Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

[NYcarbineer]

When was the first delay issued? Shouldn't that have been declared unconstitutional by now?

Maybe therein lies your answer to the OP's question.

 

[Geaux4it]

When was the first delay issued? Shouldn't that have been declared unconstitutional by now?

Maybe therein lies your answer to the OP's question.

Should of been when Ted Cruz tried to stop it.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Of course Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

Honestly, do you think the upcoming elections had anything to do with the decision?

-Geaux

 

[rightwinger]

Do you think that every time a law does not go off as planned that it somehow becomes void?

 

[NYcarbineer]

President Obama has delayed Obamacare. Again, after many delays before. He delayed (extended) the grace period for cancelled insurance plan by two years. The move is obviously political in nature, and moves this grace period until March 2016. So it got me to wondering. Where does Obama have the power to delay a law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by him?

if you have an issue, bring a court case.

unless and until the high court says it's unconstitutional, it isn't. you understand that, right?

No, Jill.. it is what it is... that is like saying it is not murder unless you are brought up on charges... regardless of whether you were caught and/or tried... it is still murder and you are still a murderer

Only if you set aside the principle of being innocent until proven guilty.

All you're talking about is that someone can call you a murderer if they want to, whether or not you are guilty of murder under the law.

 

[Geaux4it]

Do you think that every time a law does not go off as planned that it somehow becomes void?

Yes-- Build the fence

Next?

-Geaux

 

[rightwinger]

Do you think that every time a law does not go off as planned that it somehow becomes void?

Yes-- Build the fence

Next?

-Geaux

Unfortunately, you have 200 years of precedence to deal with

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

Honestly, do you think the upcoming elections had anything to do with the decision?

-Geaux

The president is working with the Republicans who have been demanding delays in implementing Obamacare for years.

 

[Geaux4it]

Of course Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

Honestly, do you think the upcoming elections had anything to do with the decision?

-Geaux

The president is working with the Republicans who have been demanding delays in implementing Obamacare for years.

Got it

-Geaux

 

[bedowin62]

Of course Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

Honestly, do you think the upcoming elections had anything to do with the decision?

-Geaux

The president is working with the Republicans who have been demanding delays in implementing Obamacare for years.

the president has made delays in the law and didnt go through Congress for all of them. stop lying to yourself dimwit

 

[Seawytch]

Yes

Seriously? Care to explain?

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend.​

 

[bedowin62]

obama's delays in implementing obamacare wont pass the Constitutional challenge



oh and for the idiot here; Repubs wont be fighting against something they support; because the larger issue is whether obamacare can function as a law; clearly it cant; and dems are hoping to hang onto power long enough to find that elusive "fix" for this fatally flawed law

So you're denying that the GOP wanted the mandates delayed?

lol, you people get more retarded every day.

the GOP wants this law repealed; remember leftard? obama isnt delaying it because Republicans asked him to you mindless self-deceiving idiot. why do you lie to yourself? obama is delaying it for political reasons

 

[jillian]

Do you think that every time a law does not go off as planned that it somehow becomes void?

Yes-- Build the fence

Next?

-Geaux

what on earth are you talking about?

 

[bedowin62]

Yes

Seriously? Care to explain?

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend.​

nonsense on stilts; most of what you need to trump your own argument is right in the evidence you think makes the case for the delays being legal

 

[rightwinger]

Yes

Seriously? Care to explain?

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend.​

Imagine that? The courts allow you to make reasonable delays in executing laws

What a Constitutional crisis

 

[bedowin62]

the agency's "presumptively superior grasp" or naked political ploy to keep dems in power?

the courts should hardly be the ones to ensure political corruption.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[jillian]

.

I don't think that constitutionality is really an issue here.

All actions are meant to minimize damage to the Democrats in the 2014 elections, and then we'll see if more actions are needed to minimize damage to the Democrats in the 2016 elections.

That's what matters here.

Everybody knows this.

.

because republicans don't play politics?

tell that to the wingnuts who started obstructing on January 20, 2009.

you're funny.

 

[bedowin62]

Seriously? Care to explain?

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend.​

Imagine that? The courts allow you to make reasonable delays in executing laws

What a Constitutional crisis

they are supposed to go through congress you idiot; not just decreed by the President himself YEARS after the law is passed


and anyway you are admitting republicans were right to ask for a delay; and that Dems shut down the government just for partisan reasons; because it was Dems that insisted there was no need for delays


libs are losers, liars and hypocrites

 

[Seawytch]

Seriously? Care to explain?

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend.​

nonsense on stilts; most of what you need to trump your own argument is right in the evidence you think makes the case for the delays being legal

And yet, oddly, the known car thief and alleged arson Darrel, "law and order" Issa isn't impeaching the President or even suing over the delays. How come I wonder?

Issa is willing to impeach the President if he uses the wrong toilet paper but he's just letting him do something so "blatantly unconstitutional"? Do you all ever listen to yourselves?

 

[bedowin62]

.

I don't think that constitutionality is really an issue here.

All actions are meant to minimize damage to the Democrats in the 2014 elections, and then we'll see if more actions are needed to minimize damage to the Democrats in the 2016 elections.

That's what matters here.

Everybody knows this.

.

because republicans don't play politics?

tell that to the wingnuts who started obstructing on January 20, 2009.

you're funny.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

the republican minority of both chambers of Congress; who didnt have the White House either; has been "obstructing" things since january of 2009?

good one idiot; but thinnk of all the so-called disatrous bush policies Dems could have saved the country from with a little "obstruction" starting in the year 2001?

libs are losers, self-deceiving liars who talk out of both sides of their mouths