Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There have been a lot of comments that President Obama has acted unconstitutionally on a number of things from using military force in Libya without congressional consent to the dozen or so delays of portions of Obamacare. Interestingly enough, Candidate Obama had argued that some of President's Obama's actions were illegal.
Anyways, we may get some answers to these debates via the courts. As Ron Johnson, congressman from Wisconsin has sued the Obama administration alleging that it is illegal for Obama to exempt congress from portions of Obamacare.
Should congress have special exemptions for themselves?
Can Obama unilaterally change legislation to suit political needs?
Does the constitution not allow presidents such leeway as to rewrite legislation?
Quote:
I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.
This probably won't have legs, I'd guess the suit will be thrown out due to either:
1.) The Senator doesn't have "standing" to bring the suit, or
2.) The Senator can't show he's been "damaged" by the government doing what he's complaining about.
For some time now, it hasn't been enough to prove that someone broke the law. You have to show that (a) Someone has been "damaged", and (b) You are the one who has been damaged.
So, I'd guess that from here on in, any government program that doles out goodies, however illegally or unconstitutionally, will be lawsuit-proof.
Nice try, Sen. Johnson. But you're wasting your time. Liberals can break the law any time they want, and there's nothing you can do to stop them if they have 51% of the vote... or if they once had it, years ago, late on Christmas eve.
By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 6, 2014 10:30 a.m.
Madison — U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson filed a lawsuit Monday in an attempt to block the federal government from helping to pay for health care coverage for members of Congress and their staffs, opening a new front in the legal battle over the Affordable Care Act and dividing Republicans over how to attack the law.
(snip)
"Allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected" in passing the Affordable Care Act, Johnson wrote.
There have been a lot of comments that President Obama has acted unconstitutionally on a number of things from using military force in Libya without congressional consent to the dozen or so delays of portions of Obamacare. Interestingly enough, Candidate Obama had argued that some of President's Obama's actions were illegal.
Anyways, we may get some answers to these debates via the courts. As Ron Johnson, congressman from Wisconsin has sued the Obama administration alleging that it is illegal for Obama to exempt congress from portions of Obamacare.
Should congress have special exemptions for themselves?
Can Obama unilaterally change legislation to suit political needs?
Does the constitution not allow presidents such leeway as to rewrite legislation?
Explain how Johnson is legislating through the courts? Seems like you didn't put thought into this response (the Obama effect?).
He is merely asking Obama to be an executive and enforce the law as intended and written - so the elite in DC aren't exempt from a law that us peons are not. Yes, it is more politically beneficial for Obama to ignore the law, but his job isn't to do that.
Employees are removed from their employer's insurance and have to sign up through the exchanges.
Their employer provides a financial contribution for them to do so.
The GOP gambles that people will be dumb enough to consider that an "exemption" - and they're right.
Employees are removed from their employer's insurance and have to sign up through the exchanges.
Their employer provides a financial contribution for them to do so.
The GOP gambles that people will be dumb enough to consider that an "exemption" - and they're right.
Sigh.
Someone didn't read the WSJ article and bought the Carney-MSNBC spin that ignores facts that Johnson is pointing out.
Care to point out any specifics you believe to be wrong within the article?
It is no wonder Obama won the high school drop out vote by a massive margin AND Obama won the younger high school drop out vote by an ungodly amount - after you factor out drop outs with age, which means experience and wisdom.
Someone didn't read the WSJ article and bought the Carney-MSNBC spin that ignores facts that Johnson is pointing out.
Care to point out any specifics you believe to be wrong within the article?
It is no wonder Obama won the high school drop out vote by a massive margin AND Obama won the younger high school drop out vote by an ungodly amount - after you factor out drop outs with age, which means experience and wisdom.
Words have meanings. An employer contribution does not constitute an "exemption", and Ron Johnson knows it. I don't know about you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
