Yep. Of particular concern is that the Founders do not seem to have anticipated such a scenario.
So what exactly do they teach in civics class these days ? You've never heard of the "power of the purse". You are unaware that both parties have used this tactic in years past ?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
That's the "law of the land" too.
In Federalist #58 Madison writes ...
The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse—that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. 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.
FAILI it was fully anticipated by the founders.
As far as I can tell, there is no legal remedy against a persistent minority faction willing to go that far -- other than waiting for the next election, by which time irreparable harm will already have been inflicted.
What minority ? The Reps are a majority in the House - the branch that is required to originate spending bills. I won't accuse you of it Dymanic, but some seem to think we have an autocratic form of government where the president is in charge. Just the opposite; the office of the Pres was designed to be weak.
There is nothing to negotiate. The Republicans are making only demands, and no offers.
Reps
offered to fund all of Gov except for Obamacare. Then later
offered a 1yr rollout delay + removal of the device tax + denial of the Federal exemption. So far the Dems have loudly announced they won't negotiate and haven't responded with any intention to produce any sort of compromise.
This problem would likely neveer exist except that the Senate/Harry Reid has for years refused to bring an omnibus budget bill to the floor (several have been proposed by the House) and has failed to pass a budget, despite that this is against the "law of the land".
Harry Reid is large part of the current problem.
==
There is actually a LOT to negotiate here.
1/ The tax burden on med device makers seems counter-productive and generally harmful.
2/ The exemption for full complaince and waivers given to McDonalds, JackInTheBox and many other big companies is an exemption from taxation and seems to represent unequal treatment under the law, as well as an obvious case of crony capitalism.
3/ The current ACA inadequate security and evaluation of eligibility seems designed to permit massive fraud against government and individuals. No private enterprise would roll-out such an incompetent system. It needs rework. NIST should be involved in setting proper security standards.
