Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law

[starcraftzzz]

Yes republicans do think Obama should be impeached for doing his job, that is how partisan and stupid they've become

Thats the issue, he is not doing his job. He is trying to do the job of the Judicial and Legislative branches in addition to his own...and failing miserably at it.

he is "back dooring" laws that were struck down by Congress (I.e - Dream Act, Kyoto Treaty), Gave himself the power to bypass the 4th Amendment, enlarged the "shadow government" Bush had implemented, changed the law now allowing our own military to turn guns on American citizens...and made the Patriot Act permanent. On top of that he is a bigot.

We need to get back to the fundamentals of our Constitution and follow what our founders had envisioned...self governance. Too bad the majority of people are too stupid to be able to govern themselves.

I see so according to you the executive branch doing things congress said they could do is now unconstitutional . According to you Obama's EPA regulation greenhouse gasses of which the Supreme court SAID they legally had to do under the clean air act is unconstitutional.
Either you know nothing about the constitution or you are a brainwash partisan hack who has an IQ of 70

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Thats the issue, he is not doing his job. He is trying to do the job of the Judicial and Legislative branches in addition to his own...and failing miserably at it.

he is "back dooring" laws that were struck down by Congress (I.e - Dream Act, Kyoto Treaty), Gave himself the power to bypass the 4th Amendment, enlarged the "shadow government" Bush had implemented, changed the law now allowing our own military to turn guns on American citizens...and made the Patriot Act permanent. On top of that he is a bigot.

We need to get back to the fundamentals of our Constitution and follow what our founders had envisioned...self governance. Too bad the majority of people are too stupid to be able to govern themselves.

I see so according to you the executive branch doing things congress said they could do is now unconstitutional . According to you Obama's EPA regulation greenhouse gasses of which the Supreme court SAID they legally had to do under the clean air act is unconstitutional.
Either you know nothing about the constitution or you are a brainwash partisan hack who has an IQ of 70

First, there are differences between instituting the requirements of the Clean Air Act and implementing portions of the Kyoyo Treaty that was rejected by Congress.

Secondly, you conveniently bypassed the implementation of the Dream Act which Congress has also shot down.

Overlooking things to try to make others look bad huh?
I can already see where you are on the list of people for debating issues with.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I see so according to you the executive branch doing things congress said they could do is now unconstitutional . According to you Obama's EPA regulation greenhouse gasses of which the Supreme court SAID they legally had to do under the clean air act is unconstitutional.
Either you know nothing about the constitution or you are a brainwash partisan hack who has an IQ of 70

First, there are differences between instituting the requirements of the Clean Air Act and implementing portions of the Kyoyo Treaty that was rejected by Congress.

The Conservative supreme court under Roberts told the EPA that legally they HAD to regulate/reduce greenhouse gasses, of which Kyoto treaty which occurred int he 90s that you're trying to blame on obama is a treaty aimed at regulating and reducing greenhouse gasses

Secondly, you conveniently bypassed the implementation of the Dream Act which Congress has also shot down.

So why are you against an act that will reduce the deficit help millions of people and expand our economy?
Second the executive branch has authority over how to enforce laws; you saying they dont is just another example of how completely ignorant you are on the topic

 

[Imnukingfutz]

First, there are differences between instituting the requirements of the Clean Air Act and implementing portions of the Kyoyo Treaty that was rejected by Congress.

The Conservative supreme court under Roberts told the EPA that legally they HAD to regulate/reduce greenhouse gasses, of which Kyoto treaty which occurred int he 90s that you're trying to blame on obama is a treaty aimed at regulating and reducing greenhouse gasses

Secondly, you conveniently bypassed the implementation of the Dream Act which Congress has also shot down.

So why are you against an act that will reduce the deficit help millions of people and expand our economy?
Second the executive branch has authority over how to enforce laws; you saying they dont is just another example of how completely ignorant you are on the topic

OK, the Kyoto treaty has been shot down several times...not just in the 90's...all through the 00's and into this administration.
The Clean Air Act has one set of Congressionally approved limits, Kyoto another...the EPA under this Administration is implementing regulations closer to those of the Kyoyo treaty than those approved by Congress. If you really wanted to get technical, the Constitution does not allow for the EPA.

And how does giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants help reduce our deficit and expand our economy? The Dream Act was shot down by Congress, the law should not be being "back doored" in through exec. order.

I do not believe I ever said the Exec branch doesnt have the right to enforce laws...thats their primary job per the Constitution. What I do have a problem with is the Exec branch implementing laws...specifically those that were already shot down by Congress.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law


The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.
The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law - The Hill's Healthwatch


Thought this was in before the SCOTUS to determine if the entire thing was constitutional?!!!

Obama does not care about the Constitution or the law, freedoms, nothing but wasting money so people have to rely on more government.

This is not a hard concept to grasp.

cloward piven strategy - Yahoo! Search Results

it's in the play book

 

[Greenbeard]

I do not believe I ever said the Exec branch doesnt have the right to enforce laws...thats their primary job per the Constitution. What I do have a problem with is the Exec branch implementing laws...specifically those that were already shot down by Congress.

Here's what the judicial branch told the executive branch the law in question requires them to do:

Held: [...]

3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent … , including any physical, chemical, … substance … emitted into … the ambient air … ,” §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical … substance.” Ibid. EPA’s reliance on postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing. Even if postenactment legislative history could shed light on the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants. The Court has no difficulty reconciling Congress’ various efforts to promote interagency collaboration and research to better understand climate change with the agency’s pre-existing mandate to regulate “any air pollutant” that may endanger the public welfare. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 , distinguished. Also unpersuasive is EPA’s argument that its regulation of motor-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions would require it to tighten mileage standards, a job (according to EPA) that Congress has assigned to the Department of Transportation. The fact that DOT’s mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA’s environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public “health” and “welfare,” §7521(a)(1). Pp. 25–30.

4. EPA’s alternative basis for its decision—that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests on reasoning divorced from the statutory text. While the statute conditions EPA action on its formation of a “judgment,” that judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” §7601(a)(1). Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30–32.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I do not believe I ever said the Exec branch doesnt have the right to enforce laws...thats their primary job per the Constitution. What I do have a problem with is the Exec branch implementing laws...specifically those that were already shot down by Congress.

3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent … , including any physical, chemical, … substance … emitted into … the ambient air … ,” §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical … substance.” Ibid. EPA’s reliance on postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing. Even if postenactment legislative history could shed light on the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants. The Court has no difficulty reconciling Congress’ various efforts to promote interagency collaboration and research to better understand climate change with the agency’s pre-existing mandate to regulate “any air pollutant” that may endanger the public welfare. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 , distinguished. Also unpersuasive is EPA’s argument that its regulation of motor-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions would require it to tighten mileage standards, a job (according to EPA) that Congress has assigned to the Department of Transportation. The fact that DOT’s mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA’s environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public “health” and “welfare,” §7521(a)(1). Pp. 25–30.

4. EPA’s alternative basis for its decision—that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests on reasoning divorced from the statutory text. While the statute conditions EPA action on its formation of a “judgment,” that judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” §7601(a)(1). Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30–32.

Im not exactly sure of the point you are making...the quote you answered to was about the Exec branch implementing laws that were shot down by Congress...notably the dream act and portions of the Kyoto treaty.

Im not really sure why you posted something about the decision of SCOTUS on the Clean Air Act...the EPA should just have given the reasons they werent implementing the law....that was stupid on their part.

 

[Greenbeard]

Im not exactly sure of the point you are making...the quote you answered to was about the Exec branch implementing laws that were shot down by Congress...notably the dream act and portions of the Kyoto treaty.

Im not really sure why you posted something about the decision of SCOTUS on the Clean Air Act...the EPA should just have given the reasons they werent implementing the law....that was stupid on their part.

You're falsely conflating enforcing the Clean Air Act (via regulation of greenhouse gases, as ordered by the Supreme Court) with "implementing laws that were shot down by Congress...portions of the Kyoto treaty." Get it?

 

[starcraftzzz]

The Conservative supreme court under Roberts told the EPA that legally they HAD to regulate/reduce greenhouse gasses, of which Kyoto treaty which occurred int he 90s that you're trying to blame on obama is a treaty aimed at regulating and reducing greenhouse gasses

So why are you against an act that will reduce the deficit help millions of people and expand our economy?
Second the executive branch has authority over how to enforce laws; you saying they dont is just another example of how completely ignorant you are on the topic

OK, the Kyoto treaty has been shot down several times...not just in the 90's...all through the 00's and into this administration.
The Clean Air Act has one set of Congressionally approved limits, Kyoto another...the EPA under this Administration is implementing regulations closer to those of the Kyoyo treaty than those approved by Congress. If you really wanted to get technical, the Constitution does not allow for the EPA.

What part of the Supreme court said constitutional it would be ILLEGAL for the EPA not to regulate/reduce greenhouses gasses do you not understand? Can you not read? Are you dense? Or are you just a retard?
It would be unconstitutional for the EPA not to regulate/decrease greenhouse gasses

And how does giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants help reduce our deficit and expand our economy? The Dream Act was shot down by Congress, the law should not be being "back doored" in through exec. order.

I see so 1) You are to stupid to realize it costs money to deport people, and are 2) to stupid to realize that people with college educations have high wages and pay more in taxes then they get in benefits.

I do not believe I ever said the Exec branch doesnt have the right to enforce laws...thats their primary job per the Constitution. What I do have a problem with is the Exec branch implementing laws...specifically those that were already shot down by Congress.

No what you are saying is that the Executive branch has to enforce the laws as you wish; that you ignorant opinion trumps the executive branch

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Im not exactly sure of the point you are making...the quote you answered to was about the Exec branch implementing laws that were shot down by Congress...notably the dream act and portions of the Kyoto treaty.

Im not really sure why you posted something about the decision of SCOTUS on the Clean Air Act...the EPA should just have given the reasons they werent implementing the law....that was stupid on their part.

You're falsely conflating enforcing the Clean Air Act (via regulation of greenhouse gases, as ordered by the Supreme Court) with "implementing laws that were shot down by Congress...portions of the Kyoto treaty." Get it?

I guess you dont understand the differences between the two then I will do my best to explain it;
If the court says you must implement Law A and Law A has a set of requirements you implement them per court order.
Law B has a different set of requirements and Law B was shot down by Congress.
You do not use Law A as a reason/excuse to implement Law B.

Mass v. EPA - In October 2003, the ICTA, joined by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and 11 other states sued the EPA - The CAA was to allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles under CAA....

The suit was brought forth because the EPA wouldnt regulate the GHG from motor vehicles, this administration has taken it further and used it to implement those regulations (meant specifically for motorized vehicles) toward energy companies, refineries, factories...ala the Kyoto treaty....which was turned down by Congress several times and which several industrialized nations pulled out of and others refused to ratify.

You need to stop listening to what the pundits on either side say and research these things for yourself. DOnt believe anything you are told unless you already know it to be true or you have personally verified the information. Everyone has an agenda...the truth doesnt.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

OK, the Kyoto treaty has been shot down several times...not just in the 90's...all through the 00's and into this administration.
The Clean Air Act has one set of Congressionally approved limits, Kyoto another...the EPA under this Administration is implementing regulations closer to those of the Kyoyo treaty than those approved by Congress. If you really wanted to get technical, the Constitution does not allow for the EPA.

What part of the Supreme court said constitutional it would be ILLEGAL for the EPA not to regulate/reduce greenhouses gasses do you not understand? Can you not read? Are you dense? Or are you just a retard?
It would be unconstitutional for the EPA not to regulate/decrease greenhouse gasses

I see so 1) You are to stupid to realize it costs money to deport people, and are 2) to stupid to realize that people with college educations have high wages and pay more in taxes then they get in benefits.

I do not believe I ever said the Exec branch doesnt have the right to enforce laws...thats their primary job per the Constitution. What I do have a problem with is the Exec branch implementing laws...specifically those that were already shot down by Congress.

No what you are saying is that the Executive branch has to enforce the laws as you wish; that you ignorant opinion trumps the executive branch

You want to go down this road...no problem;
1) Please show the Constitutional clause that allows for the implementation of the EPA...in other words, where the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority & power to regulate the environment. What the SCOTUS said is it is unconstitutional for the Exec. branch NOT to enforce a law passed by Congress...the case was not whether or not a department was Constitutional.

2) Allowing illegals that broke our law in order to enter this country will help the economy? Thats funny...the ones who have college degrees are here legally...they didnt spend all that time educating themselves to better their lives to enter a country illegally. The ones that come here illegally are farm workers, construction laborers etc... Implementing the Dream Act - giving amnesty to people who break our laws - is wrong no matter how you look at it. Implementing ANY law that has been struck down by Congress is wrong no matter how you look at it.

3) "No what you are saying is..." No, thats not what I said. Dont put words in my mouth, I am more than capable of speaking for myself...Im sorry you cant understand that.

 

[Greenbeard]

The suit was brought forth because the EPA wouldnt regulate the GHG from motor vehicles, this administration has taken it further and used it to implement those regulations (meant specifically for motorized vehicles) toward energy companies, refineries, factories...ala the Kyoto treaty....which was turned down by Congress several times and which several industrialized nations pulled out of and others refused to ratify.

Major emitting facilities are covered by the Clean Air Act. The EPA under Bush clarified: "As of the date of this memorandum, EPA will interpret this definition of 'regulated NSR pollutant' to exclude pollutants for which EPA regulations require only monitoring or reporting but to include each pollutant subject to either a provision of the Clean Air Act or regulation adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant."

That interpretation has been retained to the present day. Thus when the EPA, acting in accordance with Massachusetts v EPA, designated six greenhouse gases as NSR pollutants under the motor vehicle emission standards section of the CAA, impact of that decision extended into Title I of the CAA.

If Congress doesn't want the Clean Air Act enforced, it should eliminate it. You're unlikely to find a House in this lifetime that's more amenable to the thought than the present one.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

The suit was brought forth because the EPA wouldnt regulate the GHG from motor vehicles, this administration has taken it further and used it to implement those regulations (meant specifically for motorized vehicles) toward energy companies, refineries, factories...ala the Kyoto treaty....which was turned down by Congress several times and which several industrialized nations pulled out of and others refused to ratify.

Major emitting facilities are covered by the Clean Air Act. The EPA under Bush clarified: "As of the date of this memorandum, EPA will interpret this definition of 'regulated NSR pollutant' to exclude pollutants for which EPA regulations require only monitoring or reporting but to include each pollutant subject to either a provision of the Clean Air Act or regulation adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant."

That interpretation has been retained to the present day. Thus when the EPA, acting in accordance with Massachusetts v EPA, designated six greenhouse gases as NSR pollutants under the motor vehicle emission standards section of the CAA, impact of that decision extended into Title I of the CAA.

If Congress doesn't want the Clean Air Act enforced, it should eliminate it. You're unlikely to find a House in this lifetime that's more amenable to the thought than the present one.

The Major emitting facilities are covered....but only newly construction. That is clearly stated in the link you provided.

HOWEVER, the EPA has stretched the law and implemented Kyoto style regulations that existing plants upgrade their facilities to meet the new standards.

Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs - The Hill's E2-Wire

AEP (American Electric Power) is closing 5 power generating plants and spending billions of dollars to upgrade some existing plants to meet the new EPA requirements. Requirements that were supposed to be for newly constructed plants.

 

[Greenbeard]

It would be helpful if you would find the proposed or final regulations you're referring to, then read the first few pages of them ("Background Information") where the rules describe their statutory authority and the regulatory history of the issue at hand. Then you can level an actual critique, with context, at this executive "power grab."

Without referencing the statutory authority they're invoking, suggesting that the "EPA has stretched the law" is meaningless.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

It would be helpful if you would find the proposed or final regulations you're referring to, then read the first few pages of them ("Background Information") where the rules describe their statutory authority and the regulatory history of the issue at hand. Then you can level an actual critique, with context, at this executive "power grab."

Without referencing the statutory authority they're invoking, suggesting that the "EPA has stretched the law" is meaningless.

That would be covered in my last post...the one with AEP closing plants because the EPA's regulations meant for the new construction of GHG emitting plants per the CAA have been enacted to cover existing GHG emitting plants ala Kyoto.