Does The President Have the Right To Change Obamacare?

[The Rabbi]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

That is your claim. Are you a Constitutioinal lawyer?

You need to be a constitutional lawyer to look at black letter law and say it is black letter law? Now I've heard everything.

 

[Redfish]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

That is your claim. Are you a Constitutioinal lawyer?

nope, just an average american who has the capability to read and comprehend the meaning of words.

the president cannot change statutes. regulations cannot change statutes. Obama violated the constitution and the bill that he signed into law.

 

[Avatar4321]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

That is your claim. Are you a Constitutioinal lawyer?

Since when do you need to be a Constitutional Lawyer to understand English or our system of government?

 

[Old Rocks]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

So you state. The courts have thus far agreed with the President.

 

[The Rabbi]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

So you state. The courts have thus far agreed with the President.

Please cite those cases.

 

[Avatar4321]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

So you state. The courts have thus far agreed with the President.

Do you ever think for yourself or just believe what others in authority say?

BTW courts have not said any such thing because that particular issue hasn't been litigated.

 

[Howey]

No, it's illegal.

Do tell!

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Part of the objection is that Obama opposed Congress making any changes at all, including delaying the individual mandate, and when they first agreed on a budget that included this change, he demanded no changes at all. And he even blamed the resulting shut down solely on the GOP and accepted no responsibility for rejecting their compromise to avoid the shutdown, because he insisted that no changes would be made."

(1) BHO was making sure that the nation understood that the GOP minority held no veto power of the majority party.

(2) The tail does not wag the dog.

(3) Elections have real consequences.

Elections have consequences except when a Republican wins, right? The House is controlled by the Republicans not the democrats as in elections have consequences.

We did pretty much what we wanted from 1994 to 2006, when we had two complacent Presidents and control of Congress.

Yes, elections have consequences as we had forgotten but are now reminded.

One, again, the minority does not wag the dog, period.

Two, Does The President Have the Right To Change Obamacare? until, as Avatar pointed out above, he does not according to court action. Has not happened. Won't happen.

 

[Howey]

He would know that if he had any idea what he was talking about. But he naively believes that Obamacare, which is a statute, can be changed because he cites a statute saying the secretary can modify previous regulations.

He doesn't know the difference between statutes, which are passed by Congress and signed into law by the President as established by the Constitution and regulations, which are rules guiding the executive branch on how to enforce statutes.

au contraire, sweetlips.

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment? - Simon Lazarus - The Atlantic (follow the magical links within the article)

Nor is the one-year delay of the employer mandate an affront to the Constitution, as Professor Michael McConnell and Congressional Republicans insist. The relevant text requires that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Scholars on both left and right concur that this broadly-worded phrasing indicates that the President is to exercise judgment, and handle his enforcement duties with fidelity to all laws, including, indeed, the Constitution. As McConnell himself notes, both Republican and Democratic Justice Departments have consistently opined that the clause authorizes a president even to decline enforcement of a statute altogether, if in good faith he determines it to be in violation of the Constitution. But, McConnell contends, a president cannot "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons." While surely correct, that contention is beside the point.

The Administration has not postponed the employer mandate out of policy opposition to the ACA, nor to the specific provision itself. Thus, it's misleading to characterize the action as a "refusal to enforce." Rather, the President has authorized a minor temporary course correction regarding individual ACA provisions, necessary in his Administration's judgment to faithfully execute the overall statute, other related laws, and the purposes of the ACA's framers. As a legal as well as a practical matter, that's well within his job description.

 

[Yurt]

"Part of the objection is that Obama opposed Congress making any changes at all, including delaying the individual mandate, and when they first agreed on a budget that included this change, he demanded no changes at all. And he even blamed the resulting shut down solely on the GOP and accepted no responsibility for rejecting their compromise to avoid the shutdown, because he insisted that no changes would be made."

(1) BHO was making sure that the nation understood that the GOP minority held no veto power of the majority party.

(2) The tail does not wag the dog.

(3) Elections have real consequences.

must defend obama

must defend obama