This Morning's Coffee Spew Moment

Epps (the author of the linked article) writes:

The Great Pretender has often refused to spend money as appropriated by Congress, he has altered the implementation of his "precious" -- the ACA -- to not spend money where it was appropriated and spend that money elsewhere in the program, and has generally failed to follow most financial legislation passed by both houses. Presidents have done this in isolated instances in the past, but the alteration of legislation -- essentially "rewrites" of the laws as passed -- are common with this fool. He either doesn't realize he has no authority to do so, or he defies Congress and the courts to do something about it. So far, no one has had the guts or the backbone to tell him "No." It is time someone did so.

 

Come to think of it, I did see that. Great idea. But the case won't make it to SCOTUS, where it will have to be ultimately decided, for years, and the government will get court orders to delay implementation "in the interests of the country" (translation: in the interests of the Great Pretender) and by the time it is decided, it will be a moot point. The law will be in place, or it will have been repealed.

 

Who wrote that, Chris Matthews???

 

I just noticed that Epps made this observation at the end of the article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...obama-will-be-forced-to-break-the-law/280176/​

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to prevent the release of a man who was organizing a pro-Confederacy militia in Maryland, which of course surrounds Washington, D.C. on three sides. For Epps to compare Lincoln's suspension of law for the sake of the safety of the Union and the government to a potential use of the Fourtheenth Amendment's Section Four is absurd. Elsewhere in the article he direly predicts 1929-like domino effect on the world economy as was the stock market crash. He forgets our credit rating has already been downgraded, and the only effect was we had to raise interest paid on our treasury bonds and notes. The sky didn't fall, the world didn't end, commerce didn't cease to exist. It just cost more to borrow money, as it should when you own nine times more than you can expect to earn each year. Individuals can't owe that ratio of debt to income and maintain a high credit rating. Why should the U.S. government?