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.
And if the POTUS does change it, Congress has the authority to change it back. Maybe Congress could stop whining and start working? Just a thought.
He's not supposed to change it so the rest is moot. I agree with you about Congress. Perhaps the President should do the same. There's plenty of whining to go around. Just a thought.
Actually thats not so straightforward. Historically presidents and governmental agencies have had wide latitude in HOW they execute a law. And thats been upheld by courts.
Cite me an instance where a president or agency has been effectively change the plain language of the law, without going through Congress, as the admin did with by deciding to allow the federal exchange to provide subsidies?
From the Galen link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen Institute
3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012)
He's not supposed to change it so the rest is moot.
What he's supposed to do is moot. What matters is what he does.
Quote:
I agree with you about Congress. Perhaps the President should do the same.
Huh? The Republicans have been complaining that Obama is doing too much. Now, you're suggesting he "get to work?" That's quite the contradiction you have there.
Quote:
There's plenty of whining to go around. Just a thought.
What he's supposed to do is moot. What matters is what he does?
...yes, that's true, and it should matter to all of us when what he does is in violation of the Constitution. Implied in your post is an understanding that what he's doing is in contradiction to what he's supposed to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Huh? The Republicans have been complaining that Obama is doing too much. Now, you're suggesting he "get to work?" That's quite the contradiction you have there.?
Not all issues are the same. For the most part, in my opinion, he has been absent. On the issue of Obamacare, there is a contradiction. He has not done what he should do which is lead Congress to make changes where he sees them as necessary which has resulted in his doing more than his constitutional powers allow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Yep. Point?
Point is they are all whining so you waste your time focusing on those with a particular letter behind their name. The system is not working and we should recognize that we're being played by those whining whether it's someone with an R or a D. Not doing so, allows it to continue.
Here's a handy list of 42 changes that have been made since Obamacare was signed in March 2010. At least 24 of them were made unilaterally by Pres. Obama, some in contravention of the statutory language. Two came at the hands of the courts, and the rest were passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (what a concept!). Here are selected examples:
Recall that the last one was a hardship provision intended to exempt people from fines under conditions of calamity such as fire, flood, earthquake etc. This change in essence added Obamacare itself to the list of calamities.
You have to remember they had to pass it to know what was in it
When someone says, "It's settled law," they are referring to Republican attempts to repeal the law. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed the law cannot be changed.
Um, no. I'm not going to go digging through hundreds of threads from years ago to prove it, but there were MANY changes that Republicans wanted to make, but they were told to pound sand, because... "It's settled law. Get over it."
ETA: Actually, your argument doesn't even make any sense. Whether or not a law is ambiguous or needs changes is irrelevant in the context of repeal. If the leftist/Democrat response to "Let's repeal the law" is "It's settled law," then leftists/Democrats don't understand the process or what repealing a law actually is, because what the Supreme Court has to say about a law is meaningless in the face of repeal.
Um, no. I'm not going to go digging through hundreds of threads from years ago to prove it, but there were MANY changes that Republicans wanted to make, but they were told to pound sand, because... "It's settled law. Get over it."
A lot like the "settled science" of global warming.
Except there is no such thing as "settled science", every scientific theory ever devised is STILL up for debate.
Actually thats not so straightforward. Historically presidents and governmental agencies have had wide latitude in HOW they execute a law. And thats been upheld by courts.
" Historically presidents and governmental agencies have had wide latitude in HOW they execute a law."
Granted but, that is NOT what O has done in all cases.
If a law has a SPECIFIC date in it, that date has be honored, etc.
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.
