Posted on 02/08/2011 10:42:00 AM PST by Citizen X_Area 51
The president cannot simply decide who does and does not have to follow the law...
The constitutional dispute over the health-care law has thus far centered on the lawfulness of the statute itself — most dramatically when, last week in Florida, a federal judge held the act to be void. Waiting in the wings, however, is another constitutional question, one concerning not the statute, but waivers from it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Bad links.
Of course they are
This is true under a constitutional form of government. Under a dictator, not so much.
Next time, copy the Whole Link.
This is true under a constitutional form of government. Under a dictator, not so much.
Amen!
Maybe I can get a waiver against that dumb law that restricts bank robberies. I mean it’s only fair that the banks share their wealth/S
Did the judge comment on this?
From what I can see, he is doing a pretty damn good job of it. In addition,he has violated the CVonstitution more than all other Presidents combined, and no one in power appears to give a damn.
If the people,Americans, not the parasites that voted for him,do not stop him, he will not stop until the United States is totally and completely destroyed.
As the saying goes, sometimes **** happens.
Since Obamacare is unconstitutional the waivers are not unconstitutional.
(Administration’s argument in court)
I doubt the Democrats forgot to put in "except".
Does anyone know if there is such a clause?
If there is it probably is still unconstitutional. Without it there is no doubt.
The Republican elected president in 2012 should simply waive ObamaCare for the rest of America.
THEN work on repealing it.
I've been wondering how long it would take for this to become an issue. It obviates the whole "rule of law" concept.
Good question.
If there is no provision in the law for the issuing of waivers, then selective enforcement would seem to be unconsitutional.
If there is a provision in the law for the issuing of waivers, then the provision should have to specify the reasons a waiver might be granted and those reasons would have to be applied in a fair manner.
Yes, the alternative strategy to blow Obama Regulations out of the water is to use them against their allies.
This is much more effective, I don’t know why conservative groups don’t do it more. They feel it is perverse because they don’t support these laws and regulations, but it is necessary to show the public that the weight of these is suffocating to all.
I believe that precedent in the courts could force the courts to rule that New York City under the same logic of denying houses from being built near rivers or introducing wolves to the west must be returned to the wild and the city abandoned.
I agree, as it stands the “waivers” sound like a way for the Obama administration to reward its allies. You put the government in charge of something, and favoritism runs rampant.
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.