa Claus"

2

john bailey 10 months, 1 week ago

I think this is one of the most accurate posts I've ever seen on the pile-it website......and most like Santa, right ?<3

0

David Ihde 10 months, 1 week ago

Not sure what article you are referring to Martha, but from what I have seen in the New Yorker is in false agreement with many on the left that he has power under the 14th amendment. That is false! The 14th amendment gives Congress (not the President) authority under article 5 to enforce article 4 of the same. What Obama can do is make sure the interest on the debt is paid and then allocate the rest to whatever programs he can fund. Not raising the debt ceiling does not create a default as there is plenty of revenue to take care of the debt service. Programs are not debts, but instead the bonds issued to pay for them are!

And another misconception by many is that Congress is obligated to pay SS and Medicare. No they are not as determined by a 1960 Supreme Court decision!

0

jerry carlton 10 months, 1 week ago

David I went to bed, slept on it and still have the same reply to your final paragraph. If a government takes its citizens money for 78 years promising to return it to them in their old age does not live up to that promise, that government should be destroyed and replaced by those citizens as has happened many times in past history.

0

David Ihde 10 months, 1 week ago

That is why SS and Obamacre are the Big Lie! They are not there for you to be taken care of., They are there to control you! And that is why they sold it to you one way and then argued them from a completely different angle in court. And won both times! And the result is the same. All taxes belong to the general fund and the citizens have no tangible right to them. Therefore the Supreme Court has determined there are no conferred rights to that SS money. The same will hold true with Obamacare!

0

jerry carlton 10 months, 1 week ago

David Where do you stand concerning that this government may have to be destroyed and replaced by it's citizens somewhere down the road?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.