Obama Delays Obamacare!

Originally posted by no1marauder
IF the President can simply decline to enforce any law he pleases, that gives him, in effect, an impossible to override veto. Surely that is not in line with constitutional principles of separation of powers.

EDIT: I'm not the only one wondering about this: Avik Roy at Forbes wonders whether "left wing activists" will bring a lawsuit to force enforcem ...[text shortened]... ployer-mandate-until-2015-far-reaching-implications-for-the-private-health-insurance-market/

I don't disagree, but this is the sort of discretion the President has always enjoyed (at least in recent history). How would you propose drawing the line between say, deciding not to prosecute an alleged federal crime (which you have to give the executive branch power to do) and something that does too far in failing to enforce federal law.

The PPACA was passed more than three years ago. Obama should either : A) Let it go into effect; or B) Sign the 38th repeal that the Republican House votes for after telling Senate Democrats to support it as well.

This is sickening and ridiculous; have the courage of your convictions that the law is a good one or admit you now think it is a mistake.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't disagree, but this is the sort of discretion the President has always enjoyed (at least in recent history). How would you propose drawing the line between say, deciding not to prosecute an alleged federal crime (which you have to give the executive branch power to do) and something that does too far in failing to enforce federal law.

The POTUS has way too much power. The POTUS should not have the right to veto and the president should definitely be obliged to enforce laws that have been passed by Congress. If Obama does not want to enforce a federal marihuana law, he should convince Congress to pass a law repealing the federal ban and leave it up to the states. What's the point of a federal law if you're not going to enforce it on a federal level?

Having said that, some discretion as to where resources are applied needs to be reserved for the executive branch, and it's not immediately clear where to draw the line.

When Dick Cheney outed Valery Plame GW Bush did not enforce the law. That is far worse than not enforcing a federal law that the states voted to repeal.

PUTUS have been expanding the power of the presidency for a long time. It goes back at least as far as Andrew Jackson. What concerns me is how far it will go in the future. Left unchecked it could get a lot worse.

I've said before that Obama really never intended to follow through with universal health care, otherwise he wouldn't have delayed it for years in the first place. I think he is just waiting for an economic downturn for an excuse for congress to repeal the affordable health care act. Then he can conveniently blame it on congress as always and Obama supporters will do just that because they will never admit they have been manipulated by their false hero.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is it even legal for the Executive to "delay" implementation of a requirement created by a federal statute?

Thank you. If it is the law, how can he legally ignore it?

Originally posted by sh76
The President, as head of the executive branch, has wide discretion in determining which federal laws to enforce. For example, the administration has declined to enforce federal marijuana laws in cases where the activity is legal in the given state. It the President could simply decline to enforce the law, that would seem to have the same effect as announcing a delay of it going into effect.

"The President, as head of the executive branch, has wide discretion in determining which federal laws to enforce."

Is that really true? For example, if Mitt Romney had won the election, could he simply decide not to implement any of ACA? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
When Dick Cheney outed Valery Plame GW Bush did not enforce the law. That is far worse than not enforcing a federal law that the states voted to repeal.

PUTUS have been expanding the power of the presidency for a long time. It goes back at least as far as Andrew Jackson. What concerns me is how far it will go in the future. Left unchecked it could get ...[text shortened]... ill do just that because they will never admit they have been manipulated by their false hero.

We know who outed Valery Plame, and it wasn't Dick Cheney, and she realistically wasn't "outed anyway.

I'm pretty sure there are better examples of Republican Presidents ignoring Congressional laws. In most cases, it probably involves laws somewhat out of date, or passed by another administration, but to refuse to enforce what you proposed, lobbied for, twisted arms for, bribed for, that is too much.

Originally posted by normbenign
"The President, as head of the executive branch, has wide discretion in determining which federal laws to enforce."

Is that really true? For example, if Mitt Romney had won the election, could he simply decide not to implement any of ACA? I don't think so.

There are some elements he'd probably have to have implemented. For example, if Congress allocated $$ to be given to the states for the Medicaid, it's dubious whether the President could refuse to turn over the funds.

But when it comes to something that has to be actively enforced against the people, the President has the de facto power to simply not enforce it. Whether that's "legal" or not is a different question.

Originally posted by sh76
There are some elements he'd probably have to have implemented. For example, if Congress allocated $$ to be given to the states for the Medicaid, it's dubious whether the President could refuse to turn over the funds.

But when it comes to something that has to be actively enforced against the people, the President has the de facto power to simply not enforce it. Whether that's "legal" or not is a different question.

It doesn't conform even to his oath of office. What you say about modern Presidents taking more power not granted them by the Constitution, is true, but we the people, and the States are the balancing powers who have to challenge the ill gotten "authority".

Originally posted by Metal Brain
When Dick Cheney outed Valery Plame GW Bush did not enforce the law. That is far worse than not enforcing a federal law that the states voted to repeal.

PUTUS have been expanding the power of the presidency for a long time. It goes back at least as far as Andrew Jackson. What concerns me is how far it will go in the future. Left unchecked it could get ill do just that because they will never admit they have been manipulated by their false hero.

Scooter Libby has two felony convictions on his record. He can never practice law again, his reputation is destroyed, and he was fined $250,000. He paid a heavy price. The relationship between Cheney and Bush went cold over Scooter Libby when Bush did not pardon him.

EDIT: When a President grants himself this much discretionary power - and remember, we have one of his top guys on video saying, "The law is irrelevant" - well, welcome to tyranny. We no longer have the rule of law in this country.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Scooter Libby has two felony convictions on his record. He can never practice law again, his reputation is destroyed, and he was fined $250,000. He paid a heavy price. The relationship between Cheney and Bush went cold over Scooter Libby when Bush did not pardon him.

EDIT: When a President grants himself this much discretionary power - and rememb ...[text shortened]... is irrelevant" - well, welcome to tyranny. We no longer have the rule of law in this country.

"When a President grants himself this much discretionary power - and remember, we have one of his top guys on video saying, "The law is irrelevant" - well, welcome to tyranny. We no longer have the rule of law in this country."

And remember, the salient detail is that this is his initiative, not that of an opposite party President. But that has been his MO since the passage of ACA. There have been lots of cronies granted "hall passes" on this law.