ConLaw 101 for RoJo and Ryan: Cruz Was Right

We mention only RoJo and Ryan because it appears that Sensenbrenner is retired (but still collecting a paycheck), and both Ribble and LogRollBoy don't yet understand the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.  RoJo and Ryan are works-in-progress.  Maybe this will help them. And maybe it won't--but after this, it will be willful ignorance.

...in the current controversy, conservatives are not calling for the dismantling of the welfare state or even the repeal of Obamacare. Everyone recognizes that the latter would require an act of Congress. We are talking about the narrow Republican commitment to restore originalist constitutional principles to the legislative process. The legislation at issue is a continuing resolution for funding the government, not expunging Obamacare. Refusing to include Obamacare in that funding would not remove Obamacare’s statutory validity. It is black-letter law that a prior Congress cannot bind the present Congress, and a statute cannot supersede the Constitution. Prior law’s designation of Obamacare spending as “mandatory” cannot compel the current Congress to fund it as part of continuing-resolution legislation, nor does it alter the Constitution’s command that all spending in that continuing resolution must originate in the House.

Irrelevant (adj.):  1) Boehner's thoughts on the matter to the extent they differ from the Constitution; 2) Whining over 'one-half of one-third'; 3)  Urges for comity; 4)  Squealing from the MSMWhiteHouseMSM sandwich. (Think Dodd-Kennedy, folks);  5) the opinions of confused geriatric gasbags such as McCain; 6)  AM Radio fanbois in Green Bay and Milwaukee, or columnists who don't like the smell of sweat.

There will be a test, Chairman Ryan and Senator Johnson.  Do not fail again.