Ruling by fiat

The post that was quoted here has been removed

We should return to the question at hand.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

With all due respect, you're hijacking the thread. This thread is about whether Obama has assumed dictatorial powers. I argue he has.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't share KT's more extreme views, and I think he hurts his credibility by making racist attacks. I think KT's views are oppressive and make civil discourse and rational debate impossible. And norm, you get into too much personal conflict with Duchess. You two sure do get under each other's skin.

There was a lot of conservative acquiescence to what George W Bush wanted after September 11, 2001. There was an awful lot of questioning and debate that needed to happen and should have happened. And Dick Cheney lied to his good friend in the Senate to ensure war in Iraq was a reality. Unlike a lot of so-called conservatives, I held George Bush accountable for his lies, as much as a single citizen can, and the disgrace and shame he brought upon the United States.

Today, there is a lot of liberal acquiescence to whatever Barack Obama wants. "You have to pass it to find out what's in it" was Barack Obama's yellowcake uranium moment. For those who would not choose to compare a war to a bad bill, if 1/10 of 1 percent of the people who have lost or will lose their health insurance because of Obamacare have a life-threatening illness, the death toll will equal the loss of life on both sides of the Iraq War.

Eight years ago, I was disgusted by George W. Bush's lies. Today, I'm disgusted by Barack Obama's lies.

Make of that what you will.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
With all due respect, you're hijacking the thread. This thread is about whether Obama has assumed dictatorial powers. I argue he has.

OK, I haven't seen an argument made by you in this thread, I have only seen assertions by others.

But (with all due respect) have a yes or no question or two. Has there been any reported interview with constitutional experts (on the left, right, or center) on why the hange of the mandate is or is not constitutional? Which members of congress have objected?

It is common for legislation to define the leeway the executive branch has in implementation. Do you know how much leeway the ACA gives the executive branch to make such changes during its implementation?

Originally posted by JS357
OK, I haven't seen an argument made by you in this thread, I have only seen assertions by others.

But (with all due respect) have a yes or no question or two. Has there been any reported interview with constitutional experts (on the left, right, or center) on why the hange of the mandate is or is not constitutional? Which members of congress have objected? ...[text shortened]... w much leeway the ACA gives the executive branch to make such changes during its implementation?

Actually, the ACA doesn't - nor does any bill - confer any privilege upon the Executive to alter its content once it is passed. However, the Supreme Court has traditionally provided wide latitude to the Executive. The Constitution charges the Executive "to take care that the laws are faithfully executed." Madison et al took a dim view of executive discretion; I'll dig in to the Federalist Papers this weekend for the relevant passage.

Nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, but I suspect the Founders would have begun the equivalent of tossing tea into Boston Harbor by now. Folks with more guts and who weren't so addicted to Real Housewives.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
We should return to the question at hand.

OK.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf#page=106

Sec 1411(4) of the ACA specifically empowers the Secretary of HHS to establish a program as to whether to grant a certification whether an individual is entitled to an exemption from the individual mandate or the penalty.

Assuming this program isn't arbitrary or discriminatory it would seem to pass legal muster.

EDIT: Here's an article providing more detail: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/saving-obamacare-without-congress.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
OK.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf#page=106

Sec 1411(4) of the ACA specifically empowers the Secretary of HHS to establish a program as to whether to grant a certification whether an individual is entitled to an exemption from the individual mandate or the penalty.

Assuming this program isn ...[text shortened]... ing more detail: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/saving-obamacare-without-congress.html

I will defer to your expertise and knowledge.

And I argue that the passage you cite is tyranny itself. Codified.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I will defer to your expertise and knowledge.

And I argue that the passage you cite is tyranny itself. Codified.

That's one analysis. Personally, I don't think the provision was designed to allow the Secretary to blanket waive the mandate in the manner that Obama has done. I also believe, as almost every legal commentator I have read does, that Obama has no legitimate power to postpone the employer mandate. I also think he is setting a dangerous precedent; a President Ted Cruz could argue that he doesn't have to enforce the mandate at all using similar reasoning.

"Dictatorial" is a bit much though. If parties are harmed by the Executive's actions they may challenge those actions in Court.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's one analysis. Personally, I don't think the provision was designed to allow the Secretary to blanket waive the mandate in the manner that Obama has done. I also believe, as almost every legal commentator I have read does, that Obama has no legitimate power to postpone the employer mandate. I also think he is setting a dangerous precedent; a Presid ...[text shortened]... ugh. If parties are harmed by the Executive's actions they may challenge those actions in Court.

I think the last point in your post is the one Americans will rue for many years. This nation is a nation of laws, not of men.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Actually, the ACA doesn't - nor does any bill - confer any privilege upon the Executive to alter its content once it is passed. However, the Supreme Court has traditionally provided wide latitude to the Executive. The Constitution charges the Executive "to take care that the laws are faithfully executed." Madison et al took a dim view of executive di ...[text shortened]... into Boston Harbor by now. Folks with more guts and who weren't so addicted to Real Housewives.

What content has been altered? I'm asking if you know how much leeway the ACA gives the Executive without it being altered. I'll assume you don't know.

You seem to be saying the experts on the constitutionality of the implementation delays are the Founders, but I am asking about people who are alive and who are familiar with the wording of the ACA. I'm staying on point here. You aren't.

I assume you don't know the answers to my questions. That's OK by me. I understand more now about your reasoning.

Originally posted by JS357
What content has been altered? I'm asking if you know how much leeway the ACA gives the Executive without it being altered. I'll assume you don't know.

You seem to be saying the experts on the constitutionality of the implementation delays are the Founders, but I am asking about people who are alive and who are familiar with the wording of the ACA. I'm stay ...[text shortened]... t know the answers to my questions. That's OK by me. I understand more now about your reasoning.

No1 has read the bill in its entirety. I haven't. I'm well-informed, but I'm not a legal scholar. The Founders can't be experts on the ACA. They're dead. Perhaps I don't understand your question, because I thought I answered it.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No1 has read the bill in its entirety. I haven't. I'm well-informed, but I'm not a legal scholar. The Founders can't be experts on the ACA. They're dead. Perhaps I don't understand your question, because I thought I answered it.

I can't claim I have read the bill in its entirety though I have reviewed many portions of it. I simply Googled and found some legal analysis which pointed to the relevant portion of the bill.

I don't have the foggiest notion what the Founders would think of the ACA. I suspect they'd have as many different opinions on it as we do; their beliefs were hardly monolithic. There were common ones like a belief in Natural Rights theory but I don't think that framework provides an answer to what they would have done to alleviate the crisis that was occurring in health care in the US.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

How can you say I jump to wrong conclusions about you, then, in the same breath, accuse me of being racist?

I am not racist, sexist, or dishonest.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
How can you say I jump to wrong conclusions about you, then, in the same breath, accuse me of being racist?

I am not racist, sexist, or dishonest.

Stop posting this - nonsense. You're a smart guy. Apply yourself to the question at hand.