Obamacare was passed by the book, after a year of efforts by Republicans to weaken it, efforts which bloated the law to the 2,000+ pages that Republicans proceeded to use as an argument against it...before finally refusing to vote for the law they "helped" craft. The law was reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court. Republicans framed the 2012 Presidential election as a referendum on Obamacare, and lost.
"a simple majority of Americans" might "disapprove of the ACA", but 72% of American disapprove of shutting down the government to force its repeal.
The President doesn't have the power to repeal any law. (That would be, oh right, the House the Republicans dominate with a gerrymandered majority, but still they couldn't repeal or defund the law). And he can't refuse to implement a law, either, even if it didn't happen to be his "signature" political initiative. Yet Tea Party fanatics shut down the Federal government and threatened to trash the country's credit rating, to try to somehow force the President to do just that. The Tea Party Caucus in the House has about 80 members representing just a few million Americans. Yet they took it upon themselves to use the threat of economic disaster to force the much larger majority to give in--about 72% don't approve of the forced shutdown.
You really don't see anything there that's anti-democratic? Really?
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—(18 USC § 2331 -- The "Patriot" Act
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Tea Party politicians only issue veiled threats of "acts dangerous to human life" (remember the phrase "second amendment remedy"?), so technically they haven't been guilty of domestic terrorism. But I think the above forms a fine basis of a concise definition of political terrorism. The actions of rightwing fanatics were explicitly intended to coerce a policy change that they failed to achieve within the rules of democracy.
Do you still not see anything anti-democratic about the Tea Party's actions?
"They changed the rule which was obviously within their given power to do so"...so you believe that might makes right? They changed the rule for the sole purpose of preventing democracy--a simple vote in the House--from functioning.
Yes, that's a "tyranny of the minority". Is that not obvious after we've suffered through a tantrum staged by just 80 members of a 435 member body of Congress?
It's now less than an hour since news broke that the Senate passed a last-minute deal. I think we've managed to avoid "degrading" democracy, by not rewarding political terrorism and not establishing the precedent that coercion by a small minority works. But it was a close thing, and we know they'll keep trying.
Teahadis wrap themselves in the flag and squawk loudly about their love of democracy, while their actions prove nothing but utter contempt for it.