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.
Liberals, (or left leaning folks) explain to me how it was constitutional for President Obama to bypass congress and appropriate money to the insurance companies by executive order to prop up the ACA?
All President Trump is doing is canceling that executive order with his own executive order.
If President Obama had gotten the money the correct way, then President Trump could not undo it so easily as it would have been appropriated fair and square. He would have to go through congress as well.
But alas, he did not... so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Last edited by Texas Minded; 10-15-2017 at 08:35 AM..
Liberals, (or left leaning folks) explain to me how it was constitutional for President Obama to bypass congress and appropriate money to the insurance companies by executive order to prop up the ACA?
All President Trump is doing is canceling that executive order with his own executive order.
If President Obama had gotten the money the correct way, then Trump could not undo it so easily as it would have been appropriated fair and square. Trump would have to go through congress to as well.
But alas, he did not... so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The problem with trumps move is he is not providing any Solution. It is easy to say a building is on the verge of collapse it is another thi8ng to knock it down without any real replacement for it. The promise was Repeal AND Replace, what was suggested as a Replacement is not acceptable to even Party members. Demolition without rebuilding is not true leadership and not good for the Nation.
The problem with trumps move is he is not providing any Solution. It is easy to say a building is on the verge of collapse it is another thi8ng to knock it down without any real replacement for it. The promise was Repeal AND Replace, what was suggested as a Replacement is not acceptable to even Party members. Demolition without rebuilding is not true leadership and not good for the Nation.
Two Wrongs do not equate to a Right, that clear enough for ya?
That's about as dumb as your first response.
Trump asked congress to provide a solution. Then you come along and complain that Trump didn't offer a solution.
Trump has also asked congress to provide a solution (or fix) to the Iran deal. That's the way it should be done.
Liberals, (or left leaning folks) explain to me how it was constitutional for President Obama to bypass congress and appropriate money to the insurance companies by executive order to prop up the ACA?
All President Trump is doing is canceling that executive order with his own executive order.
If President Obama had gotten the money the correct way, then President Trump could not undo it so easily as it would have been appropriated fair and square. He would have to go through congress as well.
But alas, he did not... so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes, I agree. Someone needs to finally answer that question directly. How was it legal for President Obama to pass money directly to insurance companies to offset premiums for lower middle class recipients for their premiums.
OK. Here's your direct answer.
The president.........any president, can sign any executive order he chooses to. He has that power to do so, just like a president can grant a pardon or amnesty to anybody he chooses to.
The order is deemed legal by virtue that the president signed it and the constitution gives him the authority to do so.
Until such a time as a Federal judge rules the order illegal, the order is legal by virtue of the constitutional powers granted to the president. Any president.
FYI: no court ruled on President Obama's executive order concerning the insurance subsidies. I admit that if a court had ruled, there was at least a 50-50 chance that the EO would have been found unconstitutional. But until or unless a court rules on the EO, the president's EO is legal by definition.
Every thread by the Trumpsters on the subject starts with the premise that the order was illegal on it's face but this is just their partisan opinion erroneously stated as facts of the discussion. The Obama executive order concerning subsidies has never been challenged in court and ruled on by any federal judge, therefor, the president's EO is legal according to the powers granted to him by the constitution.
Let's see you dance around that answer with a 2 step cha cha.
Yes, I agree. Someone needs to finally answer that question directly. How was it legal for President Obama to pass money directly to insurance companies to offset premiums for lower middle class recipients for their premiums.
OK. Here's your direct answer.
The president.........any president, can sign any executive order he chooses to. He has that power to do so, just like a president can grant a pardon or amnesty to anybody he chooses to.
The order is deemed legal by virtue that the president signed it and the constitution gives him the authority to do so.
Until such a time as a Federal judge rules the order illegal, the order is legal by virtue of the constitutional powers granted to the president. Any president.
FYI: no court ruled on President Obama's executive order concerning the insurance subsidies. I admit that if a court had ruled, there was at least a 50-50 chance that the EO would have been found unconstitutional. But until or unless a court rules on the EO, the president's EO is legal by definition.
Every thread by the Trumpsters on the subject starts with the premise that the order was illegal on it's face but this is just their partisan opinion erroneously stated as facts of the discussion. The Obama executive order concerning subsidies has never been challenged in court and ruled on by any federal judge, therefor, the president's EO is legal according to the powers granted to him by the constitution.
Let's see you dance around that answer with a 2 step cha cha.
"House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.
On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.
The judge's ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.
But the 38-page opinion highlights the repeated complaint from Republicans that Obama and his administration have ignored constitutional limits on their authority.
The Constitution says "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," Collyer noted, but the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing health coverage.
"Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution," she wrote. "Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one."
House Speaker Paul Ryan called the ruling “a historic win for the Constitution and the American people. The court ruled that the administration overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people’s representatives.”
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration remained confident it will prevail in the end.
“This suit represents the first time in our nation’s history that Congress has been permitted to sue the executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute,” he told reporters. “It’s unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight that they keep losing."
Two years ago, House Republicans sued Obama under then-Speaker John Boehner and claimed the president had violated the law by delaying enforcement of several provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
But lawyers later focused on the reimbursements for health insurers that had received little attention before. They said these payments would come to $175 billion over a decade.
The healthcare law says insurers who enroll eligible, low-income Americans shall cover the costs of their deductibles and co-payments, but promises the federal government “shall make periodic and timely payments” to cover those costs.
The law is not entirely clear on where this money will come from, however.
At first, the administration asked Congress for an appropriation to cover these costs.
But when that request went nowhere in Congress, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services said they could continue to pay these required reimbursements.
They said payments were like “other appropriate entitlements like Medicaid” that are covered by permanent federal funds and not subject to an annual appropriation.
Judge Collyer called that claim a “most curious and convoluted argument whose mother was undoubtedly necessity.” "
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.
