Legal Scholar: Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional

[g5000]

WelfareQueen, I am going to quote one sentence from the Opening Post link. I am going to bold, enlarge, italicize, and underline one particular word in that sentence to demonstrate the difference between a hypothetical and a statement of fact.

Your topic title is a statement of fact.

Here is a hypothetical: “If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.”

 

[g5000]

WelfareQueen, there is also a difference between a "legal scholar" and a lawyer.

David Corbin, a professor of politics at King’s College in New York, told TheBlaze.

His degrees are in political science: http://www.tkc.edu/academics/faculty/display.asp?id=52

He's a political scholar, not a legal one.

 

[deltex1]

This latest move by Obama is so sad and pathetic, as well as being transparently political and unconstitutional. His latest move to try to fix one of his many previous lies sinks him to a new low. Here is a key quote from a legal scholar. Even Howard Dean is questioning the legality of the move. Poor, poor Obummer.


“The president certainly has some regulatory and prosecutorial discretion in how he executes the law, but he has no legislative power,” Corbin said. “If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.”

Though the Constitution is clear that “all legislative powers” belong to Congress, Corbin said it sometimes comes down to how those in power choose to “interpret” the law.

“I’m not sure he will be able to get away with it in this case because I think people are going to understand that if you are going to remove the law of any legal standing by having the enforcement mechanisms or the penalties stripped out, then what is the law?”
the professor added.


Here is the link to the full article. Obama to Alter Parameters of Obamacare Yet Again ? Does He Have the Authority to Unilaterally Change Laws Passed by Congress? | TheBlaze.com

That can't be!..I read obama is a constitutional scholar all by hissef.

 

[g5000]

This latest move by Obama is so sad and pathetic, as well as being transparently political and unconstitutional. His latest move to try to fix one of his many previous lies sinks him to a new low. Here is a key quote from a legal scholar. Even Howard Dean is questioning the legality of the move. Poor, poor Obummer.


“The president certainly has some regulatory and prosecutorial discretion in how he executes the law, but he has no legislative power,” Corbin said. “If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.”

Though the Constitution is clear that “all legislative powers” belong to Congress, Corbin said it sometimes comes down to how those in power choose to “interpret” the law.

“I’m not sure he will be able to get away with it in this case because I think people are going to understand that if you are going to remove the law of any legal standing by having the enforcement mechanisms or the penalties stripped out, then what is the law?”
the professor added.


Here is the link to the full article. Obama to Alter Parameters of Obamacare Yet Again ? Does He Have the Authority to Unilaterally Change Laws Passed by Congress? | TheBlaze.com

That can't be!..I read obama is a constitutional scholar all by hissef.

Obama is a lawyer. A graduate of Harvard Law, the toughest school in America.

The Blaze's source is a political scientist at a second tier Liberal Arts college.

 

[whitehall]

It doesn't take a doctorate in law to understand that the president does not have the authority to change a law after he signed the bill into law. The danger comes when the media we used to trust to keep the system in line decides to become an arm of the administration and president Hussein becomes king Hussein.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Here is a hypothetical: “If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.”

Yes of course. He is just executing, not making.

 

[g5000]

It doesn't take a doctorate in law to understand that the president does not have the authority to change a law after he signed the bill into law.

You'll have to show where he actually changed the law then. You might want to...you know...actually read it first. Then show us which part he changed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It doesn't take a doctorate in law to understand that the president does not have the authority to change a law after he signed the bill into law.

You'll have to show where he actually changed the law then. You might want to...you know...actually read it first. Then show us which part he changed.

Selective, political-based, cronyist, EXEMPTIONS.

 

[bripat9643]

Scalia hits nail on head, big-time......

Justice Antonin Scalia: The US Constitution is 'Dead' - YouTube

Then why did he uphold the ACA?

He didn't, dipstick.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Title is bs spin/lie. Even the Blaze can't find a boght off expert to say it's unconstitutional...

 

[OODA_Loop]

You can't administratively exempt someone from taxation requirements.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It doesn't take a doctorate in law to understand that the president does not have the authority to change a law after he signed the bill into law.

You'll have to show where he actually changed the law then. You might want to...you know...actually read it first. Then show us which part he changed.

[MENTION=27324]whitehall[/MENTION] "show us which part he changed"

 

[BobPlumb]

When a law has hard, specific dates for items to go into effect and the president simply changes those dates with a wave of the hand and a decree on his twitter account, then he is in effect rewriting the law. The dems Keep saying that ACA is THE LAW OF THE LAND. Then changes in implementation dates should be determined or at least approved by congress.

 

[Antares]

It doesn't take a doctorate in law to understand that the president does not have the authority to change a law after he signed the bill into law.

You'll have to show where he actually changed the law then. You might want to...you know...actually read it first. Then show us which part he changed.

g?
You are hilarious, stupid, but hilarious.

When were plans to become "compliant"?

When were small group plans supposed to be affected?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You can't administratively exempt someone from taxation requirements.

[MENTION=32096]OODA_Loop[/MENTION] "taxation requirements?"

You do know the 'shared payment responsibility' in the PPACA mandate is a penalty under the law? The SCOTUS did not change the language of the law. The 'penalty' is collected by the IRS, so it functions as a tax for constitutional purposes.

Only people who choose not to have health insurance get penalized.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When a law has hard, specific dates for items to go into effect and the president simply changes those dates with a wave of the hand and a decree on his twitter account, then he is in effect rewriting the law. The dems Keep saying that ACA is THE LAW OF THE LAND. Then changes in implementation dates should be determined or at least approved by congress.

to rewrite a law, one needs to rewrite the law. D'Oh!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

administration of a law


ahem

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Frigging rightwing morons can't even read their own OP

Corbin said. “If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.”

big IF

 

[Antares]

When a law has hard, specific dates for items to go into effect and the president simply changes those dates with a wave of the hand and a decree on his twitter account, then he is in effect rewriting the law. The dems Keep saying that ACA is THE LAW OF THE LAND. Then changes in implementation dates should be determined or at least approved by congress.

to rewrite a law, one needs to rewrite the law. D'Oh!

So since he just arbitrarily decided not to enforce certain parts he is within his "constitutional" authority?

 

[BobPlumb]

Frigging rightwing morons can't even read their own OP

Corbin said. “If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.”

big IF

That big IF has been satisfied. The hypothisis of that conditional statement is true.