Entitled federal workers tell Washington Post they’re totally essential

If no adverse consequences will result from a federal shutdown, I suppose republicans have no reason to fear any negative political repercussions for having brought one about.

The employees of thousands of private sector contractors providing services to the federal government will be suddenly out of work as well.

Go ahead. Do it. I’m curious what no adverse consequences will look like.

If anyone is curious about what would be affected and what wouldn’t, USA Today offered this: 66 questions and answers about the government shutdown

Oddly enough, one thing that would hardly be affected at all is Obamacare. (Refer to questions 32 and 33.)

The answers to questions 64, 65, and 66 might also be of interest.

The writers of the Constitution never intended that a minority party should be able to shut down the federal government just because they don’t like a particular item of legislation that has been passed by both houses of Congress, has been properly signed into law by the President of the United States, and has then been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. They didn’t intend the budget process to be a mechanism whereby a minority party could overrule the legislative process, the judicial process, and the Executive Branch’s execution of the law.

To think such a mechanism was intended is absurd, as it essentially nullifies the entire Constitutional process of U.S. government.

There will be no compromise from the White House on this point. No responsible president should concede to the lunacy that a demand for the non-legislative, non-judicial overturning of duly passed legislation represents. To do so would set a precedent that would eventually destroy our entire Constitutional system of government.

The GOP leadership was completely crazy to allow themselves to be coerced by the far right into taking such an untenable position. The resultant situation is that the far right is about to destroy the GOP, and there’s nothing obvious that the President could offer that would represent a mutually beneficial way out of the dilemma.

@Greg:
That’s right because any duly passed legislation is good. Such as prohibition, segregation and of course the years before women had the right to vote. Now we know where you’d come down on all of these.

@Greg:

The writers of the Constitution never intended for a President to unilaterally rewrite laws after they were passed. Nor did they intend for a President to go beyond the powers and limitations of the office that they placed within the Constitution.

Greg: “They didn’t intend the budget process to be a mechanism whereby a minority party could overrule the legislative process, the judicial process, and the Executive Branch’s execution of the law. “

Wrong Greg, the Founders supported the rights of the minority party. Which the Democrats eschew when they are in the majority. Last I checked however, the Republicans are in control of the House as an equal legislative branch whose responsibility is to decide how Federal funds should be spent. When there has been poorly crafted legislation made law, that threatens to destroy the economy, and that has been illegally altered by the President, it is their duty as the loyal opposition to use their Constitutional power of the purse to put a stop to it. The voters clearly gave the House over to the Republicans to serve as a check and balance on the Obama administration, and it is looking more likely that in 2014 they will do the same for the Senate.

Context of ‘1793: Madison: President Must Not Have Power to Declare War’

…Finally, the Founders, all too aware that until the English Revolution of 1688, the King of England could use his “prerogative powers” to dispense with a law that he felt unnecessary, move to ensure that the US president cannot use a similar usurpation of power to override Congressional legislation, writing in the Constitution that the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In 2007, reporter Charlie Savage, drawing on James Madison’s Federalist Papers, will write: “Knowing that it was inevitable that from time to time foolish, corrupt, or shortsighted individuals would win positions of responsibility in the government, the Founders came up with a system that would limit anyone’s ability to become a tyrant or to otherwise wreck the country. And over the next century and a half, the system worked as the Founders had designed it to work.” [Savage, 2007, pp. 14-16]

Founding Fathers Feared An Imperial President

In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.�?

As the closest to “The People”t it was designed by the founders in the Constitution to give the House of Representatives the Responsibility to decide how the monies shall be spent, which is why all spending and taxation legislation must originate in the House. The Senate can offer amendments and alter the bill but the House is under no compulsion to retain those changes. It is the Senate and President who are saying that it must be 100% our way, while the House has offered to compromise. As the Senate and White House wont even negotiate a compromise agreement with the House, it is their refusal that shuts down the government, not the House who continues to send forth bills that funds All of the government except for The Obamacare program. This is loyal opposition in action, something the Democrats and MSM applaud when the Democrats are in the minority.