Technically, I think she’s right. As I understand what they’ve done is: the employer mandate was not delayed, the administration is just not going to enforce the penalty against companies for non-compliance.
That is absolutely correct and it will probably be the legal tactic that the regime uses to attempt to skirt the Constitution. However, it is a distinction without a difference. By arbitrarily refusing to enforce the law in 2014, the law, de facto, is not in effect until 2015. Wouldn't an employee who otherwise would be covered by the law have grounds for a lawsuit against his company for failing to provide such coverage?
I believe you are exactly right. This creates an interesting dilemma for businesses. I retired from a company with a written policy "We will not intentionally violate any laws." This is a common position for many corporations due to issues with articles of incorporation. They can't have a corporate policy that intentionally violates the law. So, How do they respond to a law that is on the books, but the President says he won't enforce for a year? I believe they have to follow it.