>>>As a wise dude once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." What you're expecting now, is one of those other forms of goverment that clearly deviates from the way it was designed. Apparently the expectation is that if you pile up invective you can trump the legislative process.
>>>
>>>The fact is that the act has been passed. It was challenged in the Supreme Court. The challenge did not succeed in delaying or overturning the bill.
>>>
>>>The rest is smokescreen, since it doesn't matter how much invective or allegation can be stacked up. What matters who is voted into power and is able to pass or repeal bills. The others are entitled to holler and decry, but demanding re litigation of a passed act as the price of government? Nope.
>>
>>I'm not rabid on the subject of Obamacare one way or the other since unlike apparently everyone who is, I am neither an expert on the economics of the health care industry nor am I familiar with every single detail of the thousands of pages defining it.
>>
>>But I am kind of interested in the ideas of separating partisan passion from constitutional argument. I suggest this article and if there are real constitutional arguments against the point Sowell makes I'm interested.
>>
>>http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100413.php3#.UlLl51MQMvP
>
>"....If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility....."
>
>That is a pretty lame-brained way to look at it - take a looong close look at that sentence & tell me otherwise..haha -

Charles and I frequently disagree but he is anything but lame-brained. It's quite possible he is the smartest person I know.