Did Obama Flout the Law by Delaying Obamacare?

The Fiscal Times ^ | August 15, 2013 | Edward Morrissey

[PJ-Comix]

The Obama administration suffered a telling and potentially far-reaching defeat in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week on the need for the executive branch to abide by statutory law. While the issue at the center of the case involved an old and somewhat arcane controversy over nuclear waste, the implications may well alter the political calculus on immigration, drug policy and especially the rollout of Obamacare.

THE BACKGROUND

The appellate court ruled on a lawsuit arising over the White House’s refusal to complete the certification of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a nuclear-waste site.  Yucca Mountain has been a political football ever since Congress and the Bush administration chose the site in 2002 to store nuclear waste.  

[PJ-Comix]

This ruling demolishes the strategy for the White House to delay the political impact of employer mandates and out-of-pocket caps on insurers until after the 2014 midterm elections. Those mandates were written into statute by Congress and signed by President Obama himself. Thanks to the manner in which the White House won its Supreme Court battle over Obamacare, these mandates are not prosecutions but taxes, enforced by the IRS. The law requires employers to report on health-insurance status each month, and it requires insurers to cover out-of-pocket expenses after a certain level.

The Obama administration cannot simply declare those mandates suspended on their own, as they have attempted to do over the past few weeks, no more than they can stall on Yucca Mountain indefinitely. The Department of Health and Human Services can only ignore these statutes, according to Aiken County, if the President finds them to be unconstitutional. That would be a neat trick, considering that the Obama administration fought for years to establish the constitutionality of the mandates. Otherwise, as the appeals court states, the executive branch has to work with the legislative branch to amend statutes with which they prefer not to comply, or follow the law.

[Cowboy Bob]

Yes.

Next question?

[Travis McGee]

[maddog55]

The fact this idiot actually has to ask that question shows how pathetic his reporting is.

[PJ-Comix]

Ed Morrissey is NOT a reporter. He is the editor, publisher of Hot Air. The question was rhetorical since he knows the answer.

[PGalt]

What law? POS totalitarians can FORCE you to do something and they can do anything they want. What law?

FUBO
FUCONgress
FUUSSC

[PaleoBob]

To me, it’s too bad that courts will rule against the POTUS arbitrarily delaying tax laws like Obamacare.

I’ve never heard of a better national issue than a presidential candidate promising to delay the income tax for 4 years.

If politics is all about addition (what you can GIVE people) then the ability to give them ALL their tax money back is the ultimate winner.

[bert]

The writer thinks he knows what he is talking about, but does not.

The court has no enforcement capability ant the
treacherous tyrants will merely ignore the ruling.

There is no recourse against them.

Until a death factor is introduced into the law enforcement equation, laws will continue to be ignored

[PaleoBob]

Ed Morrissey is NOT a reporter. He is the editor, publisher of Hot Air. The question was rhetorical since he knows the answer.

---

I doubt anyone really knows the answer because the answer is held by appellate court judges who are likely to rule in favor of them that brought them. Logic? Constitutionality? Fuhgetaboutit.

[Gaffer]

Yep, doesn’t take a genius to figure out that when an enacted law, signed by the President, is in force, he has no authority to delay NAMED dates in that legislation, period. It isn’t rocket science.

He no doubt is relying on some weasel lawyer/advisor’s interpretation of the myriad number of “the HHS Secretary at his discretions.....” within this legislation that apparently no one read - even the Supreme Court.

This law is the most egregious abuse of power, personal rights and freedom that has ever literally attacked this country, and it is not even fully implemented. It provides the framework for the Socialist Final Solution [see Germany circa 1939-1945], and it will be implemented by rabid ideologues from all walks of American life.

We are infested with traitors, ruled by a tyrant who is supported by functionaries who want only to control others’ lives for their personal pleasure. Perversion of our freedoms like this won’t stop; they will rather escalate to a final absurdity that is irreconcilable - just like sexual perversion in homosexuals and pedophiles.

[Flintlock]

Whaaaaat?!?!?

Our MuzziePOTUS has gotta live by THE LAW???????

Run for yer lives IT’S THE END OF THE WOIILD!!!!

[sr4402]

Any Business that believes Obama on the Employer Mandate delay is foolish. It is the AHCA act (Obamacare) as written and signed into law that counts.

Obama can tweet all he wants about delays, but it is the law, as written, that can be enforced. So any business or business person that believes Obama that the Employer Mandate is delayed - is foolish.

[Mustangman]

Speaking of Obamacare, I find it ironic that the GOP House is struggling over whether to defund Obamacare. The fact is, Obama (through executive Fiat) has already defunded Obamacare by delaying all the income generating mandates. Obama is serving the desert, but not the vegetables. What the GOP really should be debating is funding it in spite of all the income generating mandates being delayed for a year. Why spokespeople for the House can’t seem to get this message out is beyong frustrating. Say it ith me: OBAMA HAS ALREADT DEFUNDED OBAMACARE—by Obama himself!!

My strategy going forward would be to agree to raise the debt ceiling on condition that 1) Obamacare is implemented as written and according to law (sorry—it is the law) or 2) The entire law is delayed for one year via an act of Congress and a Presidential signature. This would force Obama to either embrace the entire law with all of its pain or reject the entire law for one year and admit it’s a mess. If he refuses to do either, the debt ceiling doesn’t get increased...which will be on Obama.

[MestaMachine]

I keep waiting for THE lightning strike. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting. It HAS to come one of these days,

[bert]

To destroy Obamacare, one mus first destroy Obama.

[yldstrk]

duh

[PJ-Comix]

Say it ith me: OBAMA HAS ALREADT DEFUNDED OBAMACARE—by Obama himself!!

My strategy going forward would be to agree to raise the debt ceiling on condition that 1) Obamacare is implemented as written and according to law (sorry—it is the law) or 2) The entire law is delayed for one year via an act of Congress and a Presidential signature. This would force Obama to either embrace the entire law with all of its pain or reject the entire law for one year and admit it’s a mess. If he refuses to do either, the debt ceiling doesn’t get increased...which will be on Obama.

And this is why I have POSTED that the best way to kill ObamaCare is to vote to fund it but only if the entire law is enforced including the employer mandate date written into the law.

[bert]

There is no way to enforce the enforcement provision you suggest.

The way to cure Obmacare is to get rid of Obama

[Gadsden1st]

Would employees have “standing” to sue their companies if the company did not follow the law and instead listened to Obama and acted on his exceptions to following the law as passed.

Even if it was not in their direct interest to force the entire law to be applied, it could force the issue of Obama trying to enact it a part at a time.

Just asking, since it seems that we, as citizens, lack “standing” to do anything.

[bmwcyle]

Yes, it is just another day at the White House killing the Constitution.