It’s been absolutely amazing during the shutdown, to hear liberals lament that Obamacare is “settled law of the land” and we should all just get used to that. It’s as if the incurious little dullards have no concept of what a law actually is, or how it becomes one.

Since it seems to be an epidemic among liberals, I felt compelled to write this basic primer, so as to possibly help to educate them. I realize many of them are simply parroting what they have heard from other left-wing sources, and they simply think what they are saying has validity.

First of all, laws are made when congress puts together legislation and then, passes said legislation, where it is sent to the president to be signed into law. Sometimes, laws can be passed and signed into law, which are not in line with the Constitution, and those are often litigated before the Supreme Court, after making their way up the latter from appellate court. There are also times when laws are reviewed by the Supreme Court and found constitutional, only to be found unconstitutional at a later time. This generally happens as a result of other legislation passed by congress, which renders previous law unconstitutional. Take for example, the Fugitive Slave Act. It was “settled law of the land” and upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional, but with passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, it was rendered unconstitutional. There is a very long list of laws through the years, which at one time, were very much “settled law of the land” and found constitutional, yet rendered unconstitutional later.

Now, the main body which has the authority to determine what can be law, is the United States Congress. The president can’t make laws, nor can the Supreme Court. Even the general public can’t up and decide through polls or surveys, what is law of the land. It has to originate in Congress, through the legislative process. So this erroneous idea that congress can’t argue or filibuster over “settled law of the land” is quite stupid. Since they are the only body who can make or change laws, they most certainly CAN argue about “settled law of the land” any time they feel compelled. They can change those laws, they can redact them or rewrite them, postpone them or defund the appropriations made for them by previous congressional acts.

Today’s seated congress is not obligated to fund anything appropriated by a previous congress. This seems to be a major misconception liberal have about Obamacare. The congress that passed Obamacare, did mandate and stipulate a schedule of funding for the next ten years, but that doesn’t mean future congresses have to abide by their wishes. Each year, the funding has to be appropriated by the sitting congress of that time, and they can choose to not fund something, even though the previous congress wanted it funded. There are countless examples of this throughout history, it has plenty of precedent. From weapon systems to work programs, congress has a rich history of simply de-funding things that were originally funded by the initiating congress.

Our brilliant bicameral system, allows the U.S. House of Representatives to have the authority on spending, they control the purse strings. This was done in order to maintain checks and balances, and give the people of the United States (through their representatives) the final say on appropriations of their tax money. It’s not something disputable or debatable, though liberals today, seem to believe it is. Even when something is “settled law of the land” it doesn’t have to be funded if the House of Representatives decides it shouldn’t be.

One of the more fascinating ignoramuses, when it comes to “settled law of the land” is our illustrious president himself, who apparently doesn’t realize, the “settled law of the land” stipulates that we most certainly will fulfill our debt obligations to foreign creditors and will not default. Obama is running around the country telling people, if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’ll default on our outstanding debt, and that is simply false. You would think someone with a degree from Harvard would know a little more about the law than this, but nope, apparently not.

You see, it is established and “settled” law of the land, we are obligated to pay our debts to creditors, regardless of our debt ceiling limits. We can do this by simply redirecting funds from other things, as we have ample tax revenues coming in to pay our debts. Would it be tough? Sure! Would it be damn near impossible without causing major calamity? Perhaps! But the “settled law of the land” says that we MUST do this, so that is what would happen in the even of the debt ceiling not being raised. Under NO circumstance would we, or could we, default.

Now every politician in congress is ultimately going to vote to raise the debt ceiling, because the consequences of not doing so would be unbearable, and politically suicidal. Funding for all sorts of programs and things the government provides, would have to be suspended in order to fulfill our obligations, and none of them want to do that. The thing is, at some point, we have to get spending under control because you just can’t keep raising the debt ceiling, endlessly. Even a moron should understand that is not possible. Because we continue to raise our debt ceiling without doing anything to control spending, it has caused a credit downgrade for the first time in our history, and this will continue to happen to us if we don’t do something about the problem of runaway spending.