DHS Shutdown 2015 in House Hands!

[Jermyn Davidson]

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8109065/dhs-shutdown-bill

The Senate has passed a "clean" bill that keeps the DHS operating appropriately.

Now, it is up to the House to pass the same "clean" bill that funds DHS.

"Clean" is meant as a bill that doesn't have the political posturing attached to it.

The Senate's attitude-- use another bill to posture and don't hold DHS funding hostage to the political whims of the hour.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8109065/dhs-shutdown-bill

The Senate has passed a "clean" bill that keeps the DHS operating appropriately.

Now, it is up to the House to pass the same "clean" bill that funds DHS.

"Clean" is meant as a bill that doesn't have the political posturing attached to it.

The Senate's attitude-- use another bill to posture and don't hold DHS funding hostage to the political whims of the hour.

Politics as usual.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Politics as usual.

It was politics that motivated the House to pass a funding bill with extra stuff added (targetted at Obama of course...)

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It was politics that motivated the House to pass a funding bill with extra stuff added (targetted at Obama of course...)

Democrats have done the same thing, JD. This is nothing new. Neither the added amendments nor your and complaining about Republicans.

Same old story, just the Democrats are on the other side this time.

The Democrats are siding with an executive order which a US Federal Judge ruled is unconstitutional.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It was politics that motivated the House to pass a funding bill with extra stuff added (targetted at Obama of course...)

The truth is that the Democrats are putting the welfare of illegal aliens ahead of national security.

House Republicans don't want to vote on a clean Homeland Security funding bill. They want to stand firm in attacking President Obama’s unconstitutional immigration actions.

So, again, you side against rule of law. Pitiful.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Democrats have done the same thing, JD. This is nothing new. Neither the added amendments nor your and complaining about Republicans.

Same old story, just the Democrats are on the other side this time.

The Democrats are siding with an executive order which a US Federal Judge ruled is unconstitutional.

He didn't even rule it unconstitutional. He said that the states weren't given enough time-- that was the basis for his ruling.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The truth is that the Democrats are putting the welfare of illegal aliens ahead of national security.

House Republicans don't want to vote on a clean Homeland Security funding bill. They want to stand firm in attacking President Obama’s unconstitutional immigration actions.

So, again, you side against rule of law. Pitiful.

They can address their concerns with the President's Executive Actions through another means.

Why hold the people at DHS responsible? Why rob them of their peace of mind and financial stability to "stick it" to the President's Executive Actions?

Doesn't seem like a good policy or fair way to do things.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

They can address their concerns with the President's Executive Actions through another means.

Why hold the people at DHS responsible? Why rob them of their peace of mind and financial stability to "stick it" to the President's Executive Actions?

Doesn't seem like a good policy or fair way to do things.

The US Texas Judge ruled that the president and the DHS sidestepped federal rules that policy makers must follow to implement new regulations without congressional authorization.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The US Texas Judge ruled that the president and the DHS sidestepped federal rules that policy makers must follow to implement new regulations without congressional authorization.

Ok, I guess that's a response to my other post.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

They can address their concerns with the President's Executive Actions through another means.

Why hold the people at DHS responsible? Why rob them of their peace of mind and financial stability to "stick it" to the President's Executive Actions?

Doesn't seem like a good policy or fair way to do things.

Here's your chance again.