>>>I suggest this article and if there are real constitutional arguments against the point Sowell makes I'm interested.
>
>So a recognized conservative/libertarian has a particular pov. Fancy that. ;-)
>
>The question revolves around the concept that Congress can vote to fund some programs and not others. If current behavior is the intent of the system as Sowell asserts, then it's a recipe for chaos. Passing a law means nothing: as soon as "the other side" gains ascendency it can eradicate laws by starving them out.
>
>The justification in this case is that the people are opposed to Obamacare so Republicans have a duty to fight it. However, the latest survey of registered voters found that only 33 percent believe that Obamacare should be delayed, starved or repealed. 29% felt that Congress should make changes to improve it, 26% said Congress should let the law take effect so people can see how it goes, and 12 percent believe that the law should be expanded. So: voters may be worried that Obamacare won't deliver as promised. But they also believe that it needs to be given a chance to succeed. IOW it's not possible to disguise the attempt to derail it as responding to what the people want.

Yes that is yet another bang-you-head-against-wall thing. Repubs keep saying people don't want AHA - but they do. Facts & truth do not seem to play a part in the GOP's platform on this issue.