Where did I suggest a veto override, Doug? I "suggested" defunding any exec order that bypasses congress which requires funding.
You didn't mention veto overrides, Larry...but you did suggest that Boehner and his Republican partners in crime in the Senate move the 300 some bills on to the president. That is what precipitated my comment regarding the vetoes.
If I were B.O. (and thank goodness I'm not!!!) and the Repubs tried to force the issue on all those bills, I'd veto every one. You said something to the effect of watching to see if the Republicans would walk the walk and get the bills out of the black hole where Reid sent them...in effect, as I understand the tone of your comment, use their new-found power to pressure the POTUS by inundating him with all those bills. As I said, if I were POTUS and the Repubs did such a thing, I would view it as a spiteful act and would react in kind...vetoing every one of them, bringing the pressure right back on the Repubs to find 2/3 majority in both houses that it would take to override the vetoes.
In all actuality, I realize that there are probably some of those bills that Reid kept from coming to votes in the Senate that B.O. would probably sign, but if I had to guess (and that's what it is) I'd say they would be a small minority.
Here's what I believe to be the primary dynamic involved at this point. The Repubs have already stated that their primary objective is to get the ACA repealed. That is Obama's major accomplishment, and whether or not you agree with the implementation I think there's pretty much agreement that getting everyone to carry their own medical insurance so that their medical care doesn't have to be paid by tax monies is something we as a country needed to address. So...think about it...if the Repubs try to repeal the ACA, B.O. will be backed against the wall and I think he'll come out fighting...and one of those ways would be to veto every bill that is sponsored or approved by the Republican majorities in EITHER of the legislative bodies. Now, I believe that many of those issues about which people are upset (including your favorite obsession, that "...if you like your doctor you can keep him...") really do need to be tweaked, and if I were B.O. I would agree with those tweaks because that is not a hill on which I would want to lose the war...however, he WILL feel he has to battle with every tool he has if the hill grows into that mountain called "Repeal the ACA/Obama-Care", and he'll use every weapon he has to repel the enemy, including the power of the veto as well as executive orders.
In actuality, there's a history of vindictive actions by various POTUS...particularly Tricky Dick Nixon, who had a reputation of being vicious if you crossed him. So far B.O. has not risen to that level...but I believe that he has the potential, and also believe he's much smarter than Nixon and would not make the kind of hatred-driven mistakes Nixon made. He's almost done with his 8 years and ready to turn the reigns over to Hillary, so why push the envelope unless he's pushed to do so.
The Repubs should pick a different hill than ACA, IMHO, but if they go about it right I do believe they can achieve some of the things about which many have complained...think in the gestalt, not the minutiae...we as a country (and as taxpayers) really need the intent of the ACA, it's just the minutiae that needs to be attended to.
As for your issue with strict constitutional interpretation...well, we'll just have to agree that we'll continue to disagree on that issue, Larry...no need to rehash the obvious.
Cheers!
Doug
because you're on a corporate plan or Medicare. WA was one of the few states that limited insurance companies ability to deny coverage for most pre existing conditions. I had to move to WA for that very reason 10 years ago. Most states allowed insurers to deny coverage for virtually any reason. And yes I pay for my coverage under Obamacare, no subsidy.
