This nothing more than damage control over Obamacare and trying to help distance
Democrats up for re-election this November from the Obamacare mess. Will it
work? Have you listened to the ridiculous spin the Demos are putting on the
latest CBO report about Obamacare costing millions of jobs? If you believe that
spin, you will believe ANYTHING!
"The problem here is that the administration cannot do this without the
assent of Congress."This is a reasonable point. I agree that
presidents have gained power with signing statements and executive orders. And
they have been doing it for years at similar or greater frequencies.But, the questions is "Why is this different?" What makes
Obamas executive orders a bigger transgression?Why is Obama suddenly
"lawless" when he does what other presidents do?The answer
is easy. My guys executive orders are good ones. The other guys are
horrible.Be honest. We are not against executive orders. We are against
the other guys executive orders.I am for consistency. All those in
favor of ending executive orders and signing statements, stand up and be
counted.And you must remain standing, even when your guy does it.Fair enough?
Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives."Surely Mr. Obama knows
what the word "all" means. Surely he understands that the Presidency is
not part of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. Surely, Mr. Obama, a
constitutional scholar, understand the very limited duties of the Executive
Branch. If he does not understand his duty and the limits of his office, then
it is the duty of Congress to remove him from office.Not only do we
have a failed Presidency, but we also have a failed Congress. Both branches of
government are co-equal. Obama pretends that he is the only authority in
government. Congress is going along with his charade. Meanwhile, the citizens
pull their security blanket over their heads and pretend that they have a king.
Many foolish people will excuse both the President and Congress.
Foolish people have always stood by while conniving politicians robbed them of
If GWB were the President today and tried to legislate and change existing laws
with his pen and phone like Obama is doing, the headline in the news would be
something like: "Constitution Crisis from the White House as Bush renders
@JoeBlow: But, the questions is "Why is this different?" What makes
Obamas executive orders a bigger transgression?That is a good
question. The ACA is the biggest Act since the Civil Rights Act. What if Pres.
Nixon had issued executive orders to postpone the Civil Rights Act, or to
exclude Alabama from its enforcement, or to exclude Congress from its
provisions?The Executive Branch does not have line item veto, but
what Pres. Obama is doing is even worse. It really is re-writing law.I can't blame the House of Representatives for failing to impeach,
because it is certain that the Senate would fail to remove Pres. Obama from
office. We just have to wait until the next elections to see if the Republicans
can regain the Senate.
President Obama and his administration has increasingly shown the same
dictatorial traits produced and then unilaterally, as in, with no Republican
votes, through Congress in the first place.Does anyone actually
think they were the least concerned with what any dissenters actually thought or
wanted back then?How then is anyone surprised that the same people,
who rammed this through despite any and all opposition, are now flaunting legal
convention in their desperate attempt to keep it hanging around our necks?Power, control, domination. Those are the terms under which this
assault on freedom was conceived. The same is true for all the subsequent
actions to help it survive.For the sake of our freedom, I hope their
"If GWB were the President today and tried to legislate and change existing
laws"IF? Why would you say IF? He Did legislate. ALL
executive orders and signing statements do just that. So GWB DID legislate with
his pen. No difference.And yes, the left complained. And the right
defended his actions.Why does this surprise you? This is the way it
always works. Always. At least for partisans.So, unless you speak
out any time a president "legislates" then you have no room to talk._____________________________________GMLewis.You
act as if the ACA was passed by executive order. Nope, when through the proper
channels (as screwed up as they are)I am not defending Obamas
defacto "line item veto". But you would be hard pressed to not see that
in Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and on and on.It is not different.
Why is that so hard for so many to comprehend?
Actually I am beginning to appreciate the precedent that Obama is setting
regarding his health care law. He unilaterally and imperially adjusts, changes,
alters, delays, the law with no input from Congress.This precedent
will allow the next Republican president to also unilaterally rescind, revoke,
cancel, void, discontinue this law and replace it with something that will
actually work without hurting our economy.
@ JoeBlow. Please name one law GWB legislated by executive order. What you fail
to realize (or maybe you just don't want to) is that executive orders
should not, must not change or eliminate laws passed by congress, period!
Executive orders typically modify or "clarify" existing law. So, basically, a president get to define, with executive orders and signing
statements, what that law actually means or how it is to be interpreted. You
can play word games, but that is it in a nutshellYou asked for an
example. Executive Order 13233 (G HW Bush) changed thePresidential
Recording and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 (passed by congress)The gymnastics that people must go through to make "the other guy"
infinitely worse than "my guy"So, at the end of the day, is
it the number of executive orders, or the scope or is it just the signer?Me thinks it is the latter.
@JoeBlowYou misunderstand the role of President and the purpose of
the "Executive Order". The President of the United States is the head
of the Executive branch of government. You could think of him as the CEO in a
large corporation. As such, he needs the ability to run the day to day
operations of the organization. The Executive Order is his method of
accomplishing this. He can use these orders to tell the various departments of
the organization how to operate smoothly. But he doesn't have the power to
ignore the will of the Board of Directors (the voting citizens as represented by
Congress).When he uses Executive Orders to delay or alter provisions
of an existing law, he is doing the impossible. He has no power to do such a
thing. In essence, he isn't really changing the law, he is just
telling people to go ahead and break the law with impunity. The problem is, he
doesn't have the power to tell citizens it is ok to break the law. To summarize, the number of Executive Orders is really not a problem.
Its what the orders are doing that matters.
@JoeBlow - I am trying to remember a single time when a previous President
issued an executive order to put in place a law that Congress had just refused
to pass. Congress rejected the Dream Act, and then Pres. Obama issued an order
that put many of its provisions into law.I can think of lots of
occasions where the President opposed a law, but left it to Congress to fix the
problem. For example, a new amendment was passed to undue the damage of the
Prohibition amendment. If Pres. Obama had been President at the time, he would
have just issued an Executive Order to make liquor legal again. Who needs
"The administration does not have the prerogative to continually delay
particular provisions according to political calculations. To permit the
president to change laws without legal process is to become a lawless
nation." The Editorial Board is not serious, right? I doubt the courts
will weigh in on an implementation issue such as this. Countless laws have
passed but implementation schedules have been compromised many,many times over.
Say what you think but the general public still prefers President Obama over the
republicans in Congress in dealing with Health Issues. Read the polls
Can we talk sensibly for a second? The Constitution does not distinguish
between Congress' role, to legislate, and the President's role, to
execute. Surely we'd agree that deadlines are the kinds of things where a
certain amount of executive leeway is required. But let's be real.
The House of Representatives would never have passed a bill altering the
employer mandate. The only way the President could actually execute the law was
to bypass Congress in regards to relatively unimportant deadlines. It's
not like this Congress was going to help him out. 40 plus votes to repeal the
ACA do have consequences. Once Congress demonstrated how irresponsibly it
intended to behave, the President had to do what was needed to faithfully
execute the law.
@ LouieYou are correct. The public while not liking Obamacare and BO but
they dislike the GOP and Congress even more. Every poll shows that. No doubt
this election will be another mandate on the President but at the end of it, not
much will change. Obamacare will still be in place and the public will dislike
Congress. What's the definition of insanity?
I agree that Obama doesn't have a legal right to do what he is doing. But,
if he's acting illegally, what can be done about it? Are the Republicans
@JoeBlowExecutive Order 13233 (like 12667 and 13489) filled in the
blanks where the Presidential Records Act was silent. It didn't contradict
the law.Obama is violating timelines written into the ACA.That's the difference.
I don't get it. Republicans should view this self-imposed delay of a part
of Obamacare with glee - this is your chance to get Orrin Hatch's whiz-bang
idea out there! Go get 'em!But no, Republicans are upset
again, Obama's acting unconstitutionally and this is all a giant outrage...
why? Because in delaying the mandate, Obamacare might actually eventually be a
success. Enrollments in *private* insurance companies, through the
exchange, are picking up! This should be a celebration of the actual free
market functioning as it should. But the ACA enrollment increases strikes fear
into Republicans because maybe Obamacare may just survive, after all.Not only does politics make for strange bedfellows, it also causes people to
disavow positions they once championed, like Republicans and their own
healthcare reform proposals once proudly advocated as the alternative to
HillaryCare. Obamacare is now a "complete federal takeover of
healthcare", except that it isn't. What Britain has is a complete
government takeover. ACA is a complicated set of market-based approaches to try
and achieve some of the admirable parts of a single-payer system, but keep
private insurance salesmen in business.
"Can we talk sensibly for a second?"Eric, I've been
asking this for over 5 years now. I don't think the right cares anymore.
It's all about getting back into power, no matter the cost. Honesty,
integrity, offering realistic alternatives? Nah. It's all about fear and
mud slinging, the best propaganda the Koch bros and Rupert Murdock can buy!
Real Maverick,Why do you think Obamacare mandates are being
delayed?It's so Democrats remain in power.This is
pure politics all around.
@The Real Maverick:"I don't think tha the right cares
anymore." This administration has become the "Right" now. I think
you meant the "New Right" (i.e. Democrats, the Gay Right, the ACLU, etc)
as opposed to the "Old Right" (GOP, Tea-Party, etc.)My
question is, if the congress has been exempted by ecxecutive order then why
doesn't someone in congress, a staffer for a Republican congressman, for
example, file a lawsuit that their right to participate in a health exchange, as
mandated by the ACA is being violated?(I am not arguing that the
absence of a lawsuit means therefore there is no problem, because I am not.
But, if Republicans are upset, it is time to "put up" or not say
It is so funny that some people think nothing happened before the current
president was elected. Some of you kids might actually want to read
up on the executive orders and signing statements of previous presidents. (I
know you won't, but you should.) it is especially funny that people
actually claim that previous executive orders did not negate key parts of
legislation. To be clear, if people think executive orders (and
signing statements) should not be allowed that is an arguable stance, but to use
that argument to just attack THIS president? Well that is a whole other thing,
and it really shows a serious lack of understanding of history. What it shows is
who the rabid partisans are.
Dear DN Editorial Writer. You say the President cannot do what he has done.
Hello -- he has done it. And probably will get away with it.
This is by no means as clear as you suggest it is. Congress has sole
legislative power; the President has executive power. So does a deadline
absolutely have to be followed to the letter? Surely everyone understands that
there may be circumstances when a reasonable delay becomes necessary. Let's suppose that Congress passed a bill requiring the construction of a
new aircraft carrier. And let's further suppose that the shipyard building
the ship were hit by a hurricane, delaying the project for a year or so. Would
Congress need to be consulted? I would say no; I would say that the power to
execute the bill includes reasonable allowances for exigencies and unforeseen
circumstances, as long as the will of Congress is ultimately obeyed.
That's all that's going on here. Also, 40 plus votes to rescind
the ACA have consequences, clearly sending the message that the House of
Representatives has no interest in governing responsibly; that their entire
focus is on temper tantrums and symbolic votes. But that's another subject
President Obama is figuring that Congress and public opinion will be in such a
turmoil, that he can get away with it.Coupled with the disingenuous part about
keeping your current health insurance, it's all pretty cynical. But,
America, you got what you wanted at the polls. We complain about dirty politics,
but, we enable it.Including the media, in general.