Not sure I agree.
Set aside, for this analysis, that the whole PPACA is unconstitutional (it is).
The "law" has hundreds and hundreds of discretionary elements assigned to the Secretary of HHS, who serves under the President. I do not know for a fact that any of the "changes" are not, per the "law", subject to executive discretion.
Do you?
There are fixed dates in the law. These are not mere suggestions, or gentle hints. They are not subject to executive modification.
Obama is failing to faithfully execute the laws and therefore is violating his oath of office.
This is the most fundamental impeachable offense.
Do you?
No. In fact, no one does.
And that's the problem with the legislative branch passing a law with "hundreds and hundreds of discretionary elements assigned" to the executive branch. It appears they actually DID need to 'pass it in order to find out what is in it' -- or at any rate, to find out HOW 'what is in it' would be implemented and enforced.
I think multi-thousand-page laws which include hundreds and hundreds of discretionary elements actually invite violations of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and that such violations are practically inevitable given the [current] scope of, and political nature of, our federal government.
Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment which limits the total number of words in any new law to no more than were included in the original constitution, as it was ratified in 1789?
;-)