Michael F. Cannon lecture “King v. Burwell: Can the President Rewrite the ACA Without Congress?”

He’s gonna, and there ain’t a majority in Congress with a spine to stop him.

No, but he has, and he will again, through the agencies the bill established and their byzantine and ever shifting arcturian landscape of rules.

“arcturian”

I had to look that one up. Wow.

His whole presidency is made up of doing things he’s not Constitutionally allowed to do.

It takes money to fund ACA

That would end the GOP

Can he?
Of course.
Legally?
Of course NOT.
.
Will Congress do their sworn duty?
Probably not.
.
Next question...

He has a pen and a phone and doesn’t need no stinkin congress.

Emperor Obama ... Let it be written let it be done

Thank you for referencing that article Ray76. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

This is another article which points the finger at Obama concerning unconstitutional Obamacare but overlooks the following imo. If the 17th Amendment (17A) had not been ratified then a state legislature-controlled Senate would probably have not only killed the bill that established unconstitutional Obamacare, but the Senate would also probably have removed House-impeached Obama from office by now.

After all, even after three election cycles low-information voters have been slow to wise up to lawless Obama’s criminal arrogance and consequently still haven’t elected a 2/3 conservative Senate majority needed to remove Obama from office.

In fact, if 17A had never been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time, state sovereignty-respecting justices finding Obamacare unconstitutional as evidenced by the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions. These opinions clarifiy that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.

Please note in particular that the current controversy about the Obamacare insurance mandate is actually not controversial at all imo. This is evidenced by the fourth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia (Paul). The Paul excerpt indicates that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that insurance policies are contracts, not commerce, Congress therefore having no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance policies, regardless if such policies are negotiated across state borders.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

In fact, note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, corrupt justices and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Getting back to the 17th Amendment, the problem is the following. Low-information voters go home after voting for their favorite senators and watch football, clueless to the idea that their corrupt senators are actually helping the corrupt House to pass constitutionally indefensible House appropriations bills.

Obamacare is a great example of such a bill because the popularly elected Senate lead by Harry Reid wrongly ignored that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purporses as evidenced the excerpts above.

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.

Found this when I looked up the 17th:

“Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states.”

Do you think state legislatures would be any less corruptible than the masses?

"Do you think state legislatures would be any less corruptible than the masses?"

It’s easier for the states to make their own recall laws to get bad-apple lawmakers out of office than it is to amend the Constitution to recall corrupt federal lawmakers.