Obama usurps legislative authority again, extends health-care enrollment deadline

[Kosh]

AD hominem.
4,000 body bags.
Largest collapse of US economy in history.
Now explain GW's EOs and their accompanying rationales.

None of which is the truth, but for the sake of argument.......none of that is the truth..

Bush's EO's never rewrote a single law. Obama has done so several times.

You can start with the gun running program he is responsible for, then move onto the border responsibility he has changed, and then finish up with his political rewritting of Obamacare to keep himself from looking even more foolish than he already does.

Are you a knee-jerk Republican or do you get your news from Fox?
Actually, a yes to one is a yes to the other.

Says the far left Obama drone!

 

[Darkwind]

And he eventually wound down one of them.

While escalating another.

What I don't like is GW getting a pass from Republicans on using his EO power more than any other president in history and O not getting a pass.

While I agree with your point, GWB never used an EO to specifically avoid the implementation of a law. That's something only O has done. A HUGE slippery slope if ever there was one.

I wonder how they will feel when a GOP President gets into office and just decides to extend ALL the deadlines for obamacare......indefinately.....

Same concept of the "President just solving a problem", wouldn't you agree?


The rule of law.....its not just a concept.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing that prevents executive authority by BHO on ACA.

True, but executive authority does not allow a President arbitrarily change or suspend the law. The executive, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, is the branch of government charged with implementing, or executing, the law...not avoiding it. Executive orders relate to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules, overseeing the administration of public lands, or to carry out legislative policies and programs. BHO has executive authority, but that power does not give him the right to specifically suspect an existing law.

No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law. By your reasoning, a president could decide the CRA no longer applies. You cool with that?

Your opinion is not fact and is certainly not conclusive. This "No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law" is (1) unsupported fact, and (2) if it were still means nothing in limiting the President power to administer the programs. And (1) I am sure was done several times by Nixon.

The OP bears the burden of proof and has failed to accomplish that.

 

[Darkwind]

AD hominem.
4,000 body bags.
Largest collapse of US economy in history.
Now explain GW's EOs and their accompanying rationales.

None of which is the truth, but for the sake of argument.......none of that is the truth..

Bush's EO's never rewrote a single law. Obama has done so several times.

You can start with the gun running program he is responsible for, then move onto the border responsibility he has changed, and then finish up with his political rewritting of Obamacare to keep himself from looking even more foolish than he already does.

Are you a knee-jerk Republican or do you get your news from Fox?
Actually, a yes to one is a yes to the other.

Actually, you expose yourself yet again. Only a progressive has to make up something and then ask someone to defend against it.

I'm not a Republican, and I get My news from multiple sources.

You should try it.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is nothing that prevents executive authority by BHO on ACA.

True, but executive authority does not allow a President arbitrarily change or suspend the law. The executive, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, is the branch of government charged with implementing, or executing, the law...not avoiding it. Executive orders relate to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules, overseeing the administration of public lands, or to carry out legislative policies and programs. BHO has executive authority, but that power does not give him the right to specifically suspect an existing law.

No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law. By your reasoning, a president could decide the CRA no longer applies. You cool with that?

Your opinion is not fact and is certainly not conclusive. This "No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law" is (1) unsupported fact, and (2) if it were still means nothing in limiting the President power to administer the programs. And (1) I am sure was done several times by Nixon.

The OP bears the burden of proof and has failed to accomplish that.

Yet you started by stating a 'power' that the President has (according to you) without even citing the portion of the constitution that grants the executive branch that specific power

 

[eflatminor]

There is nothing that prevents executive authority by BHO on ACA.

True, but executive authority does not allow a President arbitrarily change or suspend the law. The executive, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, is the branch of government charged with implementing, or executing, the law...not avoiding it. Executive orders relate to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules, overseeing the administration of public lands, or to carry out legislative policies and programs. BHO has executive authority, but that power does not give him the right to specifically suspect an existing law.

No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law. By your reasoning, a president could decide the CRA no longer applies. You cool with that?

Your opinion is not fact and is certainly not conclusive. This "No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law" is (1) unsupported fact,

Then by all means, show us an example.

and (2) if it were still means nothing in limiting the President power to administer the programs. .

Administer means to oversee the implementation of something, not to avoid it's implementation. Fail.

And (1) I am sure was done several times by Nixon.

You'd be wrong. But again, feel free to cite an example.

The OP bears the burden of proof and has failed to accomplish that

The proof is in the fact never in the history of America has an EO been used to avoid the implementation of a law. That is clearly an usurpation of authority.

I noticed you failed to address the precedent this sets. So, I ask again, when a future President arbitrarily decides to suspend the CRA...or Obamacare...will say that's within his powers?

Answer the fucking question, please.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is nothing that prevents executive authority by BHO on ACA.

True, but executive authority does not allow a President arbitrarily change or suspend the law. The executive, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, is the branch of government charged with implementing, or executing, the law...not avoiding it. Executive orders relate to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules, overseeing the administration of public lands, or to carry out legislative policies and programs. BHO has executive authority, but that power does not give him the right to specifically suspect an existing law.

No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law. By your reasoning, a president could decide the CRA no longer applies. You cool with that?

Your opinion is not fact and is certainly not conclusive. This "No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law" is (1) unsupported fact, and (2) if it were still means nothing in limiting the President power to administer the programs. And (1) I am sure was done several times by Nixon.

The OP bears the burden of proof and has failed to accomplish that.

Please post any previous president's EO that effectively voided a law. We'll wait.
You wont. Because you're "Jake, Kingof the Unsubstantiated Statement."

 

[Antares]

There is nothing that prevents executive authority by BHO on ACA.

True, but executive authority does not allow a President arbitrarily change or suspend the law. The executive, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, is the branch of government charged with implementing, or executing, the law...not avoiding it. Executive orders relate to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules, overseeing the administration of public lands, or to carry out legislative policies and programs. BHO has executive authority, but that power does not give him the right to specifically suspect an existing law.

No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law. By your reasoning, a president could decide the CRA no longer applies. You cool with that?

Your opinion is not fact and is certainly not conclusive. This "No president before Obama has used an executive order to avoid implementation of an existing law" is (1) unsupported fact, and (2) if it were still means nothing in limiting the President power to administer the programs. And (1) I am sure was done several times by Nixon.

The OP bears the burden of proof and has failed to accomplish that.

You claim he has the authority to do as he wills with this law, prove it.

 

[Antares]

There is nothing that prevents executive authority by BHO on ACA.

True story.

You guys just can't ever win this silly OP.

Prove it liar, it is your assertion.

 

[ShawnChris13]

There is nothing that prevents executive authority by BHO on ACA.



True story.



You guys just can't ever win this silly OP.

What limits to executive authority are there then? When will it not be OK for the president to have the authority to change laws without congress? When will it be wrong for the president to have the authority to seize natural resources? What limits are there? It seems there are none after the last decade.

 

[johnwk]

Some bills Congress pass into law, give the president legislative powers he might need to supplement the law or see that the intent of the bill is carried out successfully. The beauty of these bills are that the opposing party can then claim the president is a dictator, or with president Jackson, a king if he uses those powers.
My favorite example of this practice is FDR's second bill to the Congress.

Under the rules of constitutional law, "Congress may not delegate such essential elements of its lawmaking power as its power to declare principles and standards, or general public policy!" See Am.Jur, vol. 16, Constitutional law, Legislative Power, Rule Barring Delegation. (multiple citations omitted)


JWK




Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

 

[johnwk]

Think about it. If the President continues to solve problems in the ACA as they crop up, then the ACA may just work, and there will be egg all over 'Conservative' face. Not to worry, however. After the government shutdown, you really won't notice the new egg.

It can only work for a despotic government which tramples upon the fundamental right of people being free to make their own medical and health care decisions, and this would include purchasing a health insurance plan tailored to meet one's own medical and health care needs.

The fact is, A legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

Are you a socialist who despises people being free to make their own choices and decisions in life?


JWK



"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618

 

[Listening]

Obama usurps legislative authority again,

False. BHO has the executive authority to administer the program.

Merry Christmas Jake,

I want to thank you and others like you for continuing to ruin a good thing....The U.S.A.

Your lack of understanding and desire for a king is spoken of a great deal in the history book your neighbors read. It talks about people like you. Those who subvert liberty and continually wish for some kind of heavy handed rule.

The book also talks about kings gone bad. And about what a pain in the ass it is to get rid of them.

So thanks again. In the interest of my desire to keep the spirit of the season, I'll save my closing challenge to you for after the new year.

Until then, please enjoy the liberties that others fought and died for and which you seem so eager to give away.

 

[regent]

Presidents generally enforce laws they agree with or feel they should enforce politically. They do not enforce all laws equally, and some laws get little executive enforcement. Even Jackson at one time is supposed to have told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

 

[The Rabbi]

Presidents generally enforce laws they agree with or feel they should enforce politically. They do not enforce all laws equally, and some laws get little executive enforcement. Even Jackson at one time is supposed to have told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

Well no that isnt true. It's true about Jackson. But that was 150 years ago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

.
The Obama administration confirmed on Monday, December, 23rd, that it has decided to once again ignore the Affordable Healthcare Act as written and will allow Americans to sign up for new health insurance plans through Christmas Eve and such new coverage will become effective on January 1st of the New Year. Of course, this action defies the separation of powers of our Constitution in that our President and its Administration is forbidden amend laws to its own liking, and this was specifically pointed out by our very own Supreme Court.

In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) our Supreme Court struck down Line Item veto powers being exercise by the president because it would allow the president an arbitrary power to adjust laws to his own liking without having to go through Congress. Under our Constitution “ All legislative Powers” are “vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”


If we look at Obama’s continual disregard of Obamacare as written and his countless striking some parts of the law down while leaving others parts to be enforced, he is not only spitting upon our Constitution and its separation of powers, but he is knowingly and willfully ignoring that our Supreme Court has already stuck down a proposed power to allow “line item veto powers” to be exercised by the president! Are Obama’s current actions in which he arbitrarily refuses to enforce Obamacare as written not the very act of exercising line item veto powers?


And why did out founders refuse to grant such power to Congress? Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), and, in discussing veto power during the framing of our Constitutio, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:


''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''


And who has been complicit in the past of wanting to allow our President to exercise line item veto power? None other than our Republican Party Leadership in Congress who has sole authority to write law. CLICK HERE for the roll call vote to allow line item veto power to be exercised by Obama.


And who is at the top of this list? None other than John Bonner, the Republican Speaker of the House!


Instead of jealously guarding Congress’ legislative authority, we have a despotic Speaker of the House who not only neglects to take Obama into court for impinging upon Congress’ legislative authority, he has shown an intentional desire to allow Obama to exercise this unconstitutional power! This snake needs to be removed from office and then severely punished for his complicit acts of tyranny!


JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wahhhhhhh...................wahhhhhhhhhhhhh....................

The President is responding to problems, and taking measures to fix those problems. How dare he do that! Who does he think he is, President?????????????????

No he's not. He's ruling by decree. If a law is changed it has to go through congress. O could care less and the Rs don't even have the balls to challenge.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Total BS, for hater dupes only...if you think Pubs would allow him to do anything illegal, you're out of your tiny, brainwashed little minds- but we knew that lol....

 

[regent]

Presidents generally enforce laws they agree with or feel they should enforce politically. They do not enforce all laws equally, and some laws get little executive enforcement. Even Jackson at one time is supposed to have told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

Well no that isnt true. It's true about Jackson. But that was 150 years ago.

It's true. People believe government operates in a textbook manner as they were taught in school, but in actuality there is a lot of difference between school-government and real government. Lots of differences.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No he's not. He's ruling by decree. If a law is changed it has to go through congress. O could care less and the Rs don't even have the balls to challenge.

True in every particular... unfortunately.