The Affordable Care Act’s Section 1513 states in black-letter law that “(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” It does not say the Administration can impose the mandate whenever it feels it is politically convenient.
This selective enforcement of laws has become an Administration habit. From immigration (the Dream Act by fiat) to easing welfare reform’s work requirements to selective waivers for No Child Left Behind, the Obama Administration routinely suspends enforcement of or unilaterally rewrites via regulation the laws it dislikes. Now it is doing it again on health care, without any consultation from, much less the approval of, Congress. President Obama probably figures business and Republicans won’t object because they don’t like the law anyway.
Probably. But it’s a mess, and it’s only going to get worse.
It’s apparent that implementing this B.F.D. isn’t important or urgent. However, it does ease pressure on the Immigration bill, because now the benefit of hiring immigrant workers won’t kick in for another year. Democrat LIV are suckers.
I have never liked this selective enforcement of laws. I hated Bush using signing statements for that reason (Democrats hated that too, but seemed to conveniently forget that objection once Bush left office). Obama uses signing statements (after whining about Bush using them) more than Bush did, and has been far worse in his wholesale ignoring of laws.
What, exactly, is the legal basis for the notion that the president can pick and choose which laws to follow, and to whom they apply? That of course includes himself; he can, on these same grounds, selectively choose not to prosecute or enforce. (and of course, he does exactly that.)
Has any other president ever had the arrogance to presume such power? Yes, one comes close: Nixon. “Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
It’s well past time for Obama to go the same way.
The gist of the Magna Carta was that kings, too, are bound by the law.
Maybe it’s time we reaffirmed that principle, with (not necessarily extreme) prejudice.
Oh, I disagree on your premise. Obumble will never go to jail, willingly nor dragged kicking and screaming. I lost any hope that he’ll step down after the 2016 elections LONG, long ago.
Much like the now defunct Mr. Morsi of Egypt, his supporter Mr. Obama will only go when threatened with extremely prejudicial action.
Oh Obama wont be president but he wont be going anywhere.
Hmmm, I wonder how loud Obama supporters would bleat, if say a libertarian presidency were to selectively enforce law and fund bureaucracies. They might lose all their valued social programs overnight just because the president fires everyone involved and simply returns the money to Congress.
When precedent is set, who knows where it will go?
As disgusting as this is, there is actually nothing new under the sun: during Andrew Jackson’s administration, when Cherokee chief John Ross argued in front of the Supreme Court to prevent the usurpation of Cherokee land and won, Jackson famously is supposed to have said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” The Trail of Tears was a direct result of Jackson’s blatant disregard of the Constitution and the rule of law; Martin van Buren had a final opportunity to avert the genocide of the Cherokee, but refused to act.
Still one of the saddest and most shameful chapters in American history…
I have never liked this selective enforcement of laws.
CJ, I am dumbstruck because this sounds to me like, “I’ve never really liked using pitchforks to unload a truck of dead babies.”
Selective enforcement IS NOT LAW, it’s the absence of law. In a body of lawmakers it should be the most outrageous and absolutely unacceptable act REQUIRING immediate impeachment. Party should have absolutely no bearing on this.
Ken, that is the point I was trying to make.
Other presidents have done this (though never to this degree) and I have always found it reprehensible.
I see nothing in the constitution that could be used as an excuse for a president to do this. Quite the contrary, I see it as a president’s constitutional duty to enforce the law. Thus, I do think it requires removal from office – impeachment and conviction. The crime? Every law he has broken by refusing to enforce.
A CJ,
you’re right. It should be grounds for Impeachment and removal, perhaps even jail time, depending on the ‘crime’. But for any of that to happen, we’d have to elect a majority of worth while Congress Critters. So I’ll not be holding my breath.
.
.
Thanks ken. I just had a flood of memories, of my THEN 13 y/o brother-in-law telling Dead Baby Jokes. He’s a over 50, recent grand-father who DENIES that it ever happened.
Either way, yuck!
Does it seem the proper thing to do if Obama is changing the law, would be that congress should take this opportunity to re-examine the law?
After all they had some time to read the law and they have some experience with efforts to impediment it. And if Obama has discovered new things, maybe congress should look at entire matter from a fresh prospective.
That way the law could be cancelled or congress could find reasons to support Obama’s decision to delay it.
But it the very least, it seems Congress is not doing it’s constitutional duty by ignoring whatever judgements Obama may express regarding this on this new law.
“they had some time to read the law”
That right there is part of the problem. Nobody read the entire law before voting on it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when one breaks the law, so passing a law in ignorance of its contents is ridiculous. The obvious way to avoid such messes is for the Speaker to read out loud every word of a bill immediately prior to the vote – won’t be getting any more 2000 page bills that way.
“….; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,….” Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 3.
Does overt failure to do that which he has sworn to do constitute that which Article II, Section IV speaks to? Even if it means President Biden and VP Pelossi?
Personally, I’m willing to call his bluff and make a President Biden. Can’t be any worse.
Biden would be easily rolled by Congress and would be essentially a non-factor in the running of the US.
And think of the humor potential…
Even if it means President Biden and VP Pelossi?
VP Pelossi is very unlikely. When a VP is replaced in office, the nominee has to be approved by both the Senate and the House. The last time it happened was when Gerald Ford was nominated to succeed Spiro Agnew back in 1973.
Can’t be any worse.
That’s one bet I’m not willing to make. I remember some people saying the same thing in 1992 about not voting for Bush ’41 so we got Clinton. Fact of the matter is, no matter how bad things are, they can always get worse.
You all don’t get it. Obamacare will fail (as it’s always been destined to fail) and the Democratics will so what they always do:
Blame The Republicans.
They will say the GOP prevented it from being implemented in it’s total Purity form, or that they hobbled it.
In fact, that has already begun:
We can fix the problems with the ‘employer mandate,’ but the GOP won’t let it happen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/03/we-can-fix-the-problems-with-the-employer-mandate-but-the-gop-wont-let-it-happen/
Enforce it in the Blue States.
“It does not say the Administration can impose the mandate whenever it feels it is politically convenient.”
If Obama does it, it is legal. This is our President, the father of our country and he knows best what is good for the rest of us. It is time for us to be good children and do what he says. And we all know what happens to naughty little children…
Yet another wheel comes off:
“Health insurance marketplaces will not be required to verify consumer claims”