UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

I say beware of a new US system of government that erases separation of powers from the founders intentions if this shutdown ends the way folks are hoping. Despite the well intentioned action of the Tea Party, they are creating a bad precedent. From now on, as long as one faction can control the House, anything is possible to control the entire government. The Tea Party used to stand against special interests controlling the government but it is ironic that given the opportunity, they behave the same. They warn about c*******m, socialism and welfare state yet, they lost focus on basic liberty. It does not satisfy me that they promise to use it wisely.

Should we no longer expect the minority political power to criticize problems and make a new platform that the mainstream will embrace to give them the majority in the next e******ns? For example, the Tea Party could have grouped all the obamacare problems into an e******n platform, maybe even calling it, “Insurance Mandate Bill of Rights”. This is how the system has worked, born out of the constitutional separation of powers. For the purpose of constitutional purity now and in the future, you should root against them. Devaluing separation of powers architecture of the U.S. Constitution is not worth any special interest; the ends do not justify the means.

renaissanceman1776

I'm not sure that I understand what you have written. Just think about what is the nature of government under the U.S. Constitution. When Franklin said to the lady who asked him after the Philadelphia Convention, "what form of government did you provide us?". He answered, " A Republican form of government, as long as you can keep it." What did he mean? Why were women denied the right to v**e then? What did the founders create? Why was s***ery still allowed? This all happened in 1788. What was the general thinking of the elites then? Hint, this was the age of the enlightenment. What did that mean? Your contribution to this discussion is based upon modern nonsense. You are only spewing your opinion, which is not based on real facts, only sentimental gibberish. Think about what you are saying, or what you want to contribute to this debate.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Tea Party is in name only, it's a group that believes in less government, less taxes and the Constitution. Challenging the bill takes an huge amounts of money plus the bill has changed 19 times. When you listen to the talking heads you hear it's all the Tea party's fault but not once the democrats. The media lies like a rug but not reporting things that don't fit their way of thinking.

grey gringo Loc: South Texas

The Media is our biggest problem. It is wholly owned and operated by the l*****t elite. Don't ever expect to hear any news or commentary that puts Tea Party Patriots in a fair light as our conservative/smaller government/fair tax ideals are like the light of day to a vampire. They cannot tolerate any dissent and marginalize any who disagree with them.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

It was a short essay about how the constitution was based on separating government powers into the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This is purposefully constructed to prevent any one faction's interests from controlling government. The competition for political power has always allowed the minority political power to grow into the majority by observing the needs of the people and campaigning on popular agendas. Laws are not changed by amendments to budget bills from minority factions rather, they're changed by representatives of the majority.

grey gringo Loc: South Texas

You need to aknoledge that the Republicans are in the majority in the House of Representatives. Also all spending bills are supposed to originate in the house. So it would seem that the Republicans are correct in the steadfastness.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

ObamaCare I believe did start in the House and was passed with no republican support, thus enough Tea Party members were elected plus republicans that the democrats lost control of the House.

Thinkmanvt

Legislative history

Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

I find no v**e by the House Oct 8, 2009 even checking Wiki but I do find the rest with zero republican support, 28 dems against though.

Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana

I hope there are enough tea party members in the republican party to take over the Senate and keep the house next year. If that happens, I think maybe Obastard might start running scared.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

I'd be happy with republicans taking over with Tea Party in support, al least they talk to each other.

Thinkmanvt

I did a quick look at Wikipedia and got the cited "Legislative History" from the rightmost summary. After I hit send, I thought the 416-0 v**e looked goofy.

Is there a good source (not closed down by the budget scuffle) to check the existence of the cited "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009 and what really became of it? It also seems like an odd name to turn into the Affordable Care Act. I really like Wikipedia's convenience, but I go to it for background for "what I don't know", not to proofread/verify it. In this case, I am not sure I read it carefully enough prior to using it. It may be time for a more nose-to-the-grindstone lesson on research of Federal legislative proceeding. Suggestions?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

I believe they have two or three pages, I didn't read then all but I could find no 416-6 nor do I remember anything to do with ObamaCare that anything to nothing. Damn few bills get no rejection.

Thinkmanvt

This is site to which Wikipedia links for the 416-0 v**e (a motion to suspend rules and pass.)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll768.xml

FINAL V**E RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 768
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 3590 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 8-Oct-2009 12:15 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
BILL TITLE: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act

Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 243 12
Republican 173 4
Independent
TOTALS 416 16

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Now I'm a bit confused, motion to suspend the rules and pass?? This was setting the standards plus it didn't force states into it.