4 3 mins 9 yrs

As I pointed out the other day Obama’s most recent violation of the Constitution was delaying of the demands placed on the Employer by Obamacare. The schedule of when certain things take place in OC are written in the Law. A President has no Authority to change written Law once it has passed the Congress. It’s just that simple.

Well there is some hope that at least a few Representatives of the People might actually try to call him on it.

obama1-compressedBut three House committees are already looking into the decision, with Republicans complaining about a disturbing trend where the president decides which laws to enforce and which to ignore.

Darrell Issa of California, the chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, called the decision “another in a string of extra legal actions” taken by Obama.

“As a former constitutional law teacher, President Obama must know that this action gets into very questionable constitutional territory,” Issa said in a statement to CQ Roll Call. “It also paves the way for future administrations to simply not enforce parts of Obamacare they don’t believe are functioning well.”

Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Brady of Texas announced a hearing July 10 focusing on the administration’s authority to delay enforcement.

And Rep. Phil Roe of Tennessee, the chairman of an Education and the Workforce subcommittee, asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate.

“I believe this administration has made a habit of bypassing Congress and it sets a very dangerous precedent,” Roe said in a statement to CQ Roll Call. “Both Republicans and Democrats should be very concerned, and I will continue to closely monitor these actions and hold the president accountable.”

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said, “If President Obama wants to make changes to Obamacare, he must come to Congress. … We are a nation governed by laws written by Congress, not memos and blog posts written by bureaucrats.”

In March, Issa complained in a Washington Examiner op-ed that the Obama administration was interpreting the health care law to provide tax credits in health exchanges even if states refused to set them up — contrary to the law’s text.

The fact that most states refused to set up their own exchanges “does not justify the administration’s effort to ignore the plain language of the law,” Issa wrote.

That dispute is currently the subject of a lawsuit filed by the state of Oklahoma.
– See more at: http://cdn.rollcall.com

We are supposed to be a nation of Laws, not of men. You can’t force Citizens to participate in OC because it’s the Law and then REFUSE to follow the Law yourself.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

4 thoughts on “Mein Fuhrer part 2

  1. It is questionable whether or not this is constitutional rather than an outright violation of the Constitution. The enforcement of laws in an executive power. All executive power in the US is vested in the President.

    The law is on the books. He isn’t removing it from the books. He is just choosing not to exercise his executive power. It is a constitutional gray area rather than a clear violation.

  2. This time, the less significant fact isn’t the constitutionality (which is irrelevent to Washington) but that implementation has been delayed.

    It’s an admission that Obamacare is a job killer. More and more Americans are going part time as firms struggle to shoulder costs, then along come these massive costs. Sorry mate, we can’t afford you and Obamacare, complain to the prez.

    It’s a stunningly cynical move that such a miracle as this is being delayed until after the elections, but that’s politics. People suffer, firms suffer, politicians remain shameless and wealthy.

  3. Seamus is correct, but here is the problem. The first time a President refused to enforce a law passed by congress and signed by a President was DOMA. In that case he refused the whole law and the states were forced to act, which led to over 80% of Californians voting no to gay marriage only to be told by a court that not only did their votes not count but if they didn’t support gay marriage you were a racist biggot homophobe.

    What the President is doing here is not refusing to enforce the law, he wants the law enforced. Just not until after the midterm election. He is rewriting the law to suit his needs and wants.

  4. I will agree with Phil Roe. It is a worrying precedent. In the history of the US Presidency once a President assumes a new power the Presidency has a tendency never to give it up. Sometimes the right support such power grabs (the Commander-in-Chief clause) sometimes they don’t.

    But while this is effectively the President using his constitutional powers to undermine the legislature’s constitutional powers the fact is that the legislature does this regularly to the judiciary in things like mandatory sentencing. So I doubt the Republican’s biggest concern here is the proper application of the Separation of Powers (actually Separation of Personnel rather than Separation of Powers).

Comments are closed.