Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

[bedowin62]

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?

Republicans are busy trying to legislate you dolt; and save the country from the low-motion trainwreck that is the obama Administration and Progressive Majority Rule

 

[LilOlLady]

Obama does what ever the hell has to be done. As does Congress who does nothing but whatever it take to take Obama down. To hell with the American people without healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc.

 

[bedowin62]

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?

i havent heard Issa speak of impeaching obama for anything; maybe you can fill me in leftard; or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?

 

[bedowin62]

Insurance companies are supposed to give 90 days notice of cncellation. take the begining of 2015; when policies would be cancelled; and count back 90 days; and you'll know why obama has issued yet another delay to his own law


libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[1751_Texan]

From a party that does not know what the definition of 'is' is, surely would question and test the limits of the constitution.

Again, you are only breaking the law if you get caught. Well, with the exception of illegal aliens

-Geaux

That is too simplistic a analogy. A law is defined. The "actions" of the President violates what Federal statute or which provision of the Constitution?

To simply reiterate Article I sec 1. That is not a legal arguement.

No lawyer would stand before The Court and embarass themselves with that claim.

 

[rightwinger]

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

They are?

Can you show where other Presidents went through Congress for minor modifications in executing a bill?

Should be interesting

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

You might be the most uninformed nutcase on this board:

House GOP Passes Bill to Avert Shutdown and Delay Obamacare


House GOP Passes Bill to Avert Shutdown and Delay Obamacare | TIME.com

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Republicans are busy trying to legislate you dolt; and save the country from the low-motion trainwreck that is the obama Administration and Progressive Majority Rule

Trying to legislate?

They just can't pass enough "Repeal Obamacare" bills

 

[bedowin62]

From a party that does not know what the definition of 'is' is, surely would question and test the limits of the constitution.

Again, you are only breaking the law if you get caught. Well, with the exception of illegal aliens

-Geaux

That is too simplistic a analogy. A law is defined. The "actions" of the President violates what Federal statute or which provision of the Constitution?

To simply reiterate Article I sec 1. That is not a legal arguement.

No lawyer would stand before The Court and embarass themselves with that claim.

moron. a message board isnt a place for a legal argument; so to state the Article obama is violating is enough. obama has already been smacked down by courts; and will continue to be

 

[bedowin62]

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

You might be the most uninformed nutcase on this board:

House GOP Passes Bill to Avert Shutdown and Delay Obamacare


House GOP Passes Bill to Avert Shutdown and Delay Obamacare | TIME.com

i'm uninformed? so republicans never did want to repeal obamacare? and dems didnt insist it didnt need delaying until the disastrous rollout?

i'm uninformed? or you're a loser lying to himself?

 

[bedowin62]

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?

Republicans are busy trying to legislate you dolt; and save the country from the low-motion trainwreck that is the obama Administration and Progressive Majority Rule

Trying to legislate?

They just can't pass enough "Repeal Obamacare" bills

actually they've passed more than 30 bills that lie OBSTRUCTED on Reid's Senate desk..

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans are busy trying to legislate you dolt; and save the country from the low-motion trainwreck that is the obama Administration and Progressive Majority Rule

Trying to legislate?

They just can't pass enough "Repeal Obamacare" bills

actually they've passed more than 30 bills that lie OBSTRUCTED on Reid's Senate desk..

libs are losers who lie to themselves

What is Reid supposed to do with them other than laugh?

 

[bedowin62]

Trying to legislate?

They just can't pass enough "Repeal Obamacare" bills

actually they've passed more than 30 bills that lie OBSTRUCTED on Reid's Senate desk..

libs are losers who lie to themselves

What is Reid supposed to do with them other than laugh?

GOOD ONE IDIOT; but at the same time you cry about "obstruction' by the other side.. that's how much of a moronic hypocrite you are; you arent even aare of it. cant the other side say the same thing of legislation coming from Dems?
if you want to say Dems dont consider bills passed in the House to be serious; then dont whine others are "obstructing" your own agenda

idiots and hypocrites

 

[rightwinger]

actually they've passed more than 30 bills that lie OBSTRUCTED on Reid's Senate desk..

libs are losers who lie to themselves

What is Reid supposed to do with them other than laugh?

GOOD ONE IDIOT; but at the same time you cry about "obstruction' by the other side.. that's how much of a moronic hypocrite you are; you arent even aare of it. cant the other side say the same thing of legislation coming from Dems?
if you want to say Dems dont consider bills passed in the House to be serious; then dont whine others are "obstructing" your own agenda

idiots and hypocrites

Reid needs 60 votes to get any Democratic bill to the floor. Why should he bring Republican bills to the floor with only 45 votes?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Republicans are busy trying to legislate you dolt; and save the country from the low-motion trainwreck that is the obama Administration and Progressive Majority Rule

Yes, you can tell that by all the Post Offices they've renamed.

 

[DiamondDave]

Of course Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

Not by the executive it is not.. if the law is legally changed by the legislation, it is

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

So a murder is not a murder unless there is a conviction?? Nope, incorrect... To label someone specifically as a murderer in a trial and sentence them legally as a murderer requires the trial and that PERSON is innocent until proven guilty

You can have a murder.. hence if you have a murder, you have a person who committed the murder.. even if the person is not caught and labeled one by the court

 

[natstew]

You'd think that someone who touted himself as a Constitutional 'Scholar' to get elected would know better...or does he know how to skirt around the Constitution with impunity?

He was an 'Affirmative Action" scholar.
Now he's an 'Affirmative Action" President.

Actually he was a Communist first and foremost. His Constitutional studies were not based on a premise of learning Constitutional Law, it was to discover ways to destroy the Constitution.

He's using the color of his skin to it's full advantage. It's his 'teflon'.
Obama is the most evil person to ever set foot in the White House.

 

[natstew]

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.

Only congress can do this. Whether the GOP wanted it or not is beside the point!!
LOL, go read your Constitution, first wipe the slobber from your face, libTARDED MORON,

 

[natstew]

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.​

"Shall be implemented by 03-31-2014" that one word makes this one different.