Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

More on Obama lawlessness

More on Obama lawlessness

The post on Friday regarding Obama’s lawlessness has generated some furious defense of Obama by one commenter, and even more furious pushback by other readers, An increasingly dangerous presidency.

The defense of Obama, that no court has found him to have violated the law, is both wrong and off point.

The problem with Obama is the completely political basis for his decisions whether to honor or ignore the law. For example, if granting a waiver helps him with political allies, he grants it; if not, not.

This is not the rule of law, or the good faith exercise of administrative discretion, it is the use of discretion for political purposes. That in many, but not all, instances he can get away with it because of the separation of powers and the hesitancy of the judiciary to get involved in administrative decisions in no way justifies the conduct.

Lawlessness includes a lack of predictability to enforcement of the law, and that is what we have in this administration.

The prior post was based on Charles Krauthammer’s column on lawlessness of the Obama administration.

Here Krauthammer expands on his point, via RCP:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I’m talking about how the administration, particularly the president, seems to think that he has right to change duly passed statutes on his own, or to suspend whole parts of laws on his own. I mean, the constitution pretty clear, the president executes the law and the Congress passes the laws. So, for example, a few months ago Obama decided that he wanted to suspend, to postpone the employer mandate of his own law of Obamacare. You’re not allowed to do that. You have got to change the law in Congress if you want to do it. And he did it without hesitation.

A year ago, he did some recess appointments, you are allowed to do it if the Senate isn’t in session. The problem was the Senate was in session, and the courts have so ruled. This is a very cavalier attitude. But the worst part was what happened a couple of weeks ago when the president was really stunned by the fact that there were all these cancellations of insurance policies. So you remember he held a press conference a couple weeks ago, and he told the insurers to reinstate the policies. There is only one problem with that.

The policies were cancelled because under Obama’s own healthcare law it is illegal to issue a policy after the year 2013 unless it contains, these minimal requirements, these 10 elements that it has to have. For example, maternity care and all other stuff. So if you had a policy that was canceled, it’s because it did not satisfactory the minimum

So there is no way that an insurer can reinstate a [plan] because it would be illegal to do it. So obama’s own law is something that he ignores and he encourages insurers and state insurance commissioners to allow it to be violated. And the way he has been doing this, it’s sort of the cavalier attitude that I find absolutely astonishing.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Krauthammer is a RINO. He’s astonished? He’s part of the problem.

Evidence of Obama’s capricious inclinations can be found in the earliest days of his presidency. Recall the auto industry bankruptcies and how creditors were treated in contradiction to established & codified bankruptcy law. Recall the peculiarities and strong-arm tactics associated with the financial industry bailouts. Recall the new Black Panther dismissals. You can add your own examples at will – they’re abundant and easily recalled. Obama has never, ever run an even nominally lawful government.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Jazz. | December 1, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    “Recall the auto industry bankruptcies and how creditors were treated in contradiction to established & codified bankruptcy law.”

    Yes. Where are the prominent businessmen, besides a few like Steve Wynn and Bernie Marcus, who are appalled at this lawlessness and why are they not speaking out?

    There’s a great video on youtube of Home Depot cofounder Bernie Marcus (now retired) warning back in April in an interview that ObamaCare would be a disaster and kill businesses.

    Surprise! Home Depot has cut employee hours. (Again, Mr. Marcus is not at fault … he retired about 10 years ago.)

      MadKangaroo in reply to LukeHandCool. | December 1, 2013 at 8:39 pm

      If I recall correctly, some of GM/Chrysler bond holders did object to being forced to take cents on the dollar contrary to law. Obama then went on a public relations campaign wherein he raked them over the coals as greedy corporations. According to one Chrysler lawyer,Thomas Lauria, the Obama administration said it would use “the full force of the White House Press Corps to destroy” his client’s reputations if they pursued legal action. Other bond holders were TARP recipients, and may have buckled under since they were already on the hook.

      Obama’s whole career has been predicated on creating division and conflict, and then strong arming opponents into submission; why anybody would think he’d do differently as President is beyond my understanding.

In addition to ignoring laws passed by Congress – Obama has enlisted the IRS, the NSA, the DHS, the EPA and the National Park Service to function as the paramilitary wing of the DNC.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Musson. | December 1, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    yes, except there is evidence Lerner was acting in this capacity long ago, and the decades old bureaucratized quid pro quo between teacher unions and THEIR politicians has led to bankrupted states, with tenured leftists running schools as the propaganda wing.

“Lawlessness includes a lack of predictability to enforcement of the law, and that is what we have in this administration.”

Doesn’t the 14th Amendment require that enforcement be even-handed? One would think that enforcement that hinged primarily on political connections would be exactly the evil that the “equal protection of the laws” was designed to prevent.

    One would think so but being consistent with the Law is not Obama’s speciality. Remember, liberals believe the law applies more to one than another based on group identity using the rubic of past discrimination or minority status. Unfortunately the SCOTUS in their infinite mercurial judgment allowed the government to decide who was unequal for greater scrutiny based on victimization claims. Hence we have Affirmative Action, a government sponsored bigoted pogom using race as it’s justification to discriminate against individuals who never participated personally in any bigoted manner. The precedent has been set and now government officials discriminate at will with impunity based on claims of group victimization. We see this in Family Law Courts as well with females and males.

    Liberals in their drive to take revenge upon the past real or perceived slights have become themselves the instruments of bigotry with a self righteousness that’s become insufferable. There is no law they won’t break or ignore to ride the wave of their self righteous zeal to avenge the past. Their zeal is more important than the Law or Constitution as they have become arbiters of it and hence not subject to it. It matters not that they stared into the abyss so long that it now looks back through them. It is a truism come to pass that liberals have become the very thing they despised, emotionally charged hateful bigots.

As noted last week, the president knows no restraints either. He has always indicated a certain impatience with the “checks and balances” — “I’m not going to wait for Congress” has long been a routine applause line on the Obama ’prompter. From unilaterally suspending the laws of others (such as immigration), he has advanced to unilaterally suspending his own. So, for passing political convenience, he issued his proclamation of temporary amnesty for the millions of health plans he himself rendered illegal. The law is applied according to whim, which means there is no law. Four years ago, polls showed no popular support for anything as transformative as Obamacare. But, through procedural flimflam, lameduck-session legerdemain, threats to “deem” it to have already passed, and votes for a law whose final version was not only unread by legislators but was literally unreadable (in the sense that it had not yet rolled off the photocopier), through all that and more, the Democrats rammed it down the throats of the American people anyway: Yes, we can! Brazen and unrestrained, Obama and Reid are also, in Lewis’s phrase, “men without chests.” Cleverness, unmoored from Lewis’s chestly virtue of honor, has reduced them to mere tricksters and deceivers. So the president lied about his law for four years, and now lies about his lies.

A government that lies to its own citizens should command no respect. To accord them any is to make oneself complicit in their lies, which is unbecoming to a free people.
—Mark Steyn

Law…in any normative Anglo-Saxon concept of the idea…is a consistent, predictable “known”. It is not caprice, and is not the province of any one person to slide around on a greased chessboard, or to transform into a piece in a Salvador Dali dream-scape.

And, yes, Pres. ScamWOW has introduced many…maybe all…elements of an Obamabanana Republic into the United States.

Many predicted he would be dangerous. We were right.

The likely reason that his selective interpretations and exceptions have not been thrown out by the courts revolves around the legal concept of standing. For the most part, you need a case or controversy to get into federal court. This has been interpreted to mean essentially identifiable plaintiffs with identifiable injuries. And does not include merely costing the government more money. Who specifically has been specifically harmed by Obama’s bending the rules and ignoring statutory requirements? Hard to say, which is the problem.

    PersonFromPorlock in reply to Bruce Hayden. | December 1, 2013 at 11:38 am

    ‘Standing’ is how the courts pass by on the other side.

    “Standing” and the related “political question” doctrines made sense when most players in the three branches of government respected the constitution. As someone mentioned yesterday, the judiciary was not, and is not, ready to handle obama’s wholesale abandonment of long-standing American governing traditions. obama seeks to weaken the judiciary further by packing it with leftist judges completely willing to defer to a leftist executive and legislature. While obama is the leader in today’s lawlessness, we should not discount the astonishing damage done to our government structure by John Roberts’ own contribution to obamacare fraud.

    Bruce Hayden: The likely reason that his selective interpretations and exceptions have not been thrown out by the courts revolves around the legal concept of standing.

    There is a case winding through the courts concerning the delay in the mandate, Kawa v. Lew. Kawa has to show that the administrations actions are ““arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”. More than likely the courts will delay the case until the expected delay has lapsed, then the case will be moot. But you never know. That’s what courts are for.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 3:56 pm

      Which, of course, is the calculus of the outlaw, Pres. ScamWOW.

      His purpose is to defeat the law, not abide by it.

        Ragspierre: His purpose is to defeat the law, not abide by it.

        It means it was a reasonable delay. If there was an emergency, the courts could certainly intervene immediately. Absent an emergency, they can wait to see if the delay is meant to flout the law, or to make the transition more orderly. Of course, Obama intends to implement the law, so it’s moot.

          Karen Sacandy in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:24 pm

          If there was an emergency, the courts would/could intervene? The supreme indifference of the healthy to those losing their medical insurance while they are undergoing cancer treatment.

          Yes, the courts are refs at a game. They’re there! No trouble! They’ll get it right.

          But of course, they’re not refs, and the lawlessness will be “moot” by the time the slow turning gears get to it.

          Lovely concept. Utterly lacking in compassion for Americans that actually NEED medical care to LIVE.

          Typical leftist garbage. Compassion is for other people.

          Karen Sacandy in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:26 pm

          How many of you with cancer, want to interrupt your chemo treatments to run to a lawyer??!!

          Hey! It’s so EZ. An 8-year-old could do it!

          Costs nothing!

          Aw, come on! Spoilsports!

          Karen Sacandy: The supreme indifference of the healthy to those losing their medical insurance while they are undergoing cancer treatment.

          You would have to be more specific.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:14 pm

          “Of course, Obama intends to implement the law, so it’s moot.”

          Only on his POLITICALLY DECIDED terms.

          That is outlawry.

          And you are a liar.

          But there is this…mootness looks like it will come via the political process. Mooting ObamaDoggle.

          If not that, civil disobedience.

          Ragspierre: Only on his POLITICALLY DECIDED terms.

          No. The law must be implemented in full. Delays must be reasonable.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 7:47 pm

          Well, they are NOT, moron.

          It is NOT “reasonable” to delay for political expediency.

          It IS outlawry.

          See…???

          No…???

          Because you are a liar. First to yourself. Typical of the Collective.

          Ragspierre: It is NOT “reasonable” to delay for political expediency.

          It’s clear the mandate was delayed due to problems with the rollout. It’s not unusual when implementing a complex law. A similar situation occurred during the Bush Administration’s rollout of Medicare Part D.

On dealing with trolls, two musts prior to debate:

1. Definition of terms, as in “how are you defining lawlessness?”

2. Firming of goalposts, as in “what exactly would you accept as evidence of Obama’s lawlessness?”

An honest debater will answer both with sincerity and admit it when the burden is met. A troll won’t and usually can’t.

    Henry Hawkins: two musts prior to debate: 1. Definition of terms, as in “how are you defining lawlessness?” 2. Firming of goalposts, as in “what exactly would you accept as evidence of Obama’s lawlessness?”

    It’s up to the claimant to define their terms, which in this case is William A. Jacobson. Otherwise, we may assume they are using them in the usual fashion. Do you think William A. Jacobson is using words in some odd manner?

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      “…we may assume we are using words in the usual fashion.”

      Which all here do, save only you, you lying troll.

      According to you, Al Capone was only a tax evader.

      To everyone NOT an apologist for Obamic outlawry, Capone was an outlaw.

        Ragspierre: According to you, Al Capone was only a tax evader.

        No, we never made that claim. It isn’t sufficient to merely claim someone is a lawless; you have to provide evidence and answer objections to the claim.

        Notice that William A. Jacobson did attempt an answer the objection concerning lack of judicial intervention saying “That in many, but not all, instances he can get away with it because of the separation of powers and the hesitancy of the judiciary to get involved in administrative decisions in no way justifies the conduct.” The weakness in his answer is that with regards to the mandate is that there is a very clear judicial procedure for making these judgments.

          Karen Sacandy in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:37 pm

          I’m a lawyer but don’t have occasion to use the APA. I will say, all Americans that pay attention, know the gross inefficiency of the courts. Anyone whose position is that the courts are an effective or timely check upon an executive determined to break the law, is wrong. Either they’re naive, or simply cynical to their core.

          I choose door number 2.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:37 pm

          “The weakness in his answer is that with regards to the mandate is that there is a very clear judicial procedure for making these judgments.”

          Nice attempt at a circular argument, nimrod.

          Capone faced “very clear judicial procedure[s] for making [the judgement he was an outlaw]”.

          But we all…who are not apologists for your poor, broken child outlaw…understand that BEING an outlaw is not at all the same as being ADJUDICATED an outlaw.

          You tried that bullshit yesterday. I smells no better today.

          Ragspierre: Capone faced “very clear judicial procedure[s] for making [the judgement he was an outlaw]“.

          But Capone intimidated witnesses, and bribed judges. It required federal intervention to bring him down. In the case of rules promulgated to implement Obamacare, it’s all a matter of public record.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm

          “But Capone intimidated witnesses, and bribed judges. It required federal intervention to bring him down. In the case of rules promulgated to implement Obamacare, it’s all a matter of public record.”

          1. You dodged the whole “outlaw in fact” argument. Not that I’m even slightly surprised.

          2. Pres. ScamWOW has intimidated his opposition via the abuse of the IRS, EPA, etc. He also is the first President in history to use a State Of The Union address to browbeat the Supreme Court.

          3. If you imagine that Pres. ScamWOW has not “bribed” various people in both the public and private sectors, you are a complete idiot. He has also “inverse bribed” people in the public and private sectors by threatening them with funding withdrawals and regulatory action.

          4. Capone’s predations were a matter of public record, too, moron. He was known for it.

          Ragspierre: You dodged the whole “outlaw in fact” argument.

          Ragspierre: According to you, Al Capone was only a tax evader.

          Zachriel: No

          Ragspierre: Capone’s predations were a matter of public record, too, moron. He was known for it.

          The evidence against Capone was carefully hidden. The policy decisions for implementing ObamaCare are public record.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:24 pm

          You mean, “If you have insurance you like, you can keep your insurance. Period”?

          Like that…???

          BWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHA…!!!

          The “public policy” fronted to the American people…who NEVER approved of this, btw…was a fabric of lies.

          As we (which is me and a whole lot of other people with working brains) said at the time.

          And events have very nicely proven us correct, and you a liar.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:46 pm

      When you state there is no evidence of Obama’s lawlessness, you become a claimant. Petard. Hoisted.

        Henry Hawkins: When you state there is no evidence of Obama’s lawlessness, you become a claimant.

        As we pointed out previously, we use the normal meaning of the word.

        lawlessness, not restrained or controlled by law

PersonFromPorlock | December 1, 2013 at 11:54 am

I have to say I found “Zachriel’s” comments most interesting – not in content (they were little more than a whiny kid’s making the same ‘point’ over and over) – but in their speed and volume. One wonders about some sort of boiler room operation.

    LukeHandCool in reply to PersonFromPorlock. | December 1, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Well, he did refer to himself as “We” constantly, as in, “We Soros minions at Media Matters …”

      Karen Sacandy in reply to LukeHandCool. | December 1, 2013 at 5:55 pm

      I went back and did some more reading. In answer to the question who is “we,” he mentioned many possible answers, including dissociative identity disorder… Which makes me wonder….

      When was he abused, at what age was he abused, who abused him, how was he abused, how long did it continue, and what are the names and roles of his alters….

      I noted that too, on some other thread he (“they”) loosed himself (“themselves”) on, some months ago.

      He’s either ridiculously affected enough to think it’s appropriate to refer to himself using the Royal “we”, or he’s the frontman for a boiler room of Sorosbots.

The journ-o-lists are accomplices to this lawlessness.

They need to Stop-and-“Fisk” this president.

But these K-9 lapdogs probably consider that an illegal abuse of their power.

obama’s lawlessness has made unpredictability a key element of decision-making in today’s society. While our system of government previously facilitated sophisticated planning by ensuring that most changes would be incremental, under obama it is not sensible to plan too far ahead. Indeed, there is no certainty in the current application of existing laws. This is destructive to business planning and, frequently less consciously, to making informed day-to-day life decisions.

    raven in reply to Rick. | December 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Right. And that’s the goal as I see it. Uncertainty equates with instability. In such an unstable culture or marketplace one turns to the player who holds the most authority and the least possibility of destabilizing — government. It’s the model of community organizing and solipsist government — create chaos and bring people under your shelter. Nothing else will do. All others will fail you (because we’ve ensured this instability and failure through perverse inventives and plain brute power). It’s a model of total bad faith, really of a vision of totalitarianism.

      Rick in reply to raven. | December 1, 2013 at 1:17 pm

      Yes, chaos is obama’s goal, or at least a means to his goal of destroying the America we once knew. It is one concept that ties together all of his actions. obama’s lawlessness will increase by an order of magnitude after the November 2014 elections, and it will go wild after the November 2016 elections, especially if a Republican president is elected.

        Karen Sacandy in reply to Rick. | December 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm

        I think he’s pretty wild now. Every Friday he indulges in some new piece of “discretion” and pardons more illegal aliens, or some other magic with the wave of his hand.

    Ragspierre in reply to Rick. | December 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    “We” (heh! By which I mean me.) have often commented on “uncertainty” being an immense drag on business, and especially on business expansion and entrepreneurship.

    Any rational manager HAS to calculate risk, and risk becomes infinitely large when you multiply uncertainty.

    For years since its passage, ObamaDoggle has been a job killer, just as many of us predicted. It is still killing jobs and will continue to do so. That is inevitable.

One thing’s for sure: The uncertainty and the explosive costs have made employers resist hiring.

It’s sickening to watch America crippled by all of this. So completely unnecessary.

Charles the Great Krauthammer is a National Treasure.

And speaking of Obama’s defenders, I have general rules on this.

In my experience, defense is on a continuum from diehard leftists to low-info non-voters. The die-hards will never be convinced, they have too much at stake. The low-info non-voters aren’t worth convincing because they are ballast in the system.

But in the middle section along the continuum, folks are more open to facts which could change their point of view and their vote. Those folks I’m willing to spend SOME time on. The rest are a waste of my time.

I’d prefer to live in the time when WWII was won in 4 years and the Empire State Building was built in 20 months, as opposed to now, when nothing can be done because of what Mark Steyn rightly describes as scleroris.

The diehard Obama voters are quite happy to have the building at the site of the Twin Towers to take 15 years. I respect my time too much to spend it on those who refuse to see, and I refuse to pretend there is some virtue in it.

Obama and his ilk need to be changed for people who understand freedom and liberty.

Krauthammer being “astonished” astonishes the rest of us who find the actions of this administration and essentially a suspension by this administration of duly passed laws, abhorrent, but worse, dangerous to the well-being of the is country.

He didn’t even address the use by Obama of the federal regulatory agencies as a political weapon against half of the country…or as the Left perceives those that disagree with them. This includes the IRS and DOJ. What was not lawless about Holder saying he would only enforce crimes against minorities? What was legal about the IRS targeting tea party groups and individual citizens? And still doing so.

The tragedy is that Krauthammer, et al are discussing, analyzing and intellectualizing the administration’s actions through a political lens. This isn’t just a parlor game to be trivialized…It’s about chaos, anarchy (suspension of the Rule of Law), and tyranny.

Zachriel’s point was that the President is within his Constitutional authority to decide which laws to enforce and when. So here is my question:

If a pro-gun President gets in office, and instructs Federal Law Enforcement Agencies to stop enforcing the laws concerning machine guns and destructive devices, thereby making the ownership and possession of machine guns, cannons, grenade launchers, etc. legal and unregulated, will Zachriel and his other pro-Democrat buddies be OK with that? Or is a President’s power only permitted to run in such a fashion when there is a person in the office with whom they agree?

    Karen Sacandy in reply to divemedic. | December 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    You already know the answer to that! Reflect upon their “objections” to George Bush and how they expressed them, and compare to what Obama has done identically, and their reactions to that.

    This is a GREAT question, and one reason, is because the answer is OBVIOUS!

    Thanks!

    Valerie in reply to divemedic. | December 1, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    That downrating was an accident. I meant to hit “reply.”

    “Zachriel’s point was that the President is within his Constitutional authority to decide which laws to enforce and when.”

    Agreed. This behavior reminds me very much of the twit “journalist” who claimed, in response to criticism of the MSM for spiking genuine news stories and scandals, that “the news is what we decide it is.”

    Those two fools have one thing in common: they think that a murder is not a murder, until someone is convicted.

    We all know better than that. What I have to wonder is who the hell is responsible for depriving these people of the ability to think?

    divemedic: Zachriel’s point was that the President is within his Constitutional authority to decide which laws to enforce and when.

    That’s not correct. The president must faithfully execute the laws, but when implementing a new regulatory regime, the law gives the president flexibility under the Administrative Procedure Act. If the president flouts the intent of Congress, the courts can compel the government. But a reasonable delay in the mandate is within the president’s authority.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:00 pm

      Again, that is a lie and you a liar.

      There is no presidential prerogative to suspend entire swaths of clear mandates for political gain.

        The president didn’t ignore the mandate, but delayed it. If the delay is unreasonable, the courts can intervene. Because of the complexity of the law, a delay will almost certainly be considered reasonable under the law.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:31 pm

          No. It won’t. As you admitted above, the issue is unlikely to reach the courts and be acted on before Pres. ScamWOW has dodged that bullet.

          What a liar.

          Ragspierre: As you admitted above, the issue is unlikely to reach the courts

          It’s reached the courts, as we pointed out previously. The courts will probably not be in much of a hurry, though. By the time they have analyzed the immense complexity of the situation, the case will be moot.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm

          As you admitted above, the issue is unlikely to reach the courts and be acted on before Pres. ScamWOW has dodged that bullet.

          What a liar.

          It’s already in the courts. Kawa v. Lew

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:26 pm

          As you admitted above, the issue is unlikely to reach the courts and be acted on before Pres. ScamWOW has dodged that bullet.

          What a liar.

          (See, this is economy in posting against a lying troll…)

          Ragspierre: As you admitted above …

          As we suggested above, the courts will probably let the case languish unto irrelevance, but we could certainly be wrong on that point. It’s up to the courts to determine whether action should be taken, or action taken sooner rather than later.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 10:44 pm

          As you admitted above, the issue is unlikely to reach the courts and be acted on before Pres. ScamWOW has dodged that bullet.

          Thereby violating the law in a calculated end-around.

          What a liar.

          (See, this is economy in posting against a lying troll…)

          divemedic in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm

          The courts can’t intervene on their own. Someone with standing must sue. Explain to me how a person gets standing for a cause of action if the President refuses to enforce a law as passed by Congress.

          divemedic: The courts can’t intervene on their own.

          Kawa v. Lew

          A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. 5 USC § 702 – Right of review

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm

      Which completely…conveniently…ignores Pres. ScamWOW’s “discretion” in enforcing our immigration laws.

      Dunnit…???

      We don’t have “regime’s” in this country. We’re suppose to have lawmakers WHO OBEY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. So far, Obama and minions have broken every law on the books, including God’s laws. I wouldn’t be in his shoes for all the money in George Soro’s bank when that payment comes due. And it will.

      divemedic in reply to Zachriel. | December 3, 2013 at 8:01 am

      So you are opposed to Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration law?

        divemedic: So you are opposed to Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration law?

        It makes sense to concentrate scarce resources on violent criminals, and not children and young adults, most of whom are culturally American. If Congress wants to force the issue, they certainly have the power to do so. The law currently gives the president discretion in the allocation of law enforcement resources.

To me, Hussein’s clearest deliberate abdication of executive responsibility is on immigration. Ask ICE officers who are prevented from deporting criminal trespassers.

Even with the Obamacare delays, as Prof. Jacobson points out, it isn’t a proper exercise of his discretionary authority. He had the opportunity to legally delay the rollout, but no no no! Obama is a lawless, loose canon. It seems to me there’s ample cause to impeach him.

    Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 1, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    The border scandalssssssss are certainly right up near the top of Barracula’s outlawry. They include, of course, the war against Arizona’s democratically passed attempts at self-defense.

    I go back to the Pres. ScamWOW threat to veto a proposed bill that would…LEGALLY…do PRECISELY what he is doing with the small business mandate suspension by diktat.

    Why…???

    I can only conclude that he has that level of hostility to the rule of law…and jealousy of his power-grabbed power…that he doesn’t want the issue to revert to “legal”. He will fight to keep it EXTRA-legal.

“He owned it,” Ellison said. “He said, look man, if you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I’m sorry about that. I think that shows integrity. He didn’t do anything to self-promote.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/12/01/rep-ellison-obama-showed-integrity-by-apologizing-for-obamacare-lies/

Winner of the Inigo Montoya Prize for this Sunday…

photo-finish, running in a packed field.

Karen Sacandy | December 1, 2013 at 2:01 pm

Ellison is the same one that used the Koran owned by Tom Jefferson to get sworn in. Jefferson got the damn thing, trying to understand the pirate enemies in the Mediterranean (sp?).

Lying to the unbelievers is sanctioned by the Koran.

Midwest Rhino | December 1, 2013 at 2:12 pm

ianal, but even on the local level, there is a standard of “not worth suing over”, that becomes a standard of practice. When holding power to “marginally” break contracts or over bill a trust, $10-30K “theft” is “not worth suing over”, so becomes common practice.

“What are they (local lawyer “cabal”) trying to get away with now” is a retort I’ve heard from local business people. It really shouldn’t be necessary to hire a second lawyer to watch your local lawyer (or to have impeachment as the only tool to stop a lawless administration).

For Obama also, standard practice is to break the law, because he can get away with it. On the dream act he first stated he wished he could but it is not legal … then he did it by decree anyway.

The flip side, as I see it, is to use the law to punish, when there is no evidence of crime. This was evident with Boeing, Gibson Guitar, certain conservative donors, tea party groups, etc. Most conspicuous was the Chicago lawyer that ran for office and was told (according to him) by Lois Lerner that his IRS problems (which were that he was being harassed by Lerner, not that he had done anything wrong) would go away if he agreed to not run for office.

So we have non-enforcement of friends, and purely punishment investigations of innocent political enemies. The former is maybe “lawless”, the latter moves the needle toward “domestic enemy of the state”.

(btw, I read here because it will require you good lawyers to solve these problems, short of RICO intervention, or armed chaos)

Krauthammer is finally waking up from that dinner with Obama 5 years ago that bent his mind, and fullfilling his duty as a member of the Fourth Estate.

But where is the GOP Squeaker, John Boehener, fullfilling his First Estate duties?

We will get nowhere tolerating a backstabbing coward like John Boehner as the most powerful opposition party member in our nation. What a catastrophe. Boehner should be put back into the wills and trusts department of the first law firm he ever worked at, where he is more suited to work.

Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Visions provides insight into the “unconstrained view” of the ‘new’ wave of liberals. In a nut shell, ad hoc morality and on-the-spot-‘justice’ trump the rule of law. These are symptoms of William Godwin’s, John Rawls’ and now Obama’s decision making. Remember Obama’s ‘evolution” about homosexuality?

Obama’s ‘conversion’ also included a great amount of political expediency (no doubt at Axelrod’s prompting)in an effort to create political capital from his ‘like-minded’ social-Bourgeoisie.

Quoting from the book, Sowell writes, “To Godwin, “One of the principal means of information is time.” Therefore, we needlessly restrict the effect of knowledge on our own actions “if we bind ourselves to-day, to the conduct we will observe two months hence.” Future commitments require a man “to shut up his mind against further information as to what his conduct in that future ought to be.” To live by “anticipating” future knowledge was to Godwin as “improvident” as living by anticipating future income.”…

The binding of judicial decisions by constitutions and legal precedents was seen by Godwin as another example of intertemporal commitments based on lesser knowledge impeding better decisions based on greater knowledge that emerges later.”

For the Left everything becomes relative to the ‘mood’ ring of ‘justice’ at the moment. Forget a priori rule of law, tradition, contracts and private property rights.

Zachriel quoting me in the other thread and commenting at the end:

“LukeHandCool: I think a shrewd and incompetent president would far and away be most likely to abuse it [discretion].”

“LukeHandCool: So people who are shrewd in some ways are never incompetent in other ways?”

Sure, but your comment hardly allowed for that. Perhaps you could restate your position.

———

Nah, it’s Never Never (enough evidence) Land with you hopey-changey types. You guys love narratives as reality, so here’s a story …

At the fork in the road, if Zachriel had not veered to the left to Lemmings Lovers Lookout, (with its amazing views over the steep cliffs of a stark landscape carved and sculpted over the years by the forces of economic erosion) and had instead stayed to the right, a short drive down memory lane would’ve gone a long way to sightings of shrewds and imcompetents roaming the landscape in a classic example of symbiosis.

The incompetents graze and browse on tender choom sprigs, blissfully unaware of herds of young bucks passing by. The bucks never stop, for the shrewds possess what to the anthropomorphically untrained eye might appear as a big beautiful smile implying a first-class temperament, but, in fact, the dentition of the shrewds includes special incisors called “audits” that they bare when threatened and which can deliver a nasty bite (the taming of shrewds has proven a failure).

    Ragspierre in reply to LukeHandCool. | December 1, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Being a radical thinker (Latin root of “radical” being…well…the word for “root”) and no respecter of shrewds…

    I favor knocking their teeth out. Metaphorically, of course.

    Burn the tax code down. Down to the ground. Repeal the 16th.

    Since, as we have seen, the 1946 administrative law provides ample room for an outlaw to play perverse games, burn it down, too.

    IF the legislature cannot pass a law that is clear, enforceable, and does not require executive tinkering, let it be enforced as written…good and hard.

    I also favor periodic sun-setting of ALLLLLLL Federal law. This allows stinkers to die quietly, poorly drafted or misshapen-by-courts laws to be clarified, and a review of each law for cost/benefit analysis.

Charles Krauthammer: So, for example, a few months ago Obama decided that he wanted to suspend, to postpone the employer mandate of his own law of Obamacare. You’re not allowed to do that.

That is not correct. The Administrative Procedure Act allows for reasonable delays.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    No, liar.

    It allows for “reasonable delays” that foster the intent of the law, not political gain.

    You can tell that lie all you want. I will call you the liar you are every flucking time.

William A. Jacobson: The problem with Obama is the completely political basis for his decisions whether to honor or ignore the law.

The primary example has been the delay in the mandate, which many people in and out of government think is probably a good idea in terms of helping implement the law.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Then why the Pres. ScamWOW threat to veto a bill with the same exact purpose, but LEGALITY?

    Hmmmm…???

    Oh, I bet I know…

    He could not reverse it on a whim, and it denies him the power he has illegally accreted to himself.

    janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Why, then, was it not done earlier? Why, then were the Republicans who were advocating for delay (versus immediate repeal) lambasted? And why, then, did Obama vow to veto any legislative delay?

    Zachriel, Obama does not have administrative discretion to pick and choose who will or will not be subject to the implementation of a law.

      janitor: Why, then, was it not done earlier? Why, then were the Republicans who were advocating for delay (versus immediate repeal) lambasted? And why, then, did Obama vow to veto any legislative delay?

      Because the Republicans will almost certainly use a bill to undermine current law, which the president will not allow.

        raven in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:20 pm

        >>”Because the Republicans will almost certainly use a bill to undermine current law, which the president will not allow.”

        A little too late for that. The bill is being devastatingly undermined on its own, thanks anyway. All it had to do was go into effect. Pity the APA can’t help him with that (the APA sop is absurd on several levels, not least being this “president” probably thinks it stands for “Americans for Political Action”).

          raven: A little too late for that.

          Not relevant to the point.

          raven in reply to raven. | December 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm

          >>”Not relevant to the point.”

          Sure. Keep saying that. It’s the big picture, dear fellow. Lawlessness has consequences. The bill is being vomited up because it was lawlessly imposed. Because it arose out of the bacterial lawlessness of the leftist petri dishes. The APA isn’t going to help you.

          Our social fabric is relevant. Since higher education failed you I’d a suggest a remedial course at the Heritage Foundation. Civics, it’s called.

          raven: Sure. Keep saying that.

          The claim is lawlessness, not the efficacy of a particular law.

          raven: The bill is being vomited up because it was lawlessly imposed.

          The bill was duly enacted into law.

          Ragspierre in reply to raven. | December 1, 2013 at 5:08 pm

          No. You are lying again.

          A bill nobody HAS read…because it CAN’T be read…cannot be passed in a democratic republic and foisted off as “duly enacted”.

          A bill, having passed the House as one thing, cannot be sucked dry of its meaning and returned by the Senate injected with ObamaDoggle. That violates the Constitution, you Collectivist goose-stepper.

          This was “duly passed” as much as a bill out of the Supreme Soviet.

          raven: A bill, having passed the House as one thing, cannot be sucked dry of its meaning and returned by the Senate injected with ObamaDoggle.

          Once the House accepted the Senate version, it was properly enrolled.

          raven in reply to raven. | December 1, 2013 at 5:25 pm

          No. Using budget reconciliation for a bill of this size and implications was lawless.

          And that’s why it’s failing — it involved the gross mutation of a process designed to prevent such outcomes. It’s inefficacy (an understatement) and its lawlessness are part and parcel. Had a more modest, dilatory and bipartisan process shaped healthcare reforms, in conformance with civic precedents and traditions, you wouldn’t be in this fix. But actual reform was never the objective. Seizure was the objective. It’s not working in part because it was conceived and passed outside of the norms of the legislative process. It’s basically a deformity.

          raven: Using budget reconciliation for a bill of this size and implications was lawless.

          That is incorrect. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by the Senate with a supermajority. A companion bill, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which dealt with related budget issues, was passed through reconciliation.

          Ragspierre in reply to raven. | December 1, 2013 at 10:48 pm

          After NOBODY had read it, and against the clear wishes of the people.

          AND against the Origination Clause of the Constitution.

          Worthy of the Supreme Soviet. Or your Collective.

          Why is it you pukes hate democracy?

          Ragspierre: After NOBODY had read it

          We read it.

          Ragspierre: and against the clear wishes of the people.

          Against the wishes of some people. Keep in mind that Obama won reelection twice. Both times health insurance reform was a significant issue.

          Ragspierre: AND against the Origination Clause of the Constitution.

          That is incorrect. The bill originated in the House, was amended in the Senate. The House then accepted those amendments. The bill was properly enrolled.

          Ragspierre: Why is it you pukes hate democracy?

          The worst of all systems …

          Ragspierre in reply to raven. | December 2, 2013 at 9:20 am

          Are “we” a member of Congress.

          That was just a stupid lie.

          Did Pres. ScamWOW run on ObamaDoggle in either election?

          Your inference that he did is a stupid lie. In fact, Pres. ScamWOW has carefully lied about who he is and what he intended in two elections now. He ran AWAY from ObamaDoggle for the most part, just as Deemocrats will be dong this election cycle.

          Plus…2010.

          Rules of the respective houses of Congress do not trump the Origination Clause, and you are lying yet again. As you know.

          Clear majorities…not “some”…opposed ObamaDoggle, which was sold on a fabric of lies to begin with. Hence, a fraud on the American people by a pathological outlaw and his regime.

          Ragspierre: Did Pres. ScamWOW run on ObamaDoggle in either election?

          Don’t know a Pres. ScamWOW, but healthcare was an important issue in both of Obama’s presidential campaigns.

          Ragspierre: Rules of the respective houses of Congress do not trump the Origination Clause

          No, they don’t, but the bill originated as a House bill sponsored by Rep. Rangel. However, you are welcome to take your case to the courts.

          Ragspierre in reply to raven. | December 2, 2013 at 9:57 am

          “Pres. ScamWOW” is my pithy term for your poor, broken pathological child idol. It nicely captures his lying nature, and his late efforts as a pathetic pitch-man for his ObamaDoggle.

          See, he lies, and is an outlaw.

          To the extent Obama ran in either election on “health care” his entire presentation was…as we know better with each passing day…lies. Just as was the farce of the “duly passed” process of the illegal ramming through of the “bill”.

          As you know, and prefer to lie about by implication, I cannot “take it to the courts” when your Collective violates the Constitution in a general way.

          And you are quite wrong about “we” having no enemies. I am your deep, dark, implacable enemy, just as you are enemy to the rule of law and the truth. Just like all Collectivists.

          Ragspierre: “Pres. ScamWOW” is my pithy term for your poor, broken pathological child idol.

          Sorry, Ragspierre. Any argument you think you are making is being drowned out by noise. Let us know if you ever can provide a clear channel for discussion.

          Ragspierre in reply to raven. | December 2, 2013 at 10:19 am

          Oh, I never “argue” with trolls.

          That is just Pyrrhic.

          I punk them.

          As here.

        janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:23 pm

        Zachriel, you just admitted that the president’s actions were for political purposes.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:29 pm

        You prefer to tell the implicit lie we are talking about a bill PRE-Obamic delay.

        We are talking about the bill proposed POST-delay, as you likely know perfectly well.

        It would be passed by both houses, liar. Not “Republicans”, but a bi-partisan bill that would be LEGAL. Ergo, something on which the businesses and people could rely.

        What a cowardly lil’ Collectivist you are…!!!

        JerryB in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 6:47 pm

        Zach broken record*: Because the Republicans will almost certainly use a bill to undermine current law, which the president will not allow.

        Not relevant, to borrow a retort. With this defense, you admit that Obama’s delay is for Obama and not for the good of the people. A president seeking a delay of a lawfully enacted deadline would be glad to negotiate with a willing Congress. He had the upper hand, but rejected any discussion.

        The stupid GOP was willing to make 0 look good, but no. So, to rephrase your comment, the GOP will almost certainly take some credit for making 0 look good, which the president will not allow.

        *broken record is a phenomenon from an ancient method of playing musical recordings (for for readers under 30)

          JerryB: With this defense, you admit that Obama’s delay is for Obama and not for the good of the people.

          Not at all. It’s clear that Obama supports the reform, and would therefore use his power to stop Republican attempts to undermine the law.

          JerryB: A president seeking a delay of a lawfully enacted deadline would be glad to negotiate with a willing Congress.

          The president already has the statutory authority to implement the law, including reasonable delays to minimize disruption in the markets.

          JerryB in reply to JerryB. | December 1, 2013 at 9:28 pm

          … and the broken record goes around again. When Congress acts to delay a law, that’s “undermining.” When 0 does it, well, that’s different. Hahahaha.

          Say it again. And again. Keep it going! Prof. J’s getting loads of hits tonight.

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 1, 2013 at 10:37 pm

          “The president already has the statutory authority to implement the law, including reasonable delays to minimize disruption in the markets.”

          No. He. Does. Not.

          That is why no insurance counsel is going to let insurance companies “re-issue” canceled policies except over their cooling carcasses.

          The policies would be a quagmire of legal liability, inviting years of VERY expensive and acrimonious litigation.

          That “uncertainty” thingy, again, moron.

          Serious question: in what universe do you exist?

          JerryB: When Congress acts to delay a law, that’s “undermining.”

          As we said, the president already has the necessary authority, and it is extremely unlikely would have passed a simple extension. As you are quite aware, the Republicans are intent repealing the PPACA.

          Zachriel: The president already has the statutory authority to implement the law, including reasonable delays to minimize disruption in the markets.

          JerryB: No. He. Does. Not.

          He does under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows for reasonable delays. However, he does not have the authority to force insurance companies to honor previous policies.

          (Last quote should be attributed to Ragspierre.)

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 2, 2013 at 9:25 am

          The President has no authority to suspend entire swaths of the law for political gain. None.

          He is simply acting as an outlaw, and you an enabler and bung-sucking tool.

          Typical of the Collective.

          Ragspierre: The President has no authority to suspend entire swaths of the law for political gain.

          We agree. That would be an abuse of discretion.

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 2, 2013 at 10:02 am

          Yes. IS an abuse of discretion, as many of us have been correctly tell ‘we’ (you and your John Edwards blow-up doll?) all along.

          It IS an abuse of discretion.

          Ragspierre: Yes. IS an abuse of discretion, as many of us have been correctly tell ‘we’

          Not sure how delaying the business mandate is an “abuse of discretion”.

          Ragspierre: ‘we’

          ‘You’ is the both the singular and plural form of the second-person personal pronoun. Or you could just use our proper name.

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 2, 2013 at 10:21 am

          The President has no authority to suspend entire swaths of the law for political gain.

          La.

          Zachriel: Not sure how delaying the business mandate is an “abuse of discretion”.

          Ragspierre: The President has no authority to suspend entire swaths of the law for political gain.

          Delaying, not suspending. You forgot to explain how delaying the employer mandate is not a reasonable use of discretion, especially in light of the problems for the roll-out for the individual mandate.
          http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 2, 2013 at 11:07 am

          “You forgot to explain how delaying the employer mandate is not a reasonable use of discretion.”

          The employer mandate is SUSPENDED on Pres. ScamWOW’s whim, and the timing of the suspension is patently, crassly and cynically political.

          But you knew that. You just enjoy repeating the lies you love.

          Ragspierre: The employer mandate is SUSPENDED on Pres. ScamWOW’s whim, and the timing of the suspension is patently, crassly and cynically political.

          Most analysts think a delay is well warranted. It’s not as if the roll-out has been trouble free. Businesses have to implement new software consistent with the reporting requirements, and the administration is busy trying to resolve problems with the individual mandate.

          Did you have something besides a bald claim?

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 2, 2013 at 11:59 am

          “Most analysts”…!?!?!

          Too funny!

          The majority in the House, and many Senators have been militating for a “delay” for months.

          They were arsonists, terrorists, anarchists, etc.

          And Pres. ScamWOW made it clear he would veto any delay.

          And, since the debacle of the “roll-out”, he has also threatened a veto of a LAW (that thing required for legality) that would resolve the question.

          Because he loves him some diktat. Which is TOTALLY a crass, cynical political play, given its timing.

          As we all know.

          Ragspierre: The majority in the House, and many Senators have been militating for a “delay” for months.

          The delay in the business mandate was announced in July. If you mean the individual mandate, that may yet be delayed. The administration may just extend the enrollment period.

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | December 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm

          Interesting.

          You don’t even know which SUSPENSION you are defending.

          As I noted before “we” are a pathetic Collectivist troll.

          And oddly hilarious…!!!

          Ragspierre: You don’t even know which SUSPENSION you are defending.

          You are the one who says some sort of delay is lawless. We try to make sense of your comments, but, as we said, your signal-to-noise ratio is very low. Most of your words come out garbled.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    “The primary example has been the delay in the mandate, which many people in and out of government think is probably a good idea in terms of helping implement the law.”

    Okee-dookee, then.

    Let’s delay the mandate BY LAW until, say….ummm…January 1, following the next election cycle.

    Mmmmmkay…???

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 1, 2013 at 4:50 pm

      In the meantime, some enterprising young conservatives and libertarians can put up a “shadow site” on the internet, showing people…

      1. what a working site looks like

      2. that does NOT expose them to identity theft

      3. what their rates are going to be AFTER their employers are obliged to drop them, AND

      4. that people can access information without becoming the “gold” in a data mining operation for the DNC.

Obama does what he does because he knows he can and will get away with it. Roberts was his crony in screwing the GM bond holders and the Repubs in congress are a bunch of pantywaists.

Obama does not have administrative discretion to pick and choose who will or will not be subject to the implementation of a law.

To allow this would be to allow tyranny. It would not, then, matter what the laws were, or what they said, because only those who were politically disfavored would be subject to it. Any pretextual reason would do.

Obamacare says that (1) individuals who do not have insurance and (2) individuals who do not have compliant insurance both must pay a tax.

Obama now has taken it upon himself to specially exempt those who do not have compliant insurance from the law while presumably planning to enforce the law against those who do not have insurance at all.

This is not dissimilar to a law laid outright ex post facto, since individuals without any insurance at all, who may be having just as much difficulty with the website and the atrocious and expensive “options”, cannot also simply extend their status quos and avoid paying the tax.

    janitor: Obama does not have administrative discretion to pick and choose who will or will not be subject to the implementation of a law.

    The U.S. Congress, in their majesty, have given the executive a great deal of flexibility in implementing new regulatory programs. Delays must be reasonable, though, in furtherance of implementing the law.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      “Waivers”, granted to cronies and voting blocks, are not legal under the act, however.

      Lying coward.

      janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm

      This isn’t a uniform delay. It’s discrimination in enforcement based on the arbitrary criteria of who can continue to carry or purchase noncompliant insurance. President can’t do this, any more than he can issue an edict that certain people employed in struggling industries don’t have to pay income taxes this year “for the good of the implementation of the tax laws and increased revenues in subsequent years”.

        janitor: President can’t do this,

        Sure the president can, as long as it is reasonably intended to help implement the new law. Congress provided that authority in 1946.

        janitor: any more than he can issue an edict that certain people employed in struggling industries don’t have to pay income taxes this year “for the good of the implementation of the tax laws and increased revenues in subsequent years”.

        No, the president can’t. It’s an existing regulatory process that has already been implemented.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm

          “Sure the president can, as long as it is reasonably intended to help implement the new law. Congress provided that authority in 1946.”

          That’s a lie, and you’re a liar.

          janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 8:57 pm

          Zach, the APA does not grant this imagined authority to enforce laws against some people and not others. Nor does it grant agencies or their big boss the authority to make rules contrary to the enacted law.

          janitor: the APA does not grant this imagined authority to enforce laws against some people and not others. Nor does it grant agencies or their big boss the authority to make rules contrary to the enacted law.

          Based on the Administrative Procedure Act, the ruling in Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C. found that the court must consider whether other important interests could be “prejudiced by the delay”, or whether the expedited action could affect “higher or competing” priorities.

          Under Heckler v. Chaney the courts must generally defer to an agencies expertise of “the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities”. However, this doesn’t excuse the agency from its responsibilities under the law.

          janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 9:47 pm

          Zach, I would appreciate it if you would address, not the “delay” per se, but the delaying of enforcement of a law only for some people but not for others. Do you think people have an interest in feeling that the laws are enforced even-handedly against everyone?

          janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 9:51 pm

          I have another question. Understood regarding agencies and their expertise as far as writing regulations. With respect to Obamacare, what agency has what expertise here, as far as who should be subject to the law and who should not be? And is the president, declaring this or that new rule via edict (not via agency regulation), deemed himself ipso facto to embody the expertise of all the agencies?

          janitor: I would appreciate it if you would address, not the “delay” per se, but the delaying of enforcement of a law only for some people but not for others.

          We did elsewhere on the thread. The law prohibits delays that are “arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”. If the president were to enforce the law against Republicans, but not Democrats, that would be considered an “abuse of discretion”. But, in light of the problems with the roll-out, delaying the mandate for businesses while concentrating the administrative efforts on individuals seems to be a reasonable use of discretion.

          janitor: Understood regarding agencies and their expertise as far as writing regulations. With respect to Obamacare, what agency has what expertise here, as far as who should be subject to the law and who should not be?

          A lot of agencies are involved with Obama Care, including the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Treasury has delayed the implementation of business reporting for the mandate.
          http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx

          janitor: And is the president, declaring this or that new rule via edict (not via agency regulation), deemed himself ipso facto to embody the expertise of all the agencies?

          The president is not technically an agency under the Administrative Procedure Act; hence, Kawa v. Lew, Lew being the Secretary of the Treasury.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 9:36 am

          If the president were to enforce the law against Republicans, but not Democrats, that would be considered an “abuse of discretion”.
          ————————–
          So, we agree that waivers granted to cronies and Collectivist voting blocks have been illegal.

          Or outlawry.

          Good. Progress.

          Ragspierre: So, we agree that waivers granted to cronies and Collectivist voting blocks have been illegal.

          You might want to be specific. (Also, your signal-to-noise level is very low. Perhaps you can make some adjustments.)

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 10:06 am

          Ah, here’s the part where you feign ignorance and demand “pwoof”.

          If you are, indeed, at sea about the waiver issue, you need to spend some time away from posting repeated lies in facilitation of Pres. ScamWOW’s fascist take-over of America.

Karen Sacandy | December 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm

Cutting through all of this B.S., Obama should simply be arrested.

The fraud of his election with a fraudulent birth certificate, takes the cake.

Karen Sacandy | December 1, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Reflecting upon the sorry state of our governance right now, the courts have thoroughly let us down.

The supreme court hasn’t accepted any case challenging Obama’s eligibility, because there aren’t the votes to take it. Judges are human and are subject to the same pressures as anyone else, including political, lifetime tenure notwithstanding.

If you could, you wouldn’t need the rest of government, you could just rely upon the saintliness of judges, as in Plato’s philosopher kings.

It would be good if some of them had the backbone of Cruz, and bounced Obama out of there, let the chips fall where they may. But it’s not a happening thing.

    Karen Sacandy: Reflecting upon the sorry state of our governance right now, the courts have thoroughly let us down.

    A majority of the Supreme Court was appointed by Republicans, including the Chief Justice Roberts.

    Karen Sacandy: The supreme court hasn’t accepted any case challenging Obama’s eligibility, because there aren’t the votes to take it.

    Sigh.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      Eye-roll.

      Karen Sacandy in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      Justices were appointed by Republicans, and that makes it okay? There is nothing truer, than that nominees disappoint those who nominate them. The supreme court isn’t last because it’s right; it’s right because it’s last.

      We’ve got judges who can’t be bothered. They either agree with his agenda or can’t be moved out of their comfort zone.

      And it’s just tough for the rest of us, who have to live during the destruction of the republic.

      So, how did this alter of yours come to be? That’s the interesting question…..

        Karen Sacandy: Justices were appointed by Republicans, and that makes it okay?

        Makes what okay? The topic is lawlessness, not whether you agree with a policy or judicial decision.

        Karen Sacandy: The supreme court isn’t last because it’s right; it’s right because it’s last.

        That’s right. People agree to disagree.

        Karen Sacandy: And it’s just tough for the rest of us, who have to live during the destruction of the republic.

        Oh gee whiz. The U.S. experienced has much worse times, like the Civil War, Great Depression, the rise of fascism, the Cold War.

          Karen Sacandy in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 8:51 pm

          Oh, I’m much more curious about your alters, than I am your legal reasoning. Of course, many alters are shy, and don’t like to show themselves….perhaps yours are like this.

          It’s okay; it’s a big, bad world out here.

          raven in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 9:10 pm

          >>”The U.S. experienced has much worse times, like the Civil War, Great Depression, the rise of fascism, the Cold War.”

          And with Obama we get all four rolled into one.

          9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Zachriel. | December 1, 2013 at 10:27 pm

          “The U.S. experienced has much worse times, like the Civil War, Great Depression, the rise of fascism, the Cold War.”

          The Civil War resulted in a strong, unified nation. The Great Depression produced the Greatest Generation, which saved the world’s rear end from the rise of European and Asian fascism (now entering act two in the Middle East; coming soon to a city near you). You (or perhaps ‘youse’) are certainly too wet behind the ears to even be able to contemplate the victory in the Cold War.

          Raven is spot on. We may have crossed the Rubicon (another historical reference you may have to google).

          raven: And with Obama we get all four rolled into one.

          While situations change, we are hardly in an era comparable to the Civil War, Great Depression, WWII, or even the Cold War. There is no such existential threat as yet.

          9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 2:06 pm

          You are profoundly naive.

          “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

          “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”

          —Santayana, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense

          9thDistrictNeighbor: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

          “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

Zachriel:
Read your blog. You’re an idealogue — and with a bad idea.
Probably the last time anyone will waste time responding to your nonsense.

Henry Hawkins | December 1, 2013 at 5:48 pm

300 posts in two threads. Minds changed = 0.

    Most people who read a blog, don’t post on the blog. People can see who supports their position, and those who use ad hominem as a substitute for argument.

    HH, I kind of appreciate Zach writing here. I don’t think they are intending to be rude, albeit they are coming across curt and dogmatic because, I suspect, they are having a bit of a difficult time fully responding given that there’s just one of them.

    As long as they don’t really troll, we can welcome the opportunity to counter their arguments in this widely-read forum. I think we should encourage them to lay out their arguments in more detail.

    For example, I would like to know the basis for Zach’s conclusion that APA allows for arbitrary enforcement of new laws against some people while excusing others. I would like to know whether they think that this holds for the statutory provisions proper, or just the regulations. I would like to know if they think the answer depends on whether the regulations impact clerical or discretionary functions of the executive, where the distinction is made between new laws and new regs and old law and new regs and new amendments to old laws and old or new regs, and so forth, and where and how that distinction is made, and whether it would vary depending upon what kind of law or what kind of agency. I have many more questions, since my LLM is not in Obamacare, but merely tax law.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to janitor. | December 1, 2013 at 9:50 pm

      Agitation for the sake and refusal to accept others’ arguments is trolling. It takes perverse pleasure in riling up The Enemy and nothing more. It is a waste of time, an assertion time will confirm.

        Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 1, 2013 at 10:55 pm

        Well, coupla observations….

        1. the troll here is useful as a foil

        2. his nonsense is useful as material to show your friends and neighbors the “thinking” of Pres. ScamWOW’s bung-sucking myrmidons

        3. as someone above noted, he’s working WONDERS for Prof.’s hits!

        Henry Hawkins: Agitation for the sake and refusal to accept others’ arguments

        We are more than happy to consider opposing arguments. Our purpose is to add to the discussion. Keep in mind that Obama has won a majority twice. Even though you may mark time in the confines of Legal Insurrection, there is a world outside that holds differing opinions.

        Henry Hawkins: It takes perverse pleasure in riling up The Enemy and nothing more.

        We have no enemies. In any case, if you present an argument concerning the topic, we will consider it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 9:31 am

          Thus quoth the junior narcissist, in defense of the indefensible senior narcissist and outlaw, and his outlaw regime.

          Pathetic.

      janitor: I would like to know the basis for Zach’s conclusion that APA allows for arbitrary enforcement of new laws against some people while excusing others.

      The Administrative Procedure Act doesn’t allow for “arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”. It does allow for reasonable delays consistent with an orderly transition. Delaying the employer mandate is a reasonable policy based on the problems with the roll-out.

      Of course, the courts have the final say, but precedent is that the courts give discretion to the executive. There will be exceptions, and Congress can repeal or carve out an exception from the Administrative Procedure Act any time it chooses.

      janitor: I would like to know whether they think that this holds for the statutory provisions proper, or just the regulations.

      It applies to the regulatory system, including enforcement of statutory provisions. For instance, if the law requires a new tax be imposed by such and such a date, but the IRS can’t possibly implement the new requirements, then the administration can reasonably delay implementation of the tax. However, if the president delays implementation because he just doesn’t like the tax, then he would be neglecting to faithfully execute the law, and the courts could compel the president.

        janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 1:47 pm

        Zachriel writes: “The Administrative Procedure Act doesn’t allow for “arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”. It does allow for reasonable delays consistent with an orderly transition. Delaying the employer mandate is a reasonable policy based on the problems with the roll-out.”

        However, Zach, I was not referring merely to delaying the employer mandate. One of the examples I used was the enforcement of the individual mandate (i.e. tax) only against some individuals and not others, based on whether an individual’s insurance company will re-issue him a non-compliant (arguably illegal) insurance policy. You seem to be ignoring these points. To my knowledge, deliberate unequal enforcement of the laws against individuals who currently are similarly situated never has been held by any court to be “reasonable”.

        Zach writes regarding ostensible executive discretion under the APA: “It applies to the regulatory system, including enforcement of statutory provisions.”

        This response skirts the issue. Regulations cannot be contrary to the black letter provisions of a statute. Moreover, edicts of non-enforcement (against only some persons) by the chief law enforcement officer in the U.S. are not “regulations”.

        Zach writes: “If the president delays implementation because he just doesn’t like the tax, then he would be neglecting to faithfully execute the law and the courts could compel the president.”

        Such as certain immigration laws he doesn’t like? It is your position, then, that the president simply doesn’t have to do his job of carrying out the law, and this is okay, unless and until the drawn-out process of a plaintiff with standing bringing the matter before a court results in an order compelling the president to do his job?

        Seems to me that embodies the essence of “unreasonable”.

          janitor: One of the examples I used was the enforcement of the individual mandate (i.e. tax) only against some individuals and not others, based on whether an individual’s insurance company will re-issue him a non-compliant (arguably illegal) insurance policy.

          And that seems obviously tailored to minimize disruption in the markets during the transition.

          janitor: To my knowledge, deliberate unequal enforcement of the laws against individuals who currently are similarly situated never has been held by any court to be “reasonable”.

          They’re not similarly situated. The law has a grandfather clause, and there are conflicting demands.

          janitor: Regulations cannot be contrary to the black letter provisions of a statute.

          Imposition can be reasonably delayed under the Administrative Procedure Act if it is meant to minimize disruption during the transition.

          janitor: Such as certain immigration laws he doesn’t like?

          The current administration has substantially increased enforcement of immigration laws.

          janitor: It is your position, then, that the president simply doesn’t have to do his job of carrying out the law, and this is okay, unless and until the drawn-out process of a plaintiff with standing bringing the matter before a court results in an order compelling the president to do his job?

          That is not our position at all. The president must faithfully execute the law, but Congress has given the president latitude when implementing new regulatory schemes.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | December 2, 2013 at 4:28 pm

          “The current administration has substantially increased enforcement of immigration laws.”

          Demonstrating there is no lie you will not tell.

          Very good, Collectivist.

          Ragspierre: Demonstrating …

          Deportations by fiscal year. Note the emphasis on deportations of criminals.
          http://americasvoiceonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/deportations-by-year-2.jpg

          Border patrol budget by year
          http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/cdn_fig_1.jpg

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | December 2, 2013 at 6:49 pm

          The president will apparently argue that the administration has met reasonable goals on enforcing current immigration legislation, and that additional security will merely create new obstacles to legalizing the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants thought to be living in the United States. The federal government accelerated deportations in the first years of the Obama presidency, and sent new personnel to patrol the southwestern border.

          However, starting last year, the Obama administration declined to enforce existing law regarding the so-called “Dreamers”–immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children. The election-year move drew praise from Hispanic groups but preempted congressional legislation, and brought criticism from proponents of immigration reform, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who objected to the president’s clear circumvention of Congress.
          =========================

          Tell you what, coward. Come to Arizona, and walk the border, or Texas.

          Or, hell, you could meet some some ICE agents, and tell them how slick Obama is.

          If you survive, you can tell us about how Pres. ScamWOW is protecting our territory.

          Ragspierre: The federal government accelerated deportations in the first years of the Obama presidency, and sent new personnel to patrol the southwestern border.

          That’s right. So the current administration has increased efforts compared to previous administrations.

          Ragspierre: However, starting last year, the Obama administration declined to enforce existing law regarding the so-called “Dreamers”–immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children.

          That’s right. The administration has emphasized deporting criminals rather than innocent children and young adults.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | December 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm

          WASHINGTON (AP) — The Homeland Security Department released from its jails more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation in recent weeks due to looming budget cuts and planned to release 3,000 more during March, the Associated Press has learned.

          The newly disclosed figures, cited in internal budget documents reviewed by the AP, are significantly higher than the “few hundred” illegal immigrants the Obama administration acknowledged this week had been released under the budget-savings process.
          ===============================

          Just another example of Barrackades, or Government By Thuggery.

          And outlaw behavior against Americans.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | December 2, 2013 at 7:03 pm

          “That’s right. So the current administration has increased efforts compared to previous administrations. ”

          No, you stupid liar. That was coasting from the Bush years.

          Really, is there no lie you will not tell???

          gmac124 in reply to janitor. | December 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm

          Ragspierre: However, starting last year, the Obama administration declined to enforce existing law regarding the so-called “Dreamers”–immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children.

          Zachriel: That’s right. The administration has emphasized deporting criminals rather than innocent children and young adults.

          So what you are saying is that the president is breaking the law by selectively enforcing the law. 🙂

          Ragspierre: So what you are saying is that the president is breaking the law by selectively enforcing the law.

          Most people probably think it makes more sense to go after criminals than innocent children and young adults. Whether you agree with this policy or not, the president has discretion on how to allocate scarce law enforcement resources.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 7:11 pm

        Union President Testifies: ICE HQ Ordered Agents Not to Arrest Illegals–Including Fugitives
        October 20, 2011 – 4:57 PM

        (AP Photo/L.M. Otero)

        (CNSNews.com) – Chris Crane, president of a union that represents Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, testified in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration last week that ICE agents have been told by ICE headquarters not to arrest illegal aliens who do not have a prior criminal conviction even if they are fugitives who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge or are individuals who have illegally re-entered the United States after being deported and thus have perpetrated a felony.

        “Aliens who could not be arrested included but were not limited to ICE fugitives that had been ordered deported by a federal immigration judge as well as aliens who had illegally re-entered the United States after deportation, a federal felony,” Crane, who is also an active-duty ICE agent, told the committee on Oct. 12.

    Immolate in reply to Ragspierre. | December 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Gobsmacking. He’s just like Rosa Parks, except where she refused to be victimized by racism, he embraced racism to take advantage of its benefits. He’s just like J.F. Kennedy, except where Kennedy served to defend and loved his country, Obama declined to serve his country and considers his country to be guilty. He’s just like Abraham Lincoln, except where Lincoln died for his courage in fighting against the barbaric tradition of slavery, he has cynically embraced racism as a vehicle to propel him past unwinnable arguments and the inconvenience of morality.

    Obama seeks to legitimize his illegitimate governance by associating himself (illegitimately) with people of courage and principle. He has a bad case of stolen honor syndrome, which is not only despicable, it is a bit creepy.

I find it epically ironic and tragically (or is it pathetically?) fitting that Obama supporters are relying on legal parsings now to save his “signature achievement” as well his so-called presidency.

    Yujin in reply to raven. | December 1, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    It is funny. I seem to recall the left going on about “the mere hint of impropriety is unacceptable.”and ” the seriousness of the charge demands an investigation.”.
    Standards changed or no standards?

      Ragspierre in reply to Yujin. | December 1, 2013 at 8:02 pm

      Just another crystalline example of Shaidle’s First Law for understanding the Collective…

      “It’s different when we do it.”

BannedbytheGuardian | December 1, 2013 at 7:22 pm

Justice Roberts as I see it basically came down to saying . To. Heck with you plebs running everything to the courts . Deal with it yourselves.

Zacko aka OFA. Is basing all Obama actions on the 1946 general delegation of admin minutiae to the executive. If this has no ceiling then this is the problem . The agreement that has largely stood between the English royalty & parliament for 350 years is not set in stone either . However it has been rarely crossed.

You guys just got yourself a Pre Cromwell King. The courts did not save the people either . I seem to recall they had to either exile or behead kings & usually a civil war to top it off.

Enjoy.

Ragspierre: “sun setting”

And as the sun set each day and the shadows grew long, the shrewds and incompetents twisted their claws and hooves to make shadow puppets for the benefit of the gullible tourists driving by. The silhouettes of magical unicorns and jackalopes changed the atmosphere to a hopeful one, and the park was dubbed “The Land of Hope & Change.”

A young and skeptical yet dapper young man named Ragspierre was driving through the park at dusk one day as the silhouettes started their show.

Rags was thirsty, and he wanted to kick himself for not stopping at that roadside Kool-Aid stand outside the entrance of the park. His thirst only exacerbated the aggravation he felt at the amateurish shadow puppet show and he wondered aloud how anyone could fall for such silliness.

But something off in the bush caught his eye. He parked and left his van (“the RagShagMobile”) and, carrying his video camera, walked over to investigate.

2 Hours later a visibly shaken Rags, breathing hard, rushes into the park ranger station.

Rags: Excuse me, are you a park ranger here?

Park Ranger Zachriel: Yes, we are.

Rags: I just spotted a Benghazi Tiger.

Zach: No, no, no. You mean a Bengal Tiger. It must’ve been a Bengal Tiger.

Rags: You have Bengal Tigers here?

Zach: No, we don’t.

Rags: What? Umm, anyway, I definitely saw a Benghazi Tiger. I have evidence. I have video.

Zach: Hahaha! … Video … haha … Benghazi …haha … evidence … hahahahaha! You have nothing. And if you don’t stop this nonsense we’ll have to arrest you.

Rags: What?! On what charge?

Zach: Resisting discretion. What difference does it make?!?! We’ll close the park first before we book you. Would you mind helping us with these barricades? If you like, I do have the discretion to put you on cone detail, if you prefer.

Rags: Wh-Wh-What?!?!

Zach: Cone detail. You put orange cones along the highway outside the park so no one can stop and see our Bengal Tigers while we’re closed. Nine-tenths of discretion is punishment.

LukeHandCool (who is considering a career writing children’s books for conservative toddlers about the dangers of progressivism. Tentative series title: “Grim Fairy Tales.”)

‘Health reform is starting to look like a bigger success than even its most ardent advocates expected’
—Paul Krugman, former adviser to Enron

Now that thar is some SERIOUS drugs…

Well executive discretion is a weird thing. So it’s saying that it will not prosecute insurance companies for issuing these policies. And since there isn’t recourse to executive discretion that’s not a problem. But the real problem is that these plans are still illegal and they must cover the minimums. If someone on a hospitalization only plan decides to present their insurance card to a pharmacy then that plan must pay for the drugs. If they want a sex change operation, the plan must pay its part for it. If they don’t, well then they can be sued.

    janitor in reply to imfine. | December 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    I think you’re correct. Excellent point.

    imfine: So it’s saying that it will not prosecute insurance companies for issuing these policies.

    Regulations have the force of law.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm

      So they will prosecute them . Good . Eloping forward to this development.

      Government allows law breaking , Government prosecutes same lawbreakers.

      imfine in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm

      This isn’t regulation from the law, this is regulation from Executive discretion. Executive discretion only works with executive branch. It won’t protect you from being sued by someone, that’s the judicial branch.

      Now the President can’t punish someone who has done this, otherwise it would be entrapment. These are all edge cases, because I think that you run into an area of conspiracy to commit crimes. We would likely need the Supreme Court to weigh in on coordinated law breaking by the President in concert with Private actors, and whether Entrapment protections would apply. Though one could argue that the were being forced to break the law by the executive so this is more like extortion than racketeering. Like I said this is way out there, and should make for interesting case law come jan 1st.

        imfine (from above): But the real problem is that these plans are still illegal and they must cover the minimums.

        They are not illegal as regulations have the force of law.

          imfine in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 5:35 pm

          ACA is clear on these matters. There are coverage minimums and these plans may not be issued. Any “regulation” that contravenes that law, is not law, nor will it have the force of law. The Executive simply does not have the power you speaks of. All it can do is use executive discretion.

          janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 6:08 pm

          Presidential decrees aren’t regulations.

          There are coverage minimums and these plans may not be issued.

          imfine: The Executive simply does not have the power you speaks of.

          Most of the provisions of essential health benefits are defined by HHS, but some are defined by statute, so the conflict with the grandfather clause is what has caused the current disruption.

          The administration does have the power to reasonably delay implementation of the law, and there is ample case law supporting this. The administration can’t delay it indefinitely or “arbitrarily and capriciously”.

          There is some uncertainty, because a court could find that the delay is unreasonable. That uncertainty seems to be of some concern to insurers. But it’s not a case of the administration just can’t do it.

          janitor: Presidential decrees aren’t regulations.

          The rules are promulgated by the appropriate agency.

          imfine in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 8:08 pm

          Right but the ones defined by law are not waiveable for purposes of grandfathering and they’re expensive. We’re not talking about birth control and sex change operations. You know dam well the APA can’t be used to directly contravene a straight ban and my analysis is spot on. There’s no uncertainty in that. When some enterprising citizen demands the plan cover the minimums on a barebones plan, they are not going to be able to say no.

          imfine: You know dam well the APA can’t be used to directly contravene a straight ban and my analysis is spot on.

          Of course not, but it can be delayed to avoid disruption during the phase-in.

        janitor in reply to imfine. | December 2, 2013 at 7:11 pm

        Zachriel, “rules” aren’t “regulations”. Presidential decrees of non-enforcement aren’t “regulations” either. Moreover:

        The power to issue regulations is not the power to change the law. US v New England Coal and Coke Company, 318 F.2d 138 (1963).

        For any reason.

          janitor: The power to issue regulations is not the power to change the law.

          That’s correct, and has been discussed several times already. The president must faithfully execute the laws. We’re discussing a delay in implementation under the Administrative Procedure Act.

          janitor: US v New England Coal and Coke Company, 318 F.2d 138 (1963).

          Which supports are frequent claim that the courts have the power to review such disputes when they occur.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | December 2, 2013 at 9:03 pm

          Incorrect. One more time, Zach. Even if, arguendo, Obama had the authority to “delay implementation of the law”, that’s not what he’s doing. He’s presently purporting to excuse some people from abiding by it, while enforcing it against others. That’s “implementing the law” but in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.

          janitor: He’s presently purporting to excuse some people from abiding by it, while enforcing it against others.

          The PPACA itself divvies people up into groups. The administration can certainly phase-in these various groups as long as it fosters implementation of the law.

Just notice this. It needs to be corrected. Zachriel wrote:

The president already has the statutory authority to implement the law, including reasonable delays to minimize disruption in the markets.

The individual mandate under Obamacare was held by the Supreme Court to not be authorized under the Commerce Clause. It is a tax. The president has no authority to not implement this tax in order to meddle with commerce (“the markets”).

    janitor: The individual mandate under Obamacare was held by the Supreme Court to not be authorized under the Commerce Clause. It is a tax. The president has no authority to not implement this tax in order to meddle with commerce (“the markets”).

    The president doesn’t have the power to ignore law, but when a new law is being implemented, he can reasonably delay provisions per the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The case that is testing whether the delay in the employer mandate is compliant under the Administrative Procedure Act is Kawa v. Lew. If you read the complaint, they say the delay is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law”. They didn’t just dream up the language. It’s what they must show under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The courts could very well rule it a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Our best guess is that the courts will let the case languish until it resolves itself next year, the theory being that the delay was reasonable because it was temporary. But we certainly could be wrong. We’ll see.

    Meanwhile, Liberty University v. Lew was just tossed.

      janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 9:11 pm

      Above, Zach, I clearly said “INDIVIDUAL mandate”, not “employer mandate”.

        The business mandate is also a tax.

        The president has the same authority with the individual mandate. And because of the problem of implementation, it would be a rather obvious case for delay. It’s difficult to envision the courts imposing a penalty on people who tried to sign up for insurance, but couldn’t because of the administrative problems. That’s why there is an Administrative Procedure Act.

        There’s no suit on the individual mandate, as nothing’s happened yet.

          janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm

          The latest edict from yon high was with regard to the individual mandate. Zach, you studiously have avoided responding on this, which is telling.

          Meanwhile, Liberty v. Lew may have been declined by the Supreme Court, but that leaves Pruitt and Halbig nicely standing in the pike.

          janitor in reply to Zachriel. | December 2, 2013 at 9:31 pm

          Add note. You write:

          It’s difficult to envision the courts imposing a penalty on people who tried to sign up for insurance, but couldn’t because of the administrative problems.

          You have not addressed the problem that this clearly is not a delay for the benefit of people who “tried to sign up for insurance, but couldn’t”. It’s an edict saying that people whose insurance companies will sell them noncompliant plans are excused, but for everyone else, website issues or no, is still on the hook.

          This is an obvious political edict meant to assuage outrage among those whose plans were cancelled, not something to help people who “tried to sign up for insurance, but couldn’t”.

          janitor: It’s an edict saying that people whose insurance companies will sell them noncompliant plans are excused, but for everyone else, website issues or no, is still on the hook.

          It’s not that difficult to understand. The law includes a grandfather clause, so the distinction is already written into law. The plan is to first get everyone insurance. Then, move people with substandard insurance into insurance with minimal essential coverage. Seems like a reasonable way to implement the bill.

Hey.
Obamacare was designed to fail.
And so it is.
Socialized Medicine will be the next pitch.
Everyone will be freaking out… it will look like a National Emergency… and Obama will come to the rescue.
Guaranteed.
Socialized Medicine is the end-game, and was from the start.
Now that the insurance industry is decimated, and Obamacare is hopeless, and everyone is out in the cold… ( I can’t even buy a plan for money… )
The last remaining option is obvious.
I have to recommend NO PARTICIPATION!!!
Screw them.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend