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

[Yurt]

Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof.

LOL, sorry pop.

YOU made the claim that the President can arbitrarily enforce or change the Law which carried out to its logical conclusion means he/she can do the same to ANY law....feel free to prove it liar.

You are lying. I said no such thing.

Reread what I wrote and we can try again: to this point, you are fail.

This is like the birfer nonsense of "send us more money so we can keep digging to get the truth."

yes you did liar. you flat out said the OP is wrong and dismissed.

thus, you hold the opposite view of the OP.

poor jake, gets caught being a liberal and tries his best to lie his way out.

 

[Antares]

Jake is a disgrace to whatever he is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL, sorry pop.

YOU made the claim that the President can arbitrarily enforce or change the Law which carried out to its logical conclusion means he/she can do the same to ANY law....feel free to prove it liar.

You are lying. I said no such thing.

Reread what I wrote and we can try again: to this point, you are fail.

This is like the birfer nonsense of "send us more money so we can keep digging to get the truth."

yes you did liar. you flat out said the OP is wrong and dismissed.

thus, you hold the opposite view of the OP.

poor jake, gets caught being a liberal and tries his best to lie his way out.

That is not what I said, that is what you said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See, Anatres, folks understand that you contradict yourself almost every time.

 

[Antares]

See, Anatres, folks understand that you contradict yourself almost every time.

Sorry Jake, NOBODY buys your deflections

 

[francoHFW]

If you think Pubs would allow Obama to do anything illegal, you're NUTS- like Rush/Sean/Beck etc etc. Pubs want him to delay for a YEAR FER CHRISSAKE. YOU'RE BRAINWASHED TO THE THE POINT OF BEING BRAINDEAD...LOL.

 

[SwimExpert]

“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.[/B][/I]

That raises the question.....who is going to do something about it? And what are/can they do about it? Should businesses file a lawsuit and ask the court to compel the President to enforce the employer mandate against them? That's hardly a cause that would have standing.

 

[Amelia]

“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.[/B][/I]

That raises the question.....who is going to do something about it? And what are/can they do about it? Should businesses file a lawsuit and ask the court to compel the President to enforce the employer mandate against them? That's hardly a cause that would have standing.

There are multiple cases working their way through the courts now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With as much chance of success as the birfer law suits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See, Anatres, folks understand that you contradict yourself almost every time.

Sorry Jake, NOBODY buys your deflections

Everyone knows that you have been lying. Son, it is what it is.

 

[SwimExpert]

There are multiple cases working their way through the courts now.

Those are cases where companies are claiming they have an exception to enforcement. Not where they are demanding that the law be enforced against them.

 

[Amelia]

There are multiple cases working their way through the courts now.

Those are cases where companies are claiming they have an exception to enforcement. Not where they are demanding that the law be enforced against them.

Demanding that the law be enforced against themselves was only a part of your post. I did not reply directly to that portion of your post because it seemed rather silly to me.

And no the cases have not all been brought by companies, and not all entities who are claiming to have an exception to enforcement.

There are many cases.

Many angles still for resisting the Obamacare travesty.

 

[Antares]

See, Anatres, folks understand that you contradict yourself almost every time.

Sorry Jake, NOBODY buys your deflections

Everyone knows that you have been lying. Son, it is what it is.

LOL.

Po Jake......all caught up in his own lies and nowhere to run

 

[SwimExpert]

There are multiple cases working their way through the courts now.

Those are cases where companies are claiming they have an exception to enforcement. Not where they are demanding that the law be enforced against them.

Demanding that the law be enforced against themselves was only a small part of your post to which I replied. I did not reply directly to that portion of your post because it seemed rather silly to me.

And now the cases have not all been brought by companies.

There are many cases.

Many angles still for resisting the Obamacare travesty.

I am all for resisting Obamacare. That's why I fully support Obama delaying it for a year. As a matter of fact, I'd be ecstatic if it was delayed for 100 years. That would be great.

 

[Amelia]

Those are cases where companies are claiming they have an exception to enforcement. Not where they are demanding that the law be enforced against them.

Demanding that the law be enforced against themselves was only a small part of your post to which I replied. I did not reply directly to that portion of your post because it seemed rather silly to me.

And now the cases have not all been brought by companies.

There are many cases.

Many angles still for resisting the Obamacare travesty.

I am all for resisting Obamacare. That's why I fully support Obama delaying it for a year. As a matter of fact, I'd be ecstatic if it was delayed for 100 years. That would be great.

You responded quickly, before I edited my post.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

The Fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority ^^^. Anyone ever heard of the Code of Federal Regulations CFR)?

 

[SwimExpert]

The Fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority ^^^. Anyone ever heard of the Code of Federal Regulations CFR)?

Not quite. Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a person references an authority's opinion as compelling evidence toward a matter outside of said authority's expertise. For example:

Albert Einstein believed that God exists.

Since Einstein was not an authority on theology, it is fallacy to use his opinion on the matter as having any weight.

However, no fallacy occurs when an authority is referenced and his opinion offered as compelling evidence toward a matter that is within his field of expertise, so long as the reference is inductive and not deductive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority ^^^. Anyone ever heard of the Code of Federal Regulations CFR)?

Not quite. Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a person references an authority's opinion as compelling evidence toward a matter outside of said authority's expertise. For example:

Albert Einstein believed that God exists.

Since Einstein was not an authority on theology, it is fallacy to use his opinion on the matter as having any weight.

However, no fallacy occurs when an authority is referenced and his opinion offered as compelling evidence toward a matter that is within his field of expertise, so long as the reference is inductive and not deductive.

A distinction without a difference. No evidence was offered beyond the opinion of another. Much like Fox News when the talking head says, "Some people are saying...". In those cases the 'authority' is usually another Fox talking head. But such claims remain logical fallacies.

 

[bripat9643]

The Fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority ^^^. Anyone ever heard of the Code of Federal Regulations CFR)?

Not quite. Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a person references an authority's opinion as compelling evidence toward a matter outside of said authority's expertise.

Wrong. Even if the so-called authority happens to be an expert in the subject under discussion, he can still be wrong. Authorities have been proven wrong countless times throughout history.

There is no such thing as a "valid" authority when it comes to logic.

Your definition of the appeal to authority comes from some statist who wants to justify they unjustifiable, like the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

[francoHFW]

78- ''Everybody knows'' is big too lol...