LadyJazzer wrote: ... Cramming your little teabagger one-liners down your throat is what I live for. And doing it to the sociopathic neo-fascist pukes that seem to primarily inhabit this board makes it all the more enjoyable.
Merry Christmas and Happy Festivus to you too LJ!
Have a wonderful week!
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
FredHayek wrote: The insurance companies will be bailed out?
Not if the king says no. Obama lied to the people so he should have no problem lying to the insurance companies who only came on board because of the "risk corridor" part of the ACA.
In the Democrats infinite wisdom, they probably figured that once insurance companies started to bleed out due to the unbalanced risk pools, the public would be outraged over a bail out and this promise to them would be cancelled. What a better way for the government to come to the rescue with a single payer system (probably already designed and waiting) as the insurance companies go under. This is just a possible senario, but given all the other lies and deceptions, it seems like a very real strategy for the least transparent administration we've ever seen.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
FredHayek wrote: I think the rich would protest too much if their insurance companies were allowed to die on the vine.
Fred... please quote my comment on constitutional law so Lady Jazzer will see it and perhaps she'll tell us how all presidents break constitutional law.
I don't think she has you on ignore. She considers you a soft target.
LadyJazzer wrote: ... Cramming your little teabagger one-liners down your throat is what I live for. And doing it to the sociopathic neo-fascist pukes that seem to primarily inhabit this board makes it all the more enjoyable.
Merry Christmas and Happy Festivus to you too LJ!
Have a wonderful week!
Hmmm...I've always considered myself to be more of a sociopathic paleo-fascist puke.
LadyJazzer wrote: I'm still waiting for the section of the law that he says was "broken"... That wasn't a retort...It was the usual asinine quick-shot empty fact-free deflection...
So, show me what part of the law has been broken? These haters have nothing more than the usual cheap shots, and NO FACTS to back them up...
So, what part of the law was broken? Perhaps you can show me the LAW that was broken???
There are a handful of people a little more versed in constitutional law then you (and obviously more versed then our "constitutional law professor from Harvard" Obama) I'll let one of them them answer your question...
Jonathan Turley
While the line between legislation and enforcement can become blurred, this view is generally reflective of the functions defined in Article I and Article II. The Take Care Clause is one of the most direct articulations of this division. The Clause states “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 4. It is one of the clearest and most important mandates in the Constitution. The Framers not only draw the distinction between making and enforcing laws, but, with the enforcement of the law, the Framers stressed that the execution of the laws created by Congress must be faithfully administered. The language combines a mandate of the execution of laws with the qualifying obligation of their faithful execution.
From Internet gambling to educational waivers to immigration deportations to health care decisions, the Obama Administration has been unilaterally ordering major changes in federal law with the notable exclusion of Congress. Many of these changes have been defended as discretionary acts or mere interpretations of existing law. However, they fit an undeniable pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation new major standards, exceptions, or outright nullification's.
I cannot find the authority under the ACA to grant millions of Americans an effective waiver or delay.
The “fix” makes obvious political sense for the Administration but I fail to see the constitutional basis for such unilateral changes in a federal law.
I think that will do for a start. Thanks for playing.
(Of course, since Lady Jazzer has so many people on "ignore" (including myself), she will not be put in the position to read this or answer the points made by Turley and others, even if she had the intelligence to rebut it.)
For further reading
Known as the Take Care clause, it was deliberately inserted there...
to abolish the Royal Prerogative that the framers of the American Constitution knew from their lives as Englishmen. It was the power of the king of England to disregard or effectively suspend Acts of Parliament. The king could not make laws, but he could shelve a law that Parliament had passed.
Two constitutional law professors told the House Judiciary Committee that President Obama exceeded his authority with unilateral actions on immigration and Obamacare enforcement.
Two constitutional law professors told Congress on Tuesday that President Obama exceeded his authority when he unilaterally extended the deadline for enforcement of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
“I believe the president has exceeded his brief,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley testified.
“The president is required to faithfully execute the laws. He’s not required to enforce all laws equally or commit the same resources to them,” he said. “But I believe the president has crossed the constitutional line.”
Georgetown University Law Professor Nicholas Rosenkranz agreed with Turley’s assessment that the president had crossed the line in some of his unilateral actions.
“This is wholesale suspension of law in the teeth of a clear statutory command to the contrary,” Professor Rosenkranz said.
“Whatever it means that the laws be faithfully executed, it cannot mean failing to execute the law at all,” he said.
Professor Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda".[8] have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[10][16] civil rights,[7][17] and the illegality of torture.[18][19][20][21] Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".[22]
In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute[1] and The Week Magazine.[44]
He was ranked among the nation's top 500 lawyers in 2008.[45] Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country as well as being ranked as one of the top ten military lawyers.[1]
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation.
The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.
Is President Obama’s “Administrative Fix” Even Legal? Probably Not
Regardless of how one feels about the PPACA as a matter of policy, there ought be a serious concern about the prospect of a President who, rather than proceeding through Congress to obtain changes to laws that have proven to be problematic in one way or another, use the fall back of “Executive discretion” to create change on their own. This isn’t how it’s supposed to work, of course. What’s supposed to happen is that Congress passes laws and the President executes them. If it turns out that there are problems with the law, then it’s up to Congress to fix it. Given our current political environment, of course, the common response to this point will be that, because of the continual efforts of Republicans in the House to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, and the ability of the minority in the Senate to use that body’s rule to block legislation they disapprove of, the President has no authority to act on his (or her) own. However, while that may be a good explanation for why President Obama thinks he needs to act in this manner, it is not a sufficient legal justification for a President who acts outside of his Constitutional authority.
For LJ to peruse at her leisure. Merry Festivus Everyone! And now time for the airing of Grievances!!!!
She claims to want links but then censors the link providers. Strange behavior. Maybe I can get put on the ignore list too if I start adding links?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
