Is it Constitutional to Delay the Law?

[natstew]

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.

uh...time to take your pills?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

No it doesn't

 

[natstew]

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?

f

How bout allowing a floor vote on them? stupid idiot!!

 

[natstew]

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?

To put on official record who voted for and who voted against. That's how it's done, stupid!

 

[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?

f

How bout allowing a floor vote on them? stupid idiot!!

Reid needs 60 votes to bring his own bills to the floor, why should he bring Republican bills to the floor with only 45 votes?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

To put on official record who voted for and who voted against. That's how it's done, stupid!

Well lets talk about how politics works then

It goes like this.....We will allow your bills to come up for a Senate vote, if you will allow our bills to come up for a vote

Willing to do that Republicans?

 

[natstew]

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.

No it doesn't

SHALL is mandatory, may is optional.

 

[rightwinger]

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

No it doesn't

SHALL is mandatory, may is optional.

Only if accompanied by a result of noncompliance

Shall be implemented by 03-31-2014 or this bill becomes void
There are no conditions included for noncompliance

 

[Listening]

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?

You bet.....he'd call out the army...pronounce marshall law and you'd be filing a brief.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.

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.

.

I was just thinking the same thing. It will be delayed again in 2016 to help the dems.

 

[Mac1958]

.

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.

Standard approach from partisan ideologues, the straw man argument.

How easy it must be to put words in the mouths of others for the sole purpose of discrediting words they never said, in a transparent effort to deflect from the original point.

Well done!

Just another example of why trying to communicate honestly with partisan ideologues is wasted effort.

.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

In Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution plainly states that only Congress can change or delay or outrightly pass laws. When the President becomes a lawmaker, his actions are thus unconstitutional:

‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.’

As it says plainly, "All legislative powers herein shall be granted in a Congress of the United States..." It nowhere allows for a sitting President to amend a law already passed by Congress. Michael McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit also says such decisions are "impermissible."

Statute does provide broad discretion, but unless there’s some explicit statutory authorization they don’t have the right not to do it,” McConnell, who now directs the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University's School of Law, says. “That’s the difference. Suspending and dispensing with statutes are equally impermissible.

The White House keeps changing Obamacare. Is that legal?

So, to you, readers. Is it or is it not Constitutional to change or delay a law already passed by Congress? Discuss what you think below!

The Supreme Court has made it clear that “an agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

.