Posted on 01/26/2017 11:21:45 AM PST by maddog55
Within four hours of becoming president of the United States, Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to limit immediately the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) in ways that are revolutionary.
With the stroke of a pen, the president assaulted the heart of the law that was the domestic centerpiece of his predecessor’s administration. How did this happen? How can a U.S. president, who took an oath to enforce the laws faithfully, gut one of them merely because he disagrees with it?
Here is the back story.
When ObamaCare went through Congress in 2010, all Democrats in Congress supported it and all congressional Republicans were opposed. The crux of their disagreement was the law’s command that everyone in the United States obtain and maintain health insurance -- a command that has come to be known as “the individual mandate.”
Republicans argued that Congress was without the authority to compel people to enter the marketplace by purchasing a product -- that such decisions should be freely made by individuals and that that freedom was protected from governmental interference by the Constitution. Democrats argued that the commerce clause of the Constitution, which permits Congress to regulate commerce among the states, also permits it to compel commercial activity on the part of individuals who make up a highly regulated component of interstate commerce.
To ensure compliance with the individual mandate, the law provided that the IRS would collect the fair market value of a bare-bones insurance policy from those who did not obtain and maintain one. The government would then take that money and purchase a health insurance policy for that individual who rejected the law’s command.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Kick out the supports one by one, then the whole flimsy structure begins its own self-destruction. The fallout can be a real problem, though. Stand well back and try not to breathe in the dust.
When demolition is complete, we may then begin to construct something worthy of the name.
Excellent article by Judge Napolitano.
Oh man, that’s funny!
“How can a U.S. president, who took an oath to enforce the laws faithfully, gut one of them merely because he disagrees with it? “
Simple: He is following the law and we demand that he follow his convictions too.
What about the revolutionary act Obama committed when he ordered bureaucrats to not enforce immigration law? This writer is very deceptive or has a memory problem.
Keep your eye on the prize: American citizens first!! Liberty!!
Obama oppressed freedom. Trump is bringing it back.
Nice headscarf she is wearing. Hey Linda, what happens if a woman is raped over there? What happens if she likes a guy and wants to go to a movie with him? What happens if she likes a girl and wants to marry her?
Oh yeah, how do they plan on getting to the movies in the first place?
“... he ordered a truly revolutionary act, the likes of which I have never seen
in the 45 years I have studied and monitored the government’s laws and its administration of them ...”
-
Not true.
All who supported it were Democrats, but not all Democrats supported it.
Support was partisan; opposition was bipartisan.
You go for a loan under Islamic law that has the interest already baked in it.
Yes!!
MAGAriffic!
Hey, it doesn’t fit, but it sounds so right.
Good article. I like Judge Napolitano—blunt and to the point.
Yep, they call it ‘fees’.
Good for Tucker, nailing him down on the fact that people are being forced to pay for coverage for things they will never need. As an individual, as compared to a group coverage, why should I have to pay for maternity, aids, drug rehab, gender change, etc., things I will never need?
They charge a fee - they just don’t call it “interest.”
The IRS has no authority to come after you for the ACA penalty(s). They can only take it out of any refund you may have coming. No collections, no garnishment and no harassment.
I didn’t notice that the writer was Judge Napolitano, but I still think Obama was revolutionary in not abiding by the law also. The difference is Obama was not looking out for American interests and Trump is.
This is fun.
5.56mm
Obama was “revolutionary” in the sense of leftist revolution, ie, Marxism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism. He was anti-constitution, anti-freemarket, anti-America, anti-God, anti-freedom. Obama’s revolution tried to destroy individual liberty, Trump’s revolution is restoring it. Our Founders were revolutionary, too, and completely opposite to Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.