Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – If their constituents are telling them in every single poll that I have seen that their constituents or the American sheeple are not in favor currently of the Affordable Care Act, which is not going to be very affordable at all, if the constituency is saying no, then the House has a duty to obey, just as the House has the duty to obey t not deploy troops and not allow any force in the federal government to deploy troops into Syria unless it gives it its approbation. The same then should hold true for the Affordable Care Act or any other act of Congress, any other one. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: So what’s going to happen in the Senate today? I have no idea. Can you play the Coburn clips? You’re going to hear Senator Coburn of Oklahoma say, [mocking] “This is much ado about nothing. This is just the House grandstanding.” No, I don’t believe that at all, and you shouldn’t either. I’ll tell you why. Remember, the House of Representin’ is supposed to represent the people. That’s the house that actually is supposed to represent their constituents. If their constituents are telling them in every single poll that I have seen that their constituents or the American sheeple are not in favor currently of the Affordable Care Act, which is not going to be very affordable at all, if the constituency is saying no, then the House has a duty to obey, just as the House has the duty to obey t not deploy troops and not allow any force in the federal government to deploy troops into Syria unless it gives it its approbation. The same then should hold true for the Affordable Care Act or any other act of Congress, any other one. The idea here that the House is just playing politics, they are politicians after all. It is their job, or supposed to be their job, to be representatives and to represent. To me, regardless of the motivations of it, this is precisely what the House of Representin’ ought to be doing. Here’s Senator Coburn.
[start audio file]
Senator Tom Coburn: Tactics and strategies ought to be based on what the real world is. We do not have the political power to do this. We’re not about to shut the government down. We don’t have the ability, both according to CRS, nor politically do we have the ability to put a total stop and defund Obamacare. It would be nice if we did. I’d be in the fight. It’s a great attempt to raise the issue of some of the weaknesses and problems with Obamacare. It’s not a tactic that we can actually carry out and be successful.
[end audio file]
Mike: There’s a member of the U.S. Senate saying: We’re not going to be able to carry this out and be successful. How do you define success? If you define success as stopping the entire train that is Obamacare, then I suppose what he said is correct. What if you’re able to exact one small victory out of this? I think that would be a very large victory, and that would be to deny enforcement of and deny the funding for, by statute, of the mandate portion of it and of the collection of the tax and fine. Remember, folks, don’t listen to anyone who says anything other than what I’m about to tell you. The act of one legislature cannot bind the act of the next, it can’t. This isn’t even just a constitutional provision. This is handed down to us from English common law. I can’t remember which king it was. It was one of the English kings that tried to assail the parliament to say once one parliament had voted, even if the people were angered over it, there was nothing the next parliament could do. There was a revolt. There would have been a massive revolt, maybe even an end to the monarchy if that William or whoever it was had not capitulated and said: I agree, it’s a principle. One legislature cannot bind the next.
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
The reason for this is, there is always a possibility, and I would say not only a possibility but a probability, that the first legislature is going to commit an error. Let me give you a great example. I’m going to give you an example of the first legislature committing a great error or that things done in the first instance are almost always open for or should be available for repair. How many of you have upgraded your iPhones in the last week or so? I don’t mean you bought a new one. I mean you’ve upgraded your operating system, your iOS. You may have noticed that there is great concern. You can feel it out there among the Apple force. There is a great disturbance in the Apple force. Many people that have 7.0, I think — I don’t know. I didn’t do it and I’ll tell you why in a minute. People that are early adopters of these things ultimately wind up being some sort of test subject. Just release it out there, let people tinker around and monkey around with it and use it for a couple days, complain mightily about it, send all their feedback, and then we’ll update it and come out with version 7.1. I’ll put it on mine after all you guinea pigs have tested it out, like AG. How has your acclimation to iOS 7 going, by the way?
Mike: Have you gotten accustomed to it now? My understanding is that they moved things around and there are different buttons and different terminology used and what not.
AG: Barely but I don’t know enough to be able to say this is hugely different to me. It’s all kind of the same thing.
Mike: But we do know that there will be a version 7.1. This is version 7.0, right?
AG: That is correct.
Mike: The act of this Apple legislature was to create version 7.0. The act of the next Apple legislature will be to create version 7.1. They’re not bound by the act of the first legislature and things that don’t work, so they’re going to go in and fix what didn’t work from what legislature 7.0 passed. They’re going to repair those things in version 7.1, and so on and so forth. We don’t seem to have any rigidity when it comes to most of the other things in our lives that we use. I just used the iPhone as one example. It’s not the example; it’s an example. We don’t seem to have any rigidity when it comes to those sorts of things in our lives. Why should the process of law and of politics be any different? The fact of the matter is, it shouldn’t be any different. If a law was passed in 2010 and if a future congress has adjudged it to be detrimental and injurious to the people’s liberties and to their safety and happiness, then it has a duty to either alter, amend, or abolish it. In the first instance, what the House is trying to do is a combination of all three. Now it goes to the Senate and we’ll have to wait and see.
The Senate does have these rules where senators can do these things called filibusters. There are other tools in the senatorial arsenal. Basically, if a member of the U.S. Senate does not vote, or does not at least attempt — the way I read this — to gut the tax provision, the fine, the penalty, whatever you’d like to call it, from the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, then that member of the U.S. Senate has voted for basically a tax increase. For those that voted for it the first time around, they may not be concerned about it. For senators like Joe Manchin from West Virginia, he may be concerned about it because he is filling out the term of Robert Byrd. There are others that may not want to then give it their approbation. There will be an election in 2014 and they will then have gone on the record for and will have supported the ACA’s taxing provisions. I don’t think this is a move of folly at all. I don’t think it’s the best thing they could have done, but it’s certainly not the worst. We shall see. It will be intriguing to see if the Senate actually does address the bill, or if they just vote to say: We’re not even going to have a debate over this. Let’s move onto some other business. How about the debt ceiling coming up?
End Mike Church Show Transcript