I'm sorry, throwing links and talking points at me will not win you this argument, for which you failed to address at all. You don't simply react by circumventing the law. At least the GOP is using legitimate political processes to "govern by blackmail," Obama on the other hand flat out breached his authority under the Constitution.
What Obama did was show contempt for the co-equal branches of government. Congress alone has the power to enact legislation and amendments to previously enacted legislation.
I'm afraid legal precedent trumps your opinion of the matter.
"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
Justice John Paul Stevens, in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
Obama violates the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution when he attempts to change law.
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."
Heres a clue so you don't have to buy one: win an election & you don't have to go that route sugar tits.
Glad to help
