Share This Article with a Friend!


Ted Cruz Sets Up A Necessary Constitutional Confrontation

Ted Cruz Defund OCare
The Democrats, big government Republicans and their enablers in the establishment media have been trying to convince the American people that Senator Ted Cruz is wrong and that the debate and vote over defunding Obamacare, and its potential for causing a government shutdown, is unnecessary.

In our view Cruz is not only right to pursue this strategy, such a debate is not just necessary, it is absolutely vital to the future of constitutional government in this country.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires Republicans to fund programs with which they disagree.

Indeed, the Constitution contemplates that in a system of “checks and balances” Congress will act as a check on an overweening and ambitious President by reining-in spending and encroachments on individual freedom.

The Constitution also contemplates a federal government of strictly limited powers and responsibilities, and therein lies the problem; Democrats and big government Republicans have fashioned a government that does everything, which in turn justifies spending whatever is necessary to provide those services and implement the vast array of laws and regulations that accompany them.

Even if the people no longer need or want those services – and the people clearly don’t want Obamacare.

The Real Clear Politics average report on polls on the subject shows a majority of 52.2% of those polled opposes implementing Obamacare. Individually, those polls show opposition running as high as 57% (CNN/Opinion Research).

The House vote to defund Obamacare looked like Congress was actually following the will of the people for a change – and that in the process conservatives gained a victory, at least in the sense that conservatives got Speaker Boehner to give the defunding effort a straight up or down vote.

But here’s what happens now that the House has passed a “defund CR,” and sent it to the Senate.

As the Senate’s Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to manipulate the process, it will take every Republican vote in the Senate, plus some Democrats, to pass a CR without Obamacare funding in it.

And many of the Senate’s establishment Republicans have already said they won’t stand and fight for a CR that defunds Obamacare if it risks shutting down the government.

When the “defund CR” fails in the Senate, as it is likely to, is when the real test of Republican mettle in this fight begins – because that’s when the threat of a government shutdown becomes real.

If the federal government is ever to be brought back inside strict constitutional limits, then the confrontation that Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and other limited government constitutional conservatives have forced is absolutely fundamental to that process.

House Republicans must then stand firm against any CR that comes back from the Senate with Obamacare funding in it.

If they don’t, then what is established is the principle that the federal government is, in essence, entitled to whatever money is necessary to keep programs Congress created in the past going, whether the people want them or not, and a perpetual government entitlement to funding would signal the end of constitutional government in America..

Share this

Constitutional Confrontation

The real confrontation would be to do away with the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and no one has the guts to do this. All this he says she says is nothing but entertainments as is the media and radio talking heads. Unless we do away with the Federal Reserve we will never be a free country and it is all going to collapse in a few years. Better you should buy gold and silver and be prepared to move to another country or live under Agenda 21.

affordable care

Stand firm??? Yesterday the "big grandstander" urged Senators to hold firm against cloture, suggesting a vote for cloture was ipso facto a vote for "Obamacare." Lo and behold, who voted in favor of cloture??? 100% of the seated members voted in favor! What a phony!

Checks and Balances

First, the Affordable Care Act was illegally ramrodded through the Senate. Only the House has the power to initiate a revenue generating bill.

Second, the House has every right and the power to defund any bill it chooses.

Third, a bill isn't law until it has been funded and gone into effect.

Fourth, the three branches of government are equal which means the judicial branch does not have the last word. It is called checks and balances.

Wrong on all counts

You put forth an unchecked, unbalanced House having more power than it should.

First, the ACA was passed by a duly elected House, Senate, and President. It's not illegal. It's not unconstitutional.

Second, the House has limited power when it comes to defunding bills. There is little to no American precedent of using appropriations to defund a duly voted upon law.

Third, a bill is law as soon as it is signed into law by the President after being passed by both chambers of Congress. The Supreme Court reviewed the ACA. The Supreme Court reviews laws, not bills.

Fourth, the Judicial does have the last say on whether a law is Constitutional or not. And the House only counts as half of the legislative branch... they have to work with the Senate.

Repeal the ACA by due means. No shortcuts or parlor tricks. No sophistry to justify lawlessness on the conservatives' parts. If your side isn't going to stand for law & order, then I guess the Democrats will assume that mantle.

So your defunding standard is the following...

...Every time Congress votes to fund the government, they should poll the public and defund any program that does not receive 51+% of the public's support? Why should that standard be applied to Obamacare and not every other program that is not wanted by 51+% of the American public? We're talking principles, right? Not just arbitrary measures.

Even then, what about statistical error? Common/average statistical error range in polls is 3%... That makes 52% against Obamacare within the statistical error of actually being 49%... in which case you are then defunding a program out of statistical error. Seems to me the standard needs to be above 52% to avoid statistical errors in polling. What exactly is the statistical error range for the 52.2% poll average this article puts forth? Why does this article not factor that in?

How is this conservatism?

I have no problem with Ted Cruz following his principles, but to be honest, I don't quite get how this qualifies as conservatism.

Conservatism means standing for law & order. Defunding a law that was duly voted through and backed up as Constitutional by the Supreme Court is to undermine the law, not support it. I'd really like to know how such radical behavior as shutting down government and defunding due laws counts as being for law & order. It doesn't. Courting lawlessness does not count as conservatism.

I was under the impression that it was the conservatives who preserve normality in America while the liberals try to radically alter our society by any means necessary. Conservatism is about preserving tradition, and there is no American tradition of defunding laws that have been voted through and upheld by due process. Just how do you toss bombs at the fabric of our society and call that conservatism? Show me one time Ronald Reagan suggested shutting down government over anything.

If you really want to defeat Obamacare, you aren't going to do it with cheap political tricks. A true conservative who valued tradition, law, and order would know the obvious answer... Let the law become law (and fund it as so), then run against it. Repeal and/or replace the law by proper means by getting a majority in Congress and the White House. Change a law you disagree with through the democratic process, not through procedural maneuvers. Disagree with me if you will, but please recognize what I'm putting forth is traditional law & order conservatism that goes about changing the system by normal means, not by radical means.

Law and order

You mean the 'Affordable Health Care Act' that was illegally ramrodded through Congress by the Democrats in the Senate, don't you? Only the House has the authority to initiate revenue bills. Also, a bill isn't the law of the land if it hasn't been funded and gone into effect yet.

As for standing for law and order, explain that to the liberal Democrats and Obama who defied "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", marriage being between a man and a woman, going around Congress on immigration, etc.

The House has the right and the power to defund whatever bill it so desires. It is called checks and balances. The judicial, executive, and legislative are equal. The judicial branch does not have the last word.

The ACA was passed legally

Voted on by a majority of the House and Senate at the time, signed into law by the President. Your claims of illegality over the ACA have no basis. And since when does funding decide if a law is a law or not? And of course the Supreme Court has the last word on whether a law is Constitutional or not.

You are just making stuff up because you don't like what was duly voted on by a majority of representatives and Senators. You advocate lawlessness, not law & order. I expect that from the liberal crowd, but not the conservatives. You are advocating anarchy and calling it conservatism. You explain to the Obama crowd why you are just as lawless as they are. That's not on me.