Quantcast

Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: ACA delay sign of poor management’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 15 2013 9:42 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
shadow01
,

Ah, but you fail to mention that our dear two faced president already picks and chooses which laws of the United States he enforces. He has already unilaterally decided which immigration statutes shall be enforced under his administration (none). Somewhere I got the impression he was supposed to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, not ignore it.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The size of the bill alone should have told anyone smart enough to use any logic that NO ONE in government could possibly know the details hidden inside Obamacare. Something is very wrong when it takes over 2,000 pages to cover up the fact that the federal government is not authorized by the people to force us to participate in health insurance, nor to tax us for that insurance. The duties of the federal government are listed in Article 1, Section 8. Personal welfare is not on that list. Health care is not on that list. Insurance is not on that list. Every person elected to Congress is required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution (Article VI). Not a single Republican was willing to violate his oath to pass legislation that was not authorized by the Constitution.

It's time to throw out Obamacare entirely. It's time to leave to the States and to the People every duty that the people have not explicitly delegated to the federal government. It's time to strip all federal officers of their self-proclaimed authority and require them to obey the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

And the right would be saying he exact same thing had it been applied at the same time.

It's really a catch 22. The right is going to complain no matter what happens.

The most telling thig to me is that the ACA was perfectly fine for the GOP in the 90s. However, now it isn't because the GOP has been hijacked by radicals.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Who would've ever guessed that having half the Congress doing whatever they can to delay and obstruct the plan from being implemented while blocking funding for said implementation results in the plan not being fully implemented by its' scheduled time?

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Delay, sign of poor management?

Not at all.

Republicans have perfected the art of management by delay, obstruction etc..

The Democratic Party dabbles in the art...

however, Republicans clearly have the patent.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Maverick "...perfectly fine for the GOP in the 90s..."

Maybe they didn't mind it in the 1990's, but in the 2000's, Obamacare's fundamental idea was tested in Massachusetts, and it didn't work.

@ atl134 "...delay.. ..obstruct.. ..blocking..."

Obamacare was signed into law in March of 2010. It ran 2700 pages, and many of its problems were foreseeable even then. In fact, they were foreseen. We told you at the time that it was complicated and unworkable, and that it would lead to unintended consequences. Nancy Pelosi wanted us to pass it anyway, so we could find out what was in it. What we found was a big mess.

Now its proponents offer weak excuses and try to shift the blame, but the fact is, it was a disaster from the outset.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

When you rush a bill through congress on political grounds and without a thoughtful review, this is what happens. Blaming the opposition for not reviving a poorly crafted bill is adding insult to injury.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@shadow01:
" Somewhere I got the impression he was supposed to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, not ignore it."

That's right, he vowed to do so in his oath of office. Apparently, it meant nothing to him.

In addition, he is supposed to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' (Article 2.3). In that regard, he is the poorest of presidents that we've seen in a long time. He should be impeached.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

Can anything be done to force the administration to implement the law as it was passed? Does the president have the constitutional authority to rewrite the law even if he has concerns about it? Is there some way the supreme court can put this on the front burner and get our president to act according to the constitution he swore to uphold?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

@ wrz

Why should Obama be impeached?

Why? Because a bill was passed before anyone in congress really understood it all? Boy, then you must have really hated the Patriot Act. How many times did you demand Bush's impeachment.

Repubs these days cry impeachment over ever little thing yet ignore their own sins. Iran contra anyone?

What about the patriot act? The illegal war in which we were all lied to? The insane deficits created from 2000-08? Medicare part d? Handing out money to brazil to drill oil? And the bank bailouts? Where in the constitution is it defined where the president can bail out banks?

Sorry wrz, but I had to suffer through 8 years of Bush. It's only fair that you now deal with 8 years of Obama.

The funny thing is, people like you have been calling for obama's head since even before he was even inaugurated! Questioning his birh certificate, upbringing, religion, education, etc. when did bush or mitt ever have to show their birth certificates?

The hypocrisy of the right is insane! Sorry folks, I had to deal with 8 years of Bush. It's only fair that you do the same with Obama!

Mr. Bean
Pheonix, AZ

@JSB:
"Can anything be done to force the administration to implement the law as it was passed?"

Congress can threaten impeachment... But that would require the approval of the Senate, which won't happen because it's controlled by Obama's friends, the Democrats. Then there is the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, the chief law enforcement of the nation. But he won't do anything since he and his boss are buddies not to mention that they are both Afircan-American.

"Does the president have the constitutional authority to rewrite the law even if he has concerns about it?"

No. He took an oath of office when he was installed that he would uphold the US Constitution... which says the president will 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' as wrz tells us. This means all the laws. Not just the ones he agrees with.

"Is there some way the supreme court can put this on the front burner and get our president to act according to the constitution he swore to uphold?"

Nope. The Supreme Court is out of this picture.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Maverick
Repubs learn from the mistakes of MA’s system, which all the libs like to say was the basis for Obamacare – dems just repeat and compound those mistakes. Oh, and did you see how MA’s law is creating waiting lists and did NOT increase access to health care?

And it’s funny, people like you were calling for bush’s head before he was even inaugurated.

tell me, is 43% a majority yet?

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@The Real Maverick:
"Why should Obama be impeached?"

Because he failed to enforce the (immigration) law required by the US Constitution. He also violated the law. How? By giving amnesty to a certain group of illegal immigrants contrary to immigration laws passed by Congress.

"What about the patriot act?"

You mean the Patriot Act passed by the US Congress?

"The illegal war in which we were all lied to?"

What illegal war? You mean the ones authorized by the US Congress, that august body who's duty is to declare war?

"The insane deficits created from 2000-08?"

You mean the deficits created by an act of the US Congress.

"Medicare part d?"

You mean the Medicare D law passed by the US Congress?

"Where in the constitution is it defined where the president can bail out banks?"

Article 1.8.

"The funny thing is, people like you have been calling for obama's head ... Questioning his birth certificate..."

We wanted to see his college application and papers... where he registered for college as a foreign student.

"...when did bush or mitt ever have to show their birth certificates??

Their parents are citizens.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments