Posted on 12/02/2013 5:03:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Since being signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has been stripped, changed and full of devastating consequences for the American economy and American families. It's clear by now that the White House and Democrats who voted for Obamacare, lied to millions of Americans when they said, "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period." We not only saw President Obama admit during a healthcare summit in early 2010 (before signing Obamacare) "that between eight million and nine million people may very well lose the coverage that they have, because of this...And I don’t think that you can answer the question, in the positive, to say that people will be able to maintain their coverage, people will be able to see the doctors they want in the kind of bill that you’re proposing."
Republican Whip Eric Cantor Speaks With President Barack Obama At White House Health Care Summit
Then in September of 2010, every single Senate Democrat voted against a resolution that would allow people to keep their healthcare plans.
In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.
Three years later in November 2013, we saw Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admit under oath in front of Congress that end-to-end security testing was not done on Healthcare.gov before it was launched on October 1, putting the personal information of Americans at risk and making them vulnerable to fraud and identity theft.
As a result of all of this and the trashing of the U.S. constitution in the process, Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, New York. M. Northrop Buechner is practically making the case for President Obama's impeachment in Forbes:
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.
The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Impeachment isn't going to happen with a divided Congress, but that doesn't mean there isn't a solid case for it.
There are a lot of freaking books out there. To which are you referring?
That’s a much stronger assertion than just your opinion.
The consequences, though, are this - and liberals should be asked to defend it -
Obama can do WHATEVER he wants to do without consequences (I would include religious genocide it the “whatever”)
- is that the kind of power a president should have?
I stand corrected :^
Good point.
Robamaney was a pi$$ poor candidate.
Almost as bad as McInsane in 20018.
That is not to say the dems do not engage in voter fraud as a matter of course, but the rebublicrats should at LEAST offer a viable candidate before worrying about whether a few thousand, or even a few hundred-thousand, fraudulent votes cost them an election.
...or even, McInsane in 2008...
I vaguely recall Romney claiming he would cut some taxes, drill some oil and make some completely unspecified spending cuts. And maybe make some changes to medicare that wouldnt start until 2022.
He and Ryan said they would let congress figure out what to cut in spending AFTER he took office.
I guess Obama's lies sounded better to swing state voters than Romney's lies did.
The Constitution and the Federalist papers. What good is it to impeach without a conviction? Nothing. Nada.
I agree it failed, but now we are learning it had lots of help. Namely IRS.
Don't forget the LSM.
Okay.
I’ve never thought of the U.S. Constitution as a book, though.
I was responding to
There is a very traditional, popular and fully legal process for going about this that took place last November, it was called the election and it failed
And I responded.....Or was it stolen....
You keep regurgitating Romney/Ryan.....
Yes, we know about them.
We know that less votes were tallied for Romney than were for McCain previously.
Notice I’m not saying less people voted against Obama...
could be, could be just that fewer were tallied.
And Obama promising voters that Obamacare would let them keep their doctors, when it was not true.
But over on the Romney side things were not well at all.
I mean Rush, Rove, Romney campaign (like that windbag Sununu) all claimed they were sure that it was looking like a big win for Romney.
Broken compass leads to wrong direction.
If you were to hand my wallet to a thief by accident then tell me it was stolen from you by him I would have trouble with that explaination.
Mittens was part of their plan. Once again we let the LSM & the RATS pick our candidate.
It was over before it ever started.
They cheated, BIG TIME & got completely away with it. Not just the IRS, remember the phony jobs report it all was part of the plan. And it worked. Nixon must be roliing like a top in his grave.
They think they can get away with the obama-don't care. It is looking more and more like they will too.
......I agree with you BUT we need to start honing and perfecting and polishing the case against the sob so that we can be READY to shout it
from the mountain tops on the hour every hour every single day between now and the election. Then maybe we can drag a few LIV’s on board because to get Obama a cell in Leavenworth were going to need to educate a few million LIV’s!
In the meantime PRAY, this ship is sinking fast with more damage being done daily.
If it isn’t going to happen, then why write about it? Even if the gop had control of both houses of Congress, the chance of an impeachment of dear leader is nil. Assuming that the gop had the intestinal fortitude to impeach, which it does not, why would the gop even want to? The gop is quite happy to see the scope and breadth of government expanded. The gop is quite happy to see the executive wield extra legal powers.
I cant argue with any of that.
On Obamacare, Obama doesnt care if 2014 is another 2010 bloodbath as much as a he cares that Obamacare go forward.
We all know that once a large # of people get subsidized or free Obamacare, then trying to take it away will be politically near impossible.
The GOP has been given a rare opportunity now to trot out endless numbers of victims of Obamacare, a game that Desm always play expertly, and they need to not let up.
I don't disagree, but the Republicans must make an articulate and cogent case against him before uttering the word "impeachment" in the House of Representatives. And while they don't have to convince everyone, they must at least cause people to raise their eyebrows, and maybe even get a few lime-minded Democrats on their side. Otherwise, the GOP looks petty.
I say this, not in defense of Obama, but because I recognize that impreachment is more a political thing than a legal one. One need only look back as far as Bill Clinton, to see that. People wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt--remember, "it's not really an impeachable offense if the economy's doing great, right?" What sort of benefit would Obama get?
You can bet that Obama's defenders will argue and mince words, using logic like, "he had to bend the law, in order to enforce the law!" Or, "he's using effective project management skills to adjust the enforcement timing." And until the Republicans can get more that Fox News to report a story accurately, or until they get film of Obama in a hot tub with a 14 year-old boy, they're only going to look silly. If they couldn't make the events in Benghazi stick, they're not going to make "failure to faithfully execute laws" to stick.
The chances are good the election was stolen by massive fraud, so add one more impeachable charge to the pile.
No one has the balls to even try
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.