Custom Search
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

MARYLAND’S GERRYMANDERING ORDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY FED JUDGES (PG COUNTY)






MARYLAND’S GERRYMANDERING ORDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY FEDERAL JUDGES (PG COUNTY):

VOTERS WHO DID NOT SUPPORT DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES WERE OFTEN PUNISHED POLITICALLY AFTER ELECTIONS.

CONGRESSIONAL MAPS MUST NOW BE REDRAWN PRIOR TO 2020 ELECTION.

FAIR ELECTIONS ARE WHAT DEFINES AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

LEGAL CITIZENS OF ALL RACES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES OF THEIR CHOICE WITHOUT FEAR.


Post Sources: Washington Post


**** Federal judges in gerrymandering case toss Maryland’s congressional voting map


Federal judges in Maryland on Wednesday blocked the state from using its congressional voting map in future elections, ordering political leaders to draw new electoral lines for contests in 2020.

The three-judge panel unanimously threw out the congressional map in a long-running partisan gerrymandering case. The decision gives Maryland officials until March to submit a new redistricting plan.

The judges acknowledged the inherently political redistricting process but declared the boundaries unconstitutional and intentionally designed to target Republican voters in the 6th Congressional District because of their political affiliation.

“When political considerations are taken into account to an extreme, the public perceives an abuse of the democratic process,” wrote Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. He was joined by U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III.

Chief U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the overall judgment and declaring partisan gerrymandering “noxious, a cancer on our democracy.”

If the state is unable to meet the deadline for creating a new map, the court’s order establishes a commission that will create a map of its own.

The Wednesday ruling can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which in June avoided answering the question of when extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional in the Maryland case and in another map case from Wisconsin.

The office of Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D), which defended the map, said Wednesday that it is reviewing its options. Legislative leaders declined to comment on the court’s order.

Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who won reelection Tuesday, called the decision “a victory for the vast majority of Marylanders who want free and fair elections.”

“We remain steadfastly committed to moving forward in an open and transparent manner that is free of the partisan influence that has dominated the redistricting process in Maryland for far too long,” said Hogan, who has pushed for a constitutional amendment that would have an independent redistricting commission redraw boundaries.

At the core of the issue is the 6th District in Western Maryland, which was ­redrawn in 2011 to include parts of heavily Democratic Montgomery County. Democratic mapmakers moved hundreds of thousands of voters from Western Maryland out of the 6th District and added Democrats from Montgomery.

The lawsuit was brought by seven Republican voters who lived in the 6th District before the boundaries were reset.

In its ruling Wednesday, the three-judge panel declared the district unconstitutional and found that the state intended to lessen the influence of GOP voters by replacing them with Democrats in violation of the First Amendment right to political association.

“The massive and unnecessary reshuffling of the Sixth District, involving one-half of its population and dictated by party affiliation and voting history, had no other cause than the intended actions of the controlling Democratic officials to burden Republican voters by converting the District” into a Democratic one, Niemeyer wrote in his 59-page opinion.

The court ruling came a day after Democrat David Trone defeated Republican Amie Hoeber by a wide margin in that district, in what was considered the most competitive of Maryland’s House contests.

In a deposition in the case, former governor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, was blunt about the partisan mapmaking he oversaw, saying Democratic leaders intentionally redrew the districts to try to give their party an advantage.

“Yesterday’s results confirm what we’ve been saying all along. The 6th District isn’t really competitive for Republicans,” said attorney Michael B. Kimberly, who represents the group of Maryland Republicans.

The ruling rejected the argument from the attorney general’s office that Democratic leaders intended only to make the 6th District more competitive.

“It is impossible to flip a seat to the Democrats without flipping it away from the Republicans,” Niemeyer wrote. “There can be no doubt that at every stage of the process, the State’s Democratic officials who put the 2011 redistricting plan in place specifically intended to flip control of the Sixth District from Republicans to Democrats and then acted on that intent.”

The ruling applies to the entire Maryland congressional map as drawn in 2011, but the challengers have proposed a modification at the border between the 6th and 8th districts that could address the court’s concerns without affecting the shape of the other districts.

Before the ruling Wednesday, state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) cast doubt on the possibility of an independent commission without a sign-on from other states — Virginia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina — to ensure Maryland Democrats are not at a political disadvantage on Capitol Hill.

“To put that in play without all of those states having to abide by the same rules is not going to happen,” Miller said.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

DACA ENDS TEMPORARILY; TRUMP PUNTS PROGRAM TO CONGRESS TO FIX IN 6 MOS








#DACA

DACA ENDS TEMPORARILY; TRUMP PUNTS PROGRAM TO CONGRESS TO FIX IN 6 MOS:

ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE USA IS STILL A CRIME JUST AS ILLEGAL ENTRY IS STILL A CRIME IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

ILLEGALS COST MORE TO EDUCATE, SUCK UP JOBS, DON'T PAY TAXES AND DRIVE DOWN AMERICAN WAGES.

DREAMERS ARE NOT ANIMALS NEITHER ARE THOUSANDS OF BLACK MEN INCARCERATED AND KILLED BY POLICE THE LAST 8 YRS WHILE OBAMA WAS IN OFFICE.

FIXING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WILL CLOSE THE GAP OF DIVISION BETWEEN BLACKS AND HISPANICS.

PERHAPS THAT IS WHY CONGRESS DOESN'T WANT TO FIX IT.


Sources: CNBC, CBS News, CNN, Youtube


***** Trump administration is ending DACA immigration program, AG Sessions says


President Donald Trump is ending the Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of people who entered the United States illegally as children, with a six-month delay intended to allow Congress to act.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced the Trump administration decision on Tuesday, argued that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was an unlawful overreach by President Barack Obama and said he could not defend it.

It sets up a potential rush for lawmakers to pass a bill protecting so-called dreamers before the Trump administration's deadline. It is unclear if the GOP-held Congress, which has failed to pass similar legislation in the past, can do so in the near future as it faces multiple crucial deadlines to approve legislation.

Public opposition to rescinding the program had mounted recently amid protests around the country. Top Republican lawmakers like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, as well as technology sector leaders, had pushed Trump not to scrap DACA.

Trump allies like Sessions urged him to end the program, arguing it will be difficult to defend in court. Critics have said that Obama exceeded his authority with the policy.

"Simply put if we are to further our goal of strengthening the constitutional order and rule of law in America the Department of Justice cannot defend this overreach," Sessions said Tuesday.

Scrapping DACA, which started in 2012 under Obama, could affect roughly 800,000 young people registered under the program.

It gives the immigrants a two-year period of protection from deportation and permit to work in the United States.

Here's what the Trump administration will do, according to the Department of Homeland Security:

Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke has issued a memo formally rescinding DACA and starting what the administration calls an "orderly wind down."

The government will not process any new applications or requests for DACA protection.

People currently protected will not be affected before March 5, 2018, "so Congress can have time to deliver on appropriate legislative solutions," according to Duke.

In a tweet Tuesday, the president said Congress needs to "get ready to do your job" on DACA. Trump did not signal what, specifically, what action he wants Congress to take in relation to the program.

Republican state officials had threatened to sue the Trump administration over DACA if had not been rescinded by Tuesday.

As a candidate, Trump pledged to end the program, but later softened his stance, saying he wanted to treat the immigrants with "heart."

On Friday, Trump said he had a "great feeling for DACA."

"We love the dreamers," Trump said, using the name for the people protected under DACA. "We love everybody."

The decision could drag on American GDP.
In a statement Tuesday, Ryan criticized the Obama executive order but called for Congress to act to protect dreamers.

"It is my hope that the House and Senate, with the president's leadership, will be able to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country," the Wisconsin Republican said.

In an open letter Thursday, nearly 400 U.S. executives, including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon's Jeff Bezos, urged Trump to retain the protections.





Friday, February 10, 2017

JEFF SESSIONS IS SWORN IN AS USDOJ; CONGRATS TO A FAIR MAN



JEFF SESSIONS IS SWORN IN AS NEW USDOJ:

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RIGHT MAN FOR THIS POST.

HE ISN'T RACIST & WILL BE FAIR TO BLACK PEOPLE.

SESSIONS WILL ALSO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION RELATED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT.


Sources: Fox News, White House, YouTube

***** Sessions Sworn In as Attorney General as Trump Signs 3 Executive Orders

Vice President Mike Pence swore in Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general at the White House Thursday.

Just prior to the ceremony, President Donald Trump announced three executive orders designed to restore safety in America.

"These executive actions continue to deliver on my campaign promises," the president said.

The orders instruct the Department of Justice to go after criminal cartels, to form a taskforce to reduce violent crime in the country and to implement a plan to stop crimes targeting law enforcement officials.

"It's a shame what's been happening to our truly great law enforcement officers. That's gonna stop as of today," Trump said.

The Senate voted on Wednesday evening to confirmSen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as attorney general.

Despite bitter and outspoken resistance from Senate Democrats - particularly in the last 24 hours - Sessions was elected as the nation's 84th attorney general along a near-party line vote.

Sessions became just the fifth Cabinet nominee approved by the Senate, joining Trump's choices for Defense, Homeland Security, Education and State.

On "The First 100 Days" tonight, Charles Krauthammer said that Sessions' confirmation was never in doubt.

"Everybody has known that Sessions was going to be confirmed. What we saw over the last 24 hours or so was kabuki theater," Krauthammer said. "The Democrats are completely powerless."

He said the Democratic opposition to Sessions was "all for show," as they tried to placate their base, which is still furious about the party's devastating defeat in the election.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

LORETTA LYNCH FIGHTS TO PROTECT MUSLIMS, SILENT ON LAQUAN MCDONALD CASE:




#‎LorettaLynch‬

LORETTA LYNCH FIGHTS TO PROTECT MUSLIMS, SILENT ON LAQUAN MCDONALD CASE:

 Following the Mass Shooting incident in San Bernardino, California by two Radical Islamist Extremists who were confirmed supporters of ISIL, U.S. Attorney General LORETTA LYNCH (North Carolina native) has come out swinging to protect the Civil Liberties of MUSLIM citizens living on American Soil.

So now Mrs Lynch wants to PROSECUTE or Target any American citizen who calls out ISIL'S brutal acts being committed on American soil because she doesn't want MUSLIMS living on American soil to be Offended, or to feel uncomfortable.

Does anyone recall Mrs Lynch publicly speaking out about a political Cover-up in the LAQUAN MCDONALD murder case over in Chicago??

While it's true the Media announced that a Federal Investigation will be launched in the Laquan McDonald case, Mrs Lynch has NOT personally commented on this covered up tragedy.

Yet she publicly declared with righteous indignation, to PROSECUTE any American citizen who calls out ISIL'S brutal acts being committed on American soil by Extremists.

Please make note of this.

~ Department of Justice Will Go After Anti-Muslim Hate Speech

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged that the Department of Justice will go after hate speech that might incite violence against the Muslim community, she told a crowd of Muslim-Americans and supporters Thursday night.

“Obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” Lynch told the audience at the Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, VA. “But when that edges towards violence…we will take action.”

Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group, asked Lynch to address concerns about an uptick in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate crimes.

Since 9/11, Lynch says that the Department of Justice has investigated more than 11,000 acts of anti-Muslim rhetoric, which have led to 45 prosecutions. “I think sadly, that number is going to rise,” said Lynch.
Farhana Khera, Director of Muslim Advocates, told ABC News that the organization and 46 others, including the Presbyterian and American Baptist churches, sent a letter in late September to the RNC and DNC expressing concern over “divisive rhetoric being used by some presidential candidates.”

Khera said the inflammatory language towards Muslims on the campaign trail has persisted. Only the DNC responded to the letter.

In recent weeks, Donald Trump advocated for a national registry of Muslim Americans -- which he later denied -- and claimed that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated after the September 11 attacks.

“The demagoguery has to stop,” Muslim American Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN), who introduced Lynch, told ABC News. Carson said that public figures make these remarks because they “get affirmation from being provocative.”

But Lynch says that language generates fear.

“When you feel that fear, that sense of lack of control, and the inability to do something about it, you start to spin and try to find ways that you think will be the easy fix…anti-Muslim rhetoric becomes that path,” said Lynch. “We also will not give into fear.”

Post Sources: ABC News, YouTube

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Jeffrey Toobin Is Right! Individual Mandate Makes Health Care Law Unconstitutional












CNN's Jeffrey Toobin is extremely Cocky however he's right about the Health Care Law. The Individual Mandate makes it Unconstitutional.

Here's why.

Its highly possible that come June the SCOTUS will strike down Pres. Obama's Affordable Health Care Act.

NOT because its a Bad Law because the Affordable Health Care Act is in all actuality a really Good Universal Law.

For example the Affordable Health Care Act prevents Health Insurers from Denying Coverage to Citizens with Pre-Existing Medical Conditions & allows Children to remain on their Parent's Health Insurance plans until the age of 26.

The Law also requires States to provide more Medicaid/ Medicare Coverage & Quality Patient Care for Low Income & Elderly Citizens.
i.e., Medicaid Expansion.

However....

Just because a Law is Good does not mean it is Constitutional.

And SCOTUS Justices are Legally Bound to rule solely based on the U.S. Constitution & Similar Federal Case Law.

According to the Preamble & U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, Health Care is in fact a Basic Human Right but Congress does NOT have the Broad Legal Authority to Mandate each Individual Citizen in America to take Personal Responsibility for their Own Health Care Insurance via a TAX.

That's Right!

The Individual Mandate is a TAX!

According to the 16th Amendment Congress does have the Legal Authority to TAX but it Can't use its Taxing Authority to Penalize American Citizens for NOT Purchasing Health Care Insurance.

If Pres. Obama had included a Public Option or Single Payer Option, his Affordable Health Care would be probably be very hard for the SCOTUS to strike down.

But in the "Spirit of Bi-Partisanship" he allowed 2 GOP Senators, (Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins), to talk him into excluding a Public Option & Single Payer in exchange for the Individual Mandate.

Bad Political Move!

Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins have both served in Congress much Longer than Pres. Obama.
They're Slick Politicians who knew exactly what they were doing!

Requesting that Pres. Obama exclude a Public Option & Single Payer in exchange for the Individual Mandate was Politically Strategic & Destructive for the Affordable Health Care Law because Snowe & Collins knew a Mandate would make this Law Unconstitutional.

A Shrewd, Dirty Political Move pulled by 2 Seasoned, Female, GOP Senators!

Now Suddenly two years later, Senator Olympia Snowe claims she was "against the Individual Mandate".

Please STOP Lying Olympia!

If you were against the Individual Mandate then why did you Vote "YES" on passage of the Health Care Law?

Almost immediately After the Affordable Health Care Law was Authorized by Congress, Pres. Obama's Administration started granting Waivers to Certain Large Corporations giving them Legal Permission to Opt-Out of Providing Health Care Insurance to their Employees without being Penalized.

This Action Hurt the Law's Viability even more so because granting Corporations Waivers to Opt-Out of the Law gave the Appearance of Proprietorship or Enforcement of the Law based on Economic Status.

Is it Fair to force Smaller, Less Profitable Companies to provide Health Care Insurance for their Employees, while allowing Larger, More Profitable Companies to Opt-Out?

Thus the valid concerns mentioned in this post about Pres. Obama's Health Care Law, means the Probability of this law being struck down by the High Court remains a very likely possibility.

Its not yet clear if the Affordable Health Care Act can stand alone without the Individual Mandate.

I personally believe the Law can Survive without the Individual Mandate but only with a Public Option.

Its also not clear if the entire Affordable Health Care Act will be struck down or just the Individual Mandate.

What is clear is that although the Affordable Health Care Law is a good law, Congress may have overstepped its Broad Legal Authority by Including a New Tax as a Penalty within this Law.

Stay Tuned.

SCOTUS Justices will release their decision & Opinions on the Health Care Law Challenge case in June of this year.




Toobin: 'This Law Looks Like It's Going To Be Struck Down'

CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, following Supreme Court arguments on President Obama's health care law, said on CNN that based on what he heard inside the Court, things didn't look good for proponents of the law.

"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate."

Toobin added that he felt that U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli simply wasn't prepared for the conservative justices.

"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."

Toobin also said he thought Justice Kennedy, the perennial swing vote, was a "lost cause" for supporters of the health care reform law.



Sources: CNN, Fox News, TPM, Youtube

"Obamacare" Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional! SCOTUS To Rule Health Care a Basic Right But Can't Be Mandated














If the SCOTUS strikes down "Obamacare" will it hurt Pres. Obama's chances of being Re-elected?

I don't think so because Mitt Romney invented "Obamacare" & Pres. Obama is a Stronger Candidate.

Its highly possible that come June the SCOTUS will strike down Pres. Obama's Affordable Health Care Act.

NOT because its a Bad Law because the Affordable Health Care Act is in all actuality a really Good Universal Law.

For example the Affordable Health Care Act prevents Health Insurers from Denying Coverage to Citizens with Pre-Existing Medical Conditions & allows Children to remain on their Parent's Health Insurance plans until the age of 26.

The Law also requires States to provide more Medicaid/ Medicare Coverage & Quality Patient Care for Low Income & Elderly Citizens.
i.e., Medicaid Expansion.

However....

Just because a Law is Good does not mean it is Constitutional.

And SCOTUS Justices are Legally Bound to rule solely based on the U.S. Constitution & Similar Federal Case Law.

According to the Preamble & U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, Health Care is in fact a Basic Human Right but Congress does NOT have the Broad Legal Authority to Mandate each Individual Citizen in America to take Personal Responsibility for their Own Health Care Insurance via a TAX.

That's Right!

The Individual Mandate is a TAX!

According to the 16th Amendment Congress does have the Legal Authority to TAX but it Can't use its Taxing Authority to Penalize American Citizens for NOT Purchasing Health Care Insurance.

If Pres. Obama had included a Public Option or Single Payer Option, his Affordable Health Care would be probably be very hard for the SCOTUS to strike down.

But in the "Spirit of Bi-Partisanship" he allowed 2 GOP Senators, (Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins), to talk him into excluding a Public Option & Single Payer in exchange for the Individual Mandate.

Bad Political Move!

Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins have both served in Congress much Longer than Pres. Obama.
They're Slick Politicians who knew exactly what they were doing!

Requesting that Pres. Obama exclude a Public Option & Single Payer in exchange for the Individual Mandate was Politically Strategic & Destructive for the Affordable Health Care Law because Snowe & Collins knew a Mandate would make this Law Unconstitutional.

A Shrewd, Dirty Political Move pulled by 2 Seasoned, Female, GOP Senators!

Now Suddenly two years later, Senator Olympia Snowe claims she was "against the Individual Mandate".

Please STOP Lying Olympia!

If you were against the Individual Mandate then why did you Vote "YES" on passage of the Health Care Law?

Almost immediately After the Affordable Health Care Law was Authorized by Congress, Pres. Obama's Administration started granting Waivers to Certain Large Corporations giving them Legal Permission to Opt-Out of Providing Health Care Insurance to their Employees without being Penalized.

This Action Hurt the Law's Viability even more so because granting Corporations Waivers to Opt-Out of the Law gave the Appearance of Proprietorship or Enforcement of the Law based on Economic Status.

Is it Fair to force Smaller, Less Profitable Companies to provide Health Care Insurance for their Employees, while allowing Larger, More Profitable Companies to Opt-Out?

Thus the valid concerns mentioned in this post about Pres. Obama's Health Care Law, means the Probability of this law being struck down by the High Court remains a very likely possibility.

Its not yet clear if the Affordable Health Care Act can stand alone without the Individual Mandate.

I personally believe the Law can Survive without the Individual Mandate but only with a Public Option.

Its also not clear if the entire Affordable Health Care Act will be struck down or just the Individual Mandate.

What is clear is that although the Affordable Health Care Law is a good law, Congress may have overstepped its Broad Legal Authority by Including a New Tax as a Penalty within this Law.

Stay Tuned.

SCOTUS Justices will release their decision & Opinions on the Health Care Law Challenge case in June of this year.


video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player







Supreme Court divided over health care mandate


In one of the most anticipated Supreme Court hearings in years, the justices on Tuesday offered sharply divided views on the controversial individual mandate provision at the heart of the 2010 federal health care reform law.

The fate of the individual mandate -- requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a financial penalty -- may be in jeopardy, and perhaps with it the entire law's other 450 or so sections, based on tough questions of the government by the court's conservative majority.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst, said questions asked at oral arguments often show how justices are thinking, and based on what he heard Tuesday, the health care reform law could be in "grave danger."

Neither the justices nor the lawyers arguing before them mentioned "Obamacare"-- as opponents have labeled the law pushed through Congress by Democrats and President Barack Obama -- or the president by name.

But the court seemed fully aware of the landmark consequences of their eventual rulings.

"Those who don't participate in health care make it more expensive for everyone else," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in support of the law.

"It is not your free choice" to stay out of the market for life, she said.

Younger, mostly healthy people who would be the "subsidizers will become the subsidized" when they grow older, added Justice Elena Kagan.

However, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the federal government "is telling an individual he has the obligation he must act" and purchase insurance.

"That threatens to change the relationship between the government and the individual in a profound way," Kennedy said.

If Congress could regulate health care in the name of commerce, added Chief Justice John Roberts, "all bets are off" on a range of areas subject to federal oversight.

Tuesday's argument was the biggest of the high court's three-day marathon this week examining the limits of congressional authority.

It was part legal seminar, part history lesson, with politics sprinkled throughout.

At least 17 members of Congress attended, along with several members of the Obama administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder.

Administration officials, speaking on condition of not being identified, said they expect the high court to uphold the individual mandate despite the tough questioning Tuesday.

They noted conservative judges who asked similarly challenging questions as the issue made its way to the Supreme Court ended up upholding the mandate, and that Roberts targeted both sides with his queries.

Outside the court, dueling news conferences and protests Tuesday reflected the partisan nature of the health care debate.

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who failed in her bid for the Republican presidential nomination to take on Obama in November, told tea party supporters near the Supreme Court building that the issue is freedom for individuals to decide their health care needs.

"If the federal government can tell you, when you are not doing anything, that you must do something, then the federal government can tell you anything," Bachmann said, later adding a call for the Supreme Court to declare the mandate unconstitutional.

Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said he was "optimistic" the court would strike down the mandate because he saw Justice Kennedy was "highly skeptical."

"Can the federal government force Americans, free Americans to buy a product?"

Johnson said. "That's really what this boils down to.

This is a very basic issue of freedom. I would say four conservative justices, three of them spoke and they were highly critical of this claim."

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, called it the "most important decision probably in two or three generations."

Earlier, a cancer patient said at a news conference held by supporters of the law that it saved her life.

"Because President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, I get to keep my house, I won't go bankrupt, my kids are going to get to go to college, and I am going to live," Spike Dolomite Ward said to cheers.

The nine-member bench kept Tuesday's two hours of arguments focused on the constitutional and policy implications.

At issue:

May the federal government, under the Constitution's commerce clause, regulate economic "inactivity"? Three federal appeals courts have found the Affordable Care Act to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it "breathtaking in its expansive scope."

That "circuit split" all but assured that the Supreme Court would step in and decide the matter.

A coalition of 26 states, led by Florida, argues individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need.

The Justice Department has countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market.

Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services -- costs that are shifted first to insurance companies and then passed on to consumers.

In court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. struggled to articulate the government's position that the mandate regulates commerce that already exists because everyone -- whether or not they currently have health insurance -- participates in the health care market.

Justice Antonin Scalia jumped in, asking Verrilli: "Why do you define the (health care) market that broadly?"

"It may well be that everybody needs health care sooner or later, but not everybody needs a heart transplant, not everybody needs a liver transplant," Scalia continued.

"Could you define the market so that everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli?"

Roberts said the law covers pediatric care and drug treatment, but not all Americans would need them and would indirectly subsidize them.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the federal government's economic oversight is broad, "true of almost every product, directly or indirectly by government regulation."

"There is government compulsion in almost every economic decision because the government regulates so much," Sotomayor added, calling it "a condition of life that some may rail against," but the reality nonetheless.

Ginsburg, meanwhile, made the correlation between health care reform and Social Security, passed in the 1930s to give a financial boost to older citizens, that is subsidized by young and old.

"If Congress could see this as a problem when we need to have a group that will subsidize the ones who are going to get the benefits, it seems to me you are saying the only way that could be done is if the government does it itself; it can't involve the private market, it can't involve the private insurers," Ginsburg said.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday indicated that the health care law is growing in popularity, especially among independent voters, but half of those questioned still oppose it. However, while most opponents of the measure believe it goes too far, some who disapprove think it's not liberal enough.

The poll found an almost even split on the individual mandate, with 47% in favor and 51% opposed, a gap within the survey's margin of error. According to the survey, a gender gap exists on the issue, with 58% of men opposing the mandate while 53% of women support it.

In addition, a stark partisan divide exists on the issue, with 71% of Democrats favoring the mandate while 78% of Republicans oppose it. Among independents, 56% oppose the provision.

The opposing sides do not even agree on what the mandate -- known as the "buy in" or "minimum coverage" provision -- was designed to accomplish.

Supporters see it as a way to spread health care costs among a larger pool of individuals, ensuring affordable, quality medical care. They say regulating commerce and the economy has long been a federal prerogative.

Opponents see fundamental constitutional violations, such as an intrusion into a citizen's personal life and an intrusion in long-held state power.

Most individuals would be covered under the mandate, except for those whose religious beliefs would conflict, as well as illegal aliens and inmates.

It would fall on insurance companies to inform the government of those covered under their health policies.

It is the individual mandate that has sparked the most controversy. It requires nearly every American to purchase some level of insurance or face a tax penalty of up to about $700 a year.

On Monday, the justices quickly bored of the dense legal argument presented on whether the individual mandate was a "tax," which would put off consideration of the larger constitutional questions for another few years.

Few on the bench seemed eager to embrace that go-slow approach, and some justices began asking questions about Tuesday's argument on the individual mandate.

That shows where the court's real focus lies, knowing its ruling on the mandate key question will have enormous legal, social and political implications.

Tuesday's case was Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida (11-398).

Oral arguments conclude Wednesday with two hearings on whether the entire law should collapse if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, and whether the separate expansion of Medicaid is unduly burdening the states.
Rulings on all four issues taken up by the court are expected by late June.



View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CATO Institute, CBS News, CNN, Health Care.gov, NPR, PBS, Politico, Procon.org, Youtube, Google Maps

Sunday, July 24, 2011

GOP Dragging Out Debt Talks Until Economy Crashes? Yes! (Tea Party Madness!)

















Rival Debt Plans Being Assembled by Party Leaders

The House speaker, John A. Boehner, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, were preparing separate backup plans to raise the nation’s debt ceiling on Sunday after they and the White House were unable to form a bi-partisan plan that would end an increasingly grim standoff over the federal budget.

The dueling plans emerged after Mr. Boehner walked away from negotiations with the White House on Friday, leading to a frustrating weekend of talks in heat-scorched Washington. The leaders of both parties variously negotiated together over the phone, talked separately, conferred with their caucuses and tried to plot an end to the debt crisis that would assure the capital markets around the world that America would meet its debt obligations.

As the Aug. 2 deadline for lifting the debt ceiling nears, warnings are growing that the nation’s economy may be damaged by the protracted stalemate. A downgrade of the nation’s credit rating, which could raise the cost of borrowing, seemed more likely, deal or no deal.

Mr. Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat, was trying on Sunday to cobble together a plan to raise the government’s debt limit by $2.4 trillion through the 2012 elections, with spending cuts of about $2.7 trillion that would not touch any of the entitlement programs that are dear to Democrats or raise taxes, which is anathema to Republicans.

President Obama could endorse such a plan, even though it would fall far short of the ambitious goal of deficit reduction and entitlement changes that he says are necessary to shore up the nation’s finances.

At the White House on Sunday evening, Mr. Obama spent about an hour meeting in the Oval Office to try to hash out details of the Democratic proposal with Mr. Reid and the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi. The two emerged from the meeting with nothing to say to the throngs of reporters who had been encamped there for the third consecutive weekend, awaiting an agreement on the debt ceiling.

But administration and Congressional officials said that during the meeting, Mr. Obama and the Democratic leaders had resolved to hold firm against any short-term agreement that did not raise the debt ceiling beyond next year’s presidential elections.

“You see how hard this is right now,” one administration official said Sunday night. “Can you imagine going through this again in six months?”

That means, officials say, that Mr. Reid’s proposal may gather steam as the only viable alternative that is palatable to the administration.

The contours of Mr. Boehner’s backup plan were not entirely clear, but it seemed likely to take the form of a two-step process, with about $1 trillion in cuts, an amount the Republicans said was sufficient to clear the way for a debt limit increase through year’s end. That would be followed by future cuts guided by a new legislative commission that would consider a broader range of trims, program overhauls and revenue increases.

“The preferable path would be a bipartisan plan that involves all the leaders, but it is too early to decide whether that’s possible,” Mr. Boehner said in a “Fox News Sunday” interview. “If that’s not possible, I and my Republican colleagues in the House are prepared to move on our own.”

In a conference call with Republican lawmakers that lasted over an hour on Sunday night, Mr. Boehner said he was seeking “a vehicle that can pass in both houses,” according to someone on the call, who added that Mr. Boehner had made an emotional appeal to his fellow Republicans to stick together. “If we’re divided,” he said, “our leverage gets minimized.”

One freshman lawmaker on the call described Mr. Boehner as sounding weary and said many Republicans were focused on some version of a balanced budget amendment, which was already passed by the House as part of broader legislation but then rejected by the Senate.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



For the White House, the Reid proposal represents a Hail Mary pass that is meant to, at the very least, avoid putting the country through a repeat of the debt ceiling negotiations next year, an election year.

Even if Mr. Boehner loses Tea Party members and other conservative Republicans in Congress, the administration hope is that enough House Democrats would vote for the Senate plan that it would offset the loss of conservative Republican votes.

The White House remained largely on the sidelines over the weekend as lawmakers set out with their own plans. While the White House remains adamantly opposed to a two-step deal that does not extend the debt ceiling beyond next year’s elections, administration officials expect that the Senate would modify Mr. Boehner’s proposal.

While a modified plan might fail to gain the support of the more right-leaning and Tea Party-influenced House members, it could win enough Democratic votes to pass if it is blessed by Mr. Reid. However, if Mr. Boehner were to reject Senate modifications and go with a deal that would pass muster with his Republican conference, the Senate would have to offer a rebuttal, as the clock ticks.

The dueling plans were a departure from the so-called grand bargain that Mr. Obama had been pushing, which would have included trillions of dollars in budget and entitlement cuts over the next 10 years along with the elimination of tax loopholes and possibly the addition of new taxes.

The impasse has set the tone for the 2012 presidential race, with the debate growing rancorous and the two parties’ visions for the country at odds.

The enormous deficit challenges have been clearly articulated to voters, as the parties seek unified control of Congress, where the Republicans are the majority in the House and the Democrats in the Senate. Mr. Obama will veto any debt legislation unless it extends the ability of the nation to borrow into 2013, the White House chief of staff, William M. Daley, said on Sunday.

Mr. Daley, appearing on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” said that world markets and the American economy would not tolerate continued doubts brought on by periodic fights over the debt ceiling. “The president believes that we must get this uncertainty out of the system,” Mr. Daley said.

Minutes after Mr. Daley promised a veto, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said on the same program that Mr. Daley’s remarks were “a ridiculous position, because that’s what he’s going to get presented with.”

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested that there was still hope for a grand bargain.

“They are talking again,” Mr. Geithner said in an appearance on “This Week” on ABC. “They’ve been in touch throughout this time.”

Both Mr. Geithner and Mr. Daley said they believed Congress would figure out a way to avoid default.

“The leaders of Congress have said unequivocally that we will meet our obligations,” Mr. Geithner said.

Mr. Daley acknowledged, however, that both sides were still at the brink.

“We are now getting to a point where markets around the world will question whether the political system can come together and compromise for the good of the country,” Mr. Daley said.




The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out

A few days ago, former President Bill Clinton identified a constitutional escape hatch should President Obama and Congress fail to come to terms on a deficit reduction plan before the government hits its borrowing ceiling.

He pointed to an obscure provision in the 14th Amendment, saying he would unilaterally invoke it “without hesitation” to raise the debt ceiling “and force the courts to stop me.”

On Friday, Mr. Obama rejected the idea, though not in categorical terms.

“I have talked to my lawyers,” Mr. Obama said. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

Another element of uncertainty and possible court battles do not seem to appeal to the White House, and it is, in any event, not clear that the nation’s creditors would continue to lend it money were the president to take unilateral action.

The provision in question, Section 4 of the amendment, was meant to ensure the payment of Union debts after the Civil War and to disavow Confederate ones. But it was written in broader terms.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” the critical sentence says, “shall not be questioned.”

The Supreme Court has said in passing that those words have outlived the historical moment that gave rise to them.

“While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War,” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the court in 1935, “its language indicates a broader connotation.”

In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying that it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still others say that the president may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.

The words of the provision are in important ways quite vague. “Nobody would argue,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, “that Section 4 is clear in its meaning, other than at the time everyone thought that the South, if they ever got back in control, would not pay Civil War debt.”

But Jack M. Balkin, a law professor at Yale, said it was possible to infer a broader principle.

“You’re not supposed to hold the validity of the public debt hostage to achieve political ends,” Mr. Balkin said. He added, though, that “Section 4 is a fail-safe that only comes into operation when everything else is exhausted.”

Mr. Obama’s statement largely dismissing the possibility of invoking the provision may have had a strategic element to it. A deficit-reduction deal would seem to be more likely, after all, if both sides think there is no alternative but economic chaos.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy




Mr. Obama’s reference to “a winning argument” suggested the likelihood that the courts would weigh in if he took unilateral action. But that is not certain.

“This is not a circumstance,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, “in which the courts have any plausible point of entry.”

Professor Balkin agreed. “This is largely a political question,” he said. “It is unlikely courts would decide these questions.”

Some law professors have put forward possible legal claims that might overcome threshold requirements for lawsuits, like the one in which plaintiffs show they have been directly injured and so have standing to sue. “It’s unthinkable,” Professor Tribe responded, “that the courts would allow a gimmicky lawsuit to proceed.”

The president, moreover, can move quickly, while court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.”

Another possible reaction to unilateral action from Mr. Obama is impeachment. Professor Tribe said that was “not politically a very plausible scenario.”

Professor Levinson was less certain. Impeachment by the House of Representatives “seems to me quite likely.” But, he added, “it is also literally unimaginable that the Senate would convict.”

A third possible response is what some law professors call “popular constitutionalism.” The meaning of the Constitution, these professors say, is in the end what the public believes it to be. The president and members of Congress may thus pay a political price for taking stands at odds with what the public understands to be their constitutional obligations.



View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Debt Ceiling Talks: 14th Amendment Perhaps Only Way Out (Tick Tock!)














Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy




The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out

A few days ago, former President Bill Clinton identified a constitutional escape hatch should President Obama and Congress fail to come to terms on a deficit reduction plan before the government hits its borrowing ceiling.

He pointed to an obscure provision in the 14th Amendment, saying he would unilaterally invoke it “without hesitation” to raise the debt ceiling “and force the courts to stop me.”

On Friday, Mr. Obama rejected the idea, though not in categorical terms.

“I have talked to my lawyers,” Mr. Obama said. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

Another element of uncertainty and possible court battles do not seem to appeal to the White House, and it is, in any event, not clear that the nation’s creditors would continue to lend it money were the president to take unilateral action.

The provision in question, Section 4 of the amendment, was meant to ensure the payment of Union debts after the Civil War and to disavow Confederate ones. But it was written in broader terms.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” the critical sentence says, “shall not be questioned.”

The Supreme Court has said in passing that those words have outlived the historical moment that gave rise to them.

“While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War,” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the court in 1935, “its language indicates a broader connotation.”

In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying that it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still others say that the president may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.

The words of the provision are in important ways quite vague. “Nobody would argue,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, “that Section 4 is clear in its meaning, other than at the time everyone thought that the South, if they ever got back in control, would not pay Civil War debt.”

But Jack M. Balkin, a law professor at Yale, said it was possible to infer a broader principle.

“You’re not supposed to hold the validity of the public debt hostage to achieve political ends,” Mr. Balkin said. He added, though, that “Section 4 is a fail-safe that only comes into operation when everything else is exhausted.”

Mr. Obama’s statement largely dismissing the possibility of invoking the provision may have had a strategic element to it. A deficit-reduction deal would seem to be more likely, after all, if both sides think there is no alternative but economic chaos.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy




Mr. Obama’s reference to “a winning argument” suggested the likelihood that the courts would weigh in if he took unilateral action. But that is not certain.

“This is not a circumstance,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, “in which the courts have any plausible point of entry.”

Professor Balkin agreed. “This is largely a political question,” he said. “It is unlikely courts would decide these questions.”

Some law professors have put forward possible legal claims that might overcome threshold requirements for lawsuits, like the one in which plaintiffs show they have been directly injured and so have standing to sue. “It’s unthinkable,” Professor Tribe responded, “that the courts would allow a gimmicky lawsuit to proceed.”

The president, moreover, can move quickly, while court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.”

Another possible reaction to unilateral action from Mr. Obama is impeachment. Professor Tribe said that was “not politically a very plausible scenario.”

Professor Levinson was less certain. Impeachment by the House of Representatives “seems to me quite likely.” But, he added, “it is also literally unimaginable that the Senate would convict.”

A third possible response is what some law professors call “popular constitutionalism.” The meaning of the Constitution, these professors say, is in the end what the public believes it to be. The president and members of Congress may thus pay a political price for taking stands at odds with what the public understands to be their constitutional obligations.


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy




U.S. leaders struggle to reach debt deal as deadline clock ticks


Two days after breaking off talks with President Barack Obama on a $3 trillion-plus deficit reduction deal, House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday his last offer remains on the table as pressure mounted to avert a looming government default.

No formal negotiations were scheduled, but sources said that talks continued among staff members of both parties and the White House amid concerns that the continuing deadlock could prompt a downturn when Asian markets open trading for the week on Sunday night Washington time.

Boehner told "Fox News Sunday" he intended to propose a way forward on Sunday afternoon. He also planned a conference call with the House Republican caucus at 4:30 p.m., according to congressional aides.

Both Boehner, R-Ohio, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said a comprehensive deficit deal that would bring Republican support for raising the federal debt ceiling was still an option.

"It may be pretty hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but my last offer is still out there. I have never taken my last offer off the table," Boehner said on "Fox News Sunday."

The speaker's spokesman, Michael Steel, said his boss and Obama spoke on the phone Sunday. The president is expected to meet with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Sunday evening.

Geithner told CNN's "State of the Union" that the so-called grand bargain sought by Obama remains in play, but he also opened the door to a two-step process pushed by Republicans that would raise the debt ceiling with some spending cuts now, then bring broader structural and tax reforms next year.

"There's nothing wrong with doing this in stages," Geithner said, but he reiterated that a deal must remove the "threat of default" from the country by settling the debt ceiling issue through 2012 because "you don't want politics messing around with America's faith and credit."

Geithner acknowledged the decision on increasing how much money the government can borrow in order to avoid defaulting on its obligations already has been politicized, saying, "They have taken this a little too far, frankly."

A Senate Democratic aide said Sunday that "despite multiple offers from our side, the speaker has so far been unwilling to agree to any form of a two-step solution that President Obama would sign."

And while talks continue, the aide said, Reid is "working on a proposal of at least $2.5 trillion in debt reduction" and may inform his caucus about that plan Sunday night.

If Congress fails to raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit by August 2, Americans could face rising interest rates, a declining dollar and increasingly jittery financial markets, among other problems.

Hard bargaining was likely to continue into the coming week, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley warned on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

"We may have a few stressful days coming up -- stressful for markets of the world and the American people," Daley said. "In the end, there's no question in my mind, the American government will not default."

Two senators involved in months of bipartisan talks on a separate deficit reduction plan by a group known as the "Gang of Six" expressed concern Sunday over the possibility of a government default.

"I'm not confident" of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, while Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said failure to do so "would be the biggest act of irresponsibility in modern political history."

At the Capitol building, a casually dressed David Krone, the chief of staff for Reid, was seen walking to Boehner's office holding a slip of paper. About 20 minutes later, Krone emerged from the speaker's office still holding his paper and munching on pizza.

Boehner announced Friday he was withdrawing from negotiations with Obama and instead would seek a deal with congressional Democrats, but Geithner said the president was involved in talks throughout Saturday that included congressional leaders from both parties.

On the Fox program, Boehner said the talks broke down last week because Obama and Democrats resisted "real cuts in spending" and demanded tax increases he opposes.

"After over six months of conversations with the president about doing the big deal, about taking a big step in the right direction, it is pretty clear to me that they are just not willing to do it -- that the next election matters more than what's right for the country," Boehner said.

While insisting he would prefer to reach an agreement with Democrats, Boehner added: "If that's not possible, I and my Republican colleagues in the House are prepared to move on our own, today."

He offered no details, saying they were still being crafted. Any GOP-only plan would likely have trouble winning approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

According to congressional sources from both parties, a possible deal under discussion would involve two stages.

Under the plan, the nation's debt ceiling would be raised through 2011 in exchange for spending cuts totaling around $1 trillion, according to Democratic sources. The ceiling would be raised again, through 2012, after a special commission is set up to find ways to reduce the long-term debt through entitlement and spending cuts and tax reform, the sources said.

While Democrats and Republicans agreed on the first stage of the plan, they split over how a second ceiling increase would be approved, the Democratic sources said.

Specifically, Democrats do not like the idea of tying future debt increases to a commission, which could deadlock and thrust the nation back into the uncertain position it is in today, according to the sources.

Both Geithner and Daley stressed the administration's opposition to requiring two votes by Congress to increase the debt ceiling -- one now and another in the first half of 2012, when the election season will be in full bloom.

When asked if Obama will follow through on his threat to veto such a deal, Geithner told CNN that Democrats in Congress would prevent such a measure from even reaching the president's desk.

"It's not going to make it that far ... so that's not a viable option," Geithner said.

According to Boehner aide Steel, a two-step process is "inevitable" because Democrats have failed to offer a concrete proposal.

The negotiations are testing the ability of leaders on both sides of the aisle to legislate effectively in an era of increasingly shrill and unyielding partisanship.

Republicans, who have railed against the growth of government, remain staunchly opposed to any tax increases. Democrats are trying to protect some of their party's primary legacies -- entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, programs forged at the height of the New Deal and Great Society.

In a statement issued after a meeting among top congressional Democrats and Republicans on Saturday night, Pelosi, D-California, criticized Republicans for refusing to accept Obama's proposal to end Bush-era tax cuts on families earning more than $250,000 a year, which Democrats say represent the wealthiest 2% of the country.

"The delay in bringing forth a solution springs from the Republicans' decision to walk away from 98% of the American people to protect the assets of the top 2% of the wealthiest people in our country," she said in a statement.

Reid, D-Nevada, was even more targeted in his criticism of what he called Republican "intransigence."

"Their unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default on the full faith and credit of the United States," Reid said in a statement. "We have run out of time for politics. Now is the time for cooperation."

Earlier Saturday, Boehner and other congressional leaders met with Obama in the White House a day after Boehner broke off talks with the administration.

One Democratic official involved in the talks said the meeting was not contentious, and the participants did not rehash what went wrong with the Obama-Boehner talks. Rather, it was very focused on "just how do we fix it," and "everybody is pretty serious" about finding a way forward that prevents a default, the official said.

However, there was a recognition that the congressional leaders -- all of whom say they want to prevent default -- can only do so much about the opinions and actions of their caucuses, the official said.

"Different people put different ideas on the table" resulting in a mishmash of things that need to be sorted through to see what might be viable, the official said. Congressional staff will be sorting through the different ideas, the official added.

The president repeated his insistence that the debt ceiling be raised through the end of 2012, the source said. Both Geithner and Daley reaffirmed that stance on Sunday.

A House GOP aide told CNN that Republicans are "considering calling the president's bluff" on his refusal to sign a bill that doesn't raise the debt ceiling beyond the November 2012 election.

The aide said that party members are "struggling to see how they reach an agreement with significant debt reduction without buying time to work out the details."

"It would be terribly unfortunate if the president was willing to veto a debt-limit increase simply because its timing would not be ideal for his re-election campaign," Steel, the Boehner aide, said earlier. "We want the most significant deficit reduction possible, but linking the full faith and credit of the United States to presidential campaign politics is not a defensible position."

A Republican source familiar with the negotiations said Boehner told Republican lawmakers Friday that to get the debt ceiling raised by August 2, the House must vote on legislation by next Wednesday -- and that means it must be posted online Monday.



Sources: ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Youtube