Americans anxious, irritated as government partially shuts down amid budget impasse

  • Article by: DEEPTI HAJELA , Associated Press
  • Updated: October 1, 2013 - 1:00 PM

NEW YORK — The partial government shutdown that began Tuesday threw into turmoil the household finances of some federal workers, with many facing unpaid furloughs or delays in paychecks.

  • 24
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
owatonnabillOct. 1, 13 7:21 AM

owatonnabill just checked the street. Grandmaw ain't lying out there yet.

12
23
varthlokkurOct. 1, 13 7:44 AM

If I can't get along with my coworkers I would be fired.

18
5
theagonybhoOct. 1, 13 7:44 AM

The shutdown is much ado about nothing, I have the solution to everything, give Obama his Obamacare and give him his debt ceiling increase and open the government doors. All Obama has to do is rescind the 733 exemptions to businesses and unions and start it on time Jan 1 as the law was written. To all those with thumbs down explain why he can pick and choose who and when doesnt follow the law of the land.

16
21
ivehaditOct. 1, 13 8:02 AM

theagonybho === explain why he can pick and choose who and when doesnt follow the law of the land. === Because Presidents, as head of the executive branch, have some discretion on how laws are administered. It is limited, but this exercise of discretion is entirely appropriate and completely legal. Read Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Then you might possibly understand how this works. After all, your hero, George W. Bush, exercised his discretion many hundreds of times making exceptions to laws passed by Congress that he signed. Not a peep from the right.

19
10
luzhishenOct. 1, 13 8:11 AM

"To all those with thumbs down explain why he can pick and choose who and when doesnt follow the law of the land." For the same reason every other president could...(Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush...etc.)and an exemption is legal, by the way, think of it as an excused absence as defined in the law.

15
3
bannedmuggsOct. 1, 13 8:16 AM

What Americans? Obama? Boehner? I work in a huge cube farm and not one of the 300+ Americans are anxious or irritated. Total made up story.

10
24
theagonybhoOct. 1, 13 9:24 AM

luzhishen, you will have to update me on what national laws (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush exempted 733 business totalling 2.2 million people from.

6
11
luzhishenOct. 1, 1311:40 AM

Some presidents who have ignored laws or parts of laws...(but remember that exemptions are part of the ACA law) President Eisenhower, in signing a bill (H.R. 6042) that contained a legislative veto, stated that the legislative veto "will be regarded as invalid by the executive branch of the Government in the administration of H.R. 6042, unless otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. at 689. President Kennedy stated that a provision in the bill he was signing contained an unconstitutional legislative veto. He announced that "[i]t is therefore my intention . . . to treat this provision as a request for information." Id. President Johnson also found that a legislative veto provision was unconstitutional and stated that he would treat it as a request for information. President Nixon stated that a clause conditioning the use of authority by the executive branch on the approval of a congressional committee was unconstitutional. He ordered the agency involved to comply with "the acceptable procedures" in the bill "without regard to the unconstitutional provisions I have previously referred to." Id. at 687. President Ford stated that a committee approval mechanism was unconstitutional and announced that he would "treat the unconstitutional provision . . . to the extent it requires further Congressional committee approval, as a complete nullity." Id. at 242. President Carter stated that a legislative veto provision was unconstitutional and that any attempt at a legislative veto would "not [be] regarded as legally binding." Id. President Reagan stated that a legislative veto was unconstitutional and announced that "[t]he Secretary of Transportation will not . . . regard himself as legally bound by any such resolution." Id. President Bush rejected the constitutionality of provisions that required a Presidentially appointed board exercising executive authority to include, among its 21 members, "seven members nominated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives . . . [and] seven members nominated by the Majority Leader of the Senate." Id. at 1614. He announced that the restrictions on his choice of nominees to the board "are without legal force or effect." Id. An 1876 statute directed that notices be sent to certain diplomatic and consular officers "to close their offices." President Grant, in signing the bill, stated that, "[i]n the literal sense of this direction it would be an invasion of the constitutional prerogatives and duty of the Executive." Id. In order to avoid this problem, President Grant "constru[ed]" this provision "only to exercise the constitutional prerogative of Congress over the expenditures of the Government," not to "imply[] a right in the legislative branch to direct the closing or discontinuing of any of the diplomatic or consular offices of the Government."

7
2
theagonybhoOct. 1, 1311:44 AM

luzhishen, what does that post have to do with exempting 2.2 million people from a law? those examples affected about 50 people im talking about the law of the land.

4
10
spottedjagOct. 1, 1311:53 AM

Disgusting. A clean bill would pass the House if Republican leadership would allow it. This is a crime against democracy. You lost the election. Get over it. You don't get to stop the government just because you lost. Losing the election means that most people do not agree with you. We govern by a majority, that is what a democracy is.

18
7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT