Hacker News Reader

Comment by baron816 | Hacker News Reader

I think the more important thing is to keep a single branch from using a shutdown as a tool to get their way. Government via hostage taking is not democratic.

View on HN

Exactly. If the president vetoes everything unless he gets his way, then you might as well get rid of the other branches of government entirely and have him write/pass all the bills himself.

Otherwise known as a dictatorship.

Congress can override a Presidential veto.

And I'd love to see the Republicans in Congress do that in this instance. But I'm not holding my breath...

I actually think Government via hostage taking is fine. The Government won't be hurt in the end, it is a non-corporeal entity. The people who work for the government won't be fine.

What I think needs to happen is that the hostage takers have to be brought to justice or made to pay for utilizing such tactics. I think the hardest part is that the people have to remember this transgression at a personal level.

Does that apply to the shutdowns under Obama and Clinton?

Not just one branch, but one part of the branch: The Senate. The ball is literally in their court. McConnell already passed the bill. He voted for it. That he's not voting on it again is shameful.

Both branches of the government are holding the country hostage.

Only one person veto'd the continuing resolution this time around.

We know who to blame. If both sides walked away from the CR, then maybe you'd have a point. But only ONE side (of the three sides: House, Senate, and President) have walked away from the CR.

Shutdown also started when the House was controlled by Republicans. The shutdown was 10-days old before Pelosi took the gavel and Democrats entered the house. Former speaker Ryan didn't feel like fixing the issue on his way out, so he left it to the Democrats. McConnell, while he's gone into hiding recently, managed to pass a bill in late December which could have prevented the shutdown (so McConnell barely gets a passing grade. A C-, he did something to stop the shutdown at least. But McConnell should show some leadership and rally the Senate to stop the shutdown today, just as he did back in December)

I place the blame mostly on the President (for destroying the CR agreement McConnell passed), and somewhat on Mr. Ryan for walking away from the problem on the last 10 days of his Speakership.

I'm not sure about that logic. It's just a consequence of the order of operations. If the process went Sentate->President->House for approval, the House would be the only one to not approve a bill that included wall funding.

Good reason for that: Congress controls the purse. The House already passed legislation that all Senators in December passed, so most of the Senators still there voted in favor of the bill. Congress doesn't need the President's approval, either. They can override his veto. The Senate has the votes for that already based on votes for the same legislation already.

The Senate could take it up for a vote again, and pass the bill they already passed, but they won't, purely for political games.

They aren't the same bill (115th vs 116th).

There are five groups in play.

The 115th Senate, the 116th Senate, the 115th House, the 116th House, and finally the President (who didn't change).

The 115th Senate passed a CR. The 115th House failed to pass the CR. The 116th House passed a CR, that the 116th Senate is failing to pass.

-------

In any case, the 115th Senate passed a CR with OVERWHELMING support: 71-Aye, 21 Nay, 8 not voting. That's both filibuster-proof AND veto-proof (if the bill were to come back). A huge portion of the country wants the CR to happen (ie: Keep government open while the debate happens).

--------

Its hard to blame the 115th House (they didn't want to embarrass the President), or the 116th Senate (McConnell also doesn't want to embarrass the President). But it is clear that Trump's actions on the last week of December rallied the Republicans to support the wall more vigorously.

But those 71 Senators who voted "Aye" for the late 2018 December CR : where are they now? They heard the President, and have decided to change their minds on the issue.

------

Ask yourself: why is the Dec 2018 CR dead? Who killed it? How can a bill with 71 Aye votes in the Senate eventually die?

Republicans passed a CR while they had the house but it was filibustered by Democrats in the Senate. So TWO sides have walked away actually.

> Republicans passed a CR while they had the house but it was filibustered by Democrats in the Senate

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2018/12/19/sen...

The senate passed a CR on December 19th / 20th, which would have prevented the shutdown (at least until Feb 8). Period. The House failed to pass this CR.

The measure passed with 71 Ayes. That's filibuster proof (and Veto-proof to boot), with numerous Democrats and Republicans agreeing together. Your history is straight up wrong.

Nope. Check it out dawg. House passed it. Dem Senators scuttled it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll472.xml

That's not a clean CR and you know it wasn't. IE: The House capitulated to Trump's demands for a wall. $5 Billion on the wall, which is why it passed the House.

The Senate bill I talked about before (with 71-votes for aye) was CLEAN, it was apolitical. It was simply keeping funding at the same levels as last year while the debate continued.

How so? The populace elected a Democrat majority to the House. They don't want the Wall. They are under zero obligation to fund it, and it is not hostage-taking to do so.

Mind going into a little more detail?

The house has passed a CR, last years senate has passed a CR. Mitch McConnell refuses to allow a vote on a CR until the president says he won't veto it.

To me this issue seems like a pretty straightforward case of one branch holding the country hostage.

I mean, if you count Mitch McConnell twice refusing to entertain spending bills that previously passed in the Senate, then yes, both branches are holding the government hostage.

And given that Mitch McConnell only has that ability by consent of the Senate. They could elect someone else in his place if they wanted to (Democrats might very well vote for a different Republican in such a case instead of voting party lines. it would only take a few Republicans siding with Democrats to replace Mitch).

This is exactly how the US federal government is designed to operate.

The reason that it's such a harmful thing right now is because the federal government employs far more people than it was designed to employ.

That would be more plausible if one side had not already claimed "credit" for the shut down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n-Y4TIgktg&feature=youtu.be...

I didn't know there were only two branches of the government

There are three branches. There are only two that are involved in passing budgets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com