Authority to refuse Obamacare funding belongs to the House alone

Sep 25, 2013 | Constitution

By Dr. Harold Pease

In a 230/189 vote the U.S. House of Representative recently voted to fund the government but defund Obamacare. Can it do so constitutionally? Historically throughout the ages, the people have had little freedom from excessive government which became the cause of the American Revolution. Ramses, an Egyptian Pharaoh, made the Israelite slaves gather their own straw in addition to making the bricks. The greatest concerns of the masses have always been excessive taxation and unpopular wars because the first took their hard earned money and the second potentially their lives. Under the Constitution, and for the first time in history, they could prevent either.

Everything hinged upon funding which was given exclusively to the House of Representatives—the only power that they alone had. “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives. If that does not happen taxpayer money cannot be spent. The people, through their representatives to Congress, have determined, after a three-year closer scrutiny of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), that it does not protect the patient, is not affordable and is not even workable; hence in the interests of the vast majority of the people needs to be defunded.

Spending can only occur after raising revenue and since only one body is authorized to initiate this, it follows that if they refuse to initiate it the issue ends, regardless of what the Senate chooses to do. Refusal is understood. Neither Senate or Presidential acceptance is necessary as on other bills—the people have spoken. If the House won’t do the necessary first part, second and third parts cannot follow. It might be well to remember that this grant to the House, in Article 7, is a grant of power separate from and preceding Section 8 which itemizes the law making, thus spending, powers of Congress. In this particular instance, raising revenue, the House has clear distinction and is set apart from the Senate. Any other interpretation would undermine, even destroy, the peoples right of approval of taxation—the right not to be excessively taxed. A right no other people in world history has had, as far as I am able to determine—a most precious freedom.

House opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a “stand alone” bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. “Stand alone,” having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile—Obamacare is merely defunded. No expenditures for Obamacare would follow. This course is recommended should the Senate strip defunding language from the bill when they get it. Such action on their part would be a slap in the face of The House of Representatives and they should accept it as such.

One benefit of keeping a defunding bill separate is that the President then could not as easily accuse the republicans of attempting to shut down the government. It would have nothing to do with funding the government. It would be a separate argument, which goes as follows. Not expending money is less likely to shut the government down than over expending which is what the House says the bill contributes to. Presently we are unable to pay our bills to the tune of between 3 to 4 billion dollars a day.

Choosing to defund in the normal budget bill, instead of as a separate bill, is a decidedly weaker approach. They subject themselves to a no vote from the Senate and a promised veto from the President, were it to make it through the Senate. Overriding the veto is not likely. The people lose again and the clarity of the Constitution, that the House alone has origin authority, is lost.

The long-term practice of not specifically raising revenue but instead listing expenditures, then asking for that amount of money, does cloud the issue and does allow the Senate to, in effect, raise revenue otherwise prohibited by clear constitutional language. We should have a separate bill disconnected from the budget, specifically intended to raise revenue. Since the budget bill is seen today as raising revenue we are probably stuck with the practice until some real constitutionalist get into office. If Obamacare expenses are omitted can the Senate, or Joint Conference Committee add them by amendment? Yes, and it will, and that is the problem!! For now it appears that the only hope of the House is to stand firm on the defunding issue in the Joint Conference Committee.

Still, the intent of the Founding Fathers was to give the people, through their House of Representatives, the power collectively to say no to any proposed federal tax, which she is decidedly doing. Members of the Senate should drop their resistance accepting the authority of their sister law making branch lest they play a dominate role in the loss of it by their ignorance of the Constitution. If this check on excessive government is destroyed, we may one day return to forcibly making bricks with straw that we are also forced to gather.

When will the Republican Party take responsibility for its irresponsible spending?

Mar 30, 2013 | Constitution, Economy, Taxes

By Dr. Harold Pease

Every evening as I watch the news I hear the Democrats blasted for their irresponsible, wasteful spending leading this nation to its highest national debt with over $6 trillion accredited to President Barack Obama alone. Just this week Secretary of State John Kerry gave the Palestinians some $500 million not to attack Israel. Last month Egypt reportedly received 16 F-16 fighter jets together with some 400 tanks; their likely target Israel, our supposed friend. Every year we give them $1.7 billion in foreign aid. All this while we close down White House tours allegedly because we do not have the money to keep them open. We presently spend (waste) about $20 billion dollars annually on “buying” friends, called foreign aid. The spending goes on and on with Democrats, according to the news, responsible for most of it.

So, if true, why attack the Republican Party? They are not in charge Democrats are! That was so for Obama’s first two years in power, but decidedly not so since 2010. When Republicans retook the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi handed the gavel of leadership to John Boehner, Republicans assumed the major responsibility of this Congressional body—taxing and spending. The Constitution reads, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1). Neither the Senate nor the White House can constitutionally initiate taxes. All the Republican controlled House has to do to stop irresponsible spending is to not originate the bill to cover the expenses. The annual House Budget could leave out items formerly approved. Deficit spending could end simply by their refusal to pass new deficit spending bills.

It is true that the President has not had a budget, although required by law, in over four years and he is already almost two months late in proposing one this year as well. Until such time as one is processed constitutionally the House budget should be the official federal budget. It is also true that no tax law can originate to cover his expenses without first the consent of the House of Representatives. Hence only the House Budget really matters. If a president spends money not first approved by this body he is, in effect, raising revenue, a power that he does not possess and both parties should share in his condemnation. Sole power of impeachment also originates from the House, and a president perpetually attempting to exclude the House of its sole power to raise revenue might be reminded of the second power. Also, given that a president’s salary is also a budget item, the House might explore the possibility of not raising revenue for this purpose should this body feel threatened by a president’s usurpation of the House power. This procedure was openly used by state legislatures on zealous royal governors to help bring them into line during Colonial American History.

Why do the House of Representatives alone have this power? The power of the purse (both taxing and spending) is one of the most important powers of the Constitution. The Founders resolved that it should be left with the representatives of the people, thus making it impossible for the people to be over-taxed without their consent for more than two years as all members of this body come up for reelection on the same date—every two years. To my knowledge no other people in history have had control over their taxes. It is a priceless freedom.

Addressing this subject James Madison observed, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The U.S. Constitution mandates that “the House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.” This power alone he added, “can overcome all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse… (The Federalist, No. 58).”

So Republicans, if you do not like the above reckless spending charge that I have attributed to you, assume your Constitutional House of Representatives duty to protect the people from such and do so immediately. You are in charge in this matter, not they. Your failure to act weakens this part of the Constitution. Mankind waited almost 6,000 years to have freedom from excessive taxation. You do not have the right to lose it for posterity.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.