>Victor, as a general concept, I understand what you're saying, but please read Message #1584831
>
>Laws that are protected by the Constitution must be, to use the football term for instant replay of "indisputable evidence", clearly within the parameters of the Constitution. I submit to you that the AHCA has not passed the test of the Constitutional process. It fails constitutionality for two reasons, either one conclusive.

Constitutionality aside (and I agree there are some constitutional issues), this law (the ACA), which is quickly proving itself to be a problem, certainly deserves to have its funding restricted until it is either FIXED, or re-WRITTEN. I find it incredible that the executive branch is allowed to ignore laws on a wholesale basis (ignoring immigration law, ignoring the employer mandate in ACA, ignoring dozens of reporting requirements, et al) all while the blame is being cast upon Congress for doing what they believe to be their job. It is the basis of our three-branch system and the fact that it is working is causing such childishness in DC.

Right, wrong or indifferent - how can the Senate and President continue to ignore bills which have passed the House and would put Americans (govt workers, etc) back to work? Leave the disagreement over ACA and get the government working again. It needs another year to come to proper fruition anyway...and by then the voters can make clear their intentions (whatever they may be).

Besides, the whole concept of "Omnibus" acts and "Continuing Resolutions" are what got us in this financial mess to begin with...a bloated behemoth of a government that is quickly growing at an unsustainable rate. Maybe they ought to get back to passing individual Bills which they have actually READ and then see what we have.