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

[Listening]

I notice that none of you can handle me on the Boards.

I have proved myself, you haven't.

True call.

You are like the little kid beating his chest while hiding under his mother's skirt.

You are one cut below pathetic.

You ducked a challenge where you would have been judged in your debating skills by a selected panel.

You chose to pass.

You are and always have been a liar and a fake.

Your mainstream approach is nothing but electronic masturbation.

These far right reactionaries are so easily to trip up.

And yet you can't do it. And when they challenge you to a one-on-one...you duck.

You can't stand up to liberals, because you are too weak, so that is why a true Republican like me has no trouble making you look as silly as you truly look.

So say the asshole that ducked a challenge to go into the Bull Ring.

Any time Jake you stupid fucking fake. Anytime.

You use words like weak like you know what they mean. Weak is how we describe your mind.

And you do make someone look silly...yourself.

 

[ron4342]

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

Hummmm..... This whinning about Obama and ACA reminds me of the birthers crying for the Supreme Court to rule on President Obama's birth place. You condemn ACA. Then you condemn him for the ACA roll out. Then you condemn him for trying to fix the ACA roll out. Is there anything Obama can do thay you would not condemn him for? Here is a simple question for you, HAVE YOU APPROVED OF ONE THING PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE WHILE IN OFFICE?
If your answer is "NO" it shows you to be a brain dead 'Obama hater" not worth wasting time on. Just as no president is perfect, no president is wrong 100% of the time (except in your small, pitiful brain).

 

[Antares]

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?

Show us the law. Quote the part he changed. You fools are claiming he changed the law.

Prove it.

You are speaking out of your asses.

Once you turds start parsing and arguing semantics you've been bested, semantics is the place the left goes to hide behind their lies.

I'll give you the semantic argument because the fact is this, this President of the United States has chosen to ignore the parts of ANY Law he does not like, including this one.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

 

[Antares]

you said the OP was "dismissed"

that means wrong...in normal human non troll response...so explain yourself how dismissed means...................what

i predict you will never explain it

as i predicted the lying troll still hasn't answered

Antares wrote "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."

That was in response to this: "Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof."

The reactionary brothers mix up quotes and then lie.

You guys truly roo the day every time you mess with me.

Jake you are barely one step above franco, you are the board joke.

 

[JakeStarkey]

as i predicted the lying troll still hasn't answered

Antares wrote "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."

That was in response to this: "Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof."

The reactionary brothers mix up quotes and then lie.

You guys truly roo the day every time you mess with me.

Jake you are barely one step above franco, you are the board joke.

Anatares has been the gift that keeps giving at the Board, and we laugh at you continually.

Now, son, if you make an OP, you have to give it evidence and support. Your opinion means nothing and no one has any duty to refute it.

Tis what tis.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I love girl fights....


The hair pulling is the best.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Affordable Care Act

- 1989 ..... the conservative Heritage Foundation proposed an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer health care

- championed for a time by conservative economists and Republican senators as a market-based approach to healthcare reform on the basis of individual responsibility and avoidance of free rider problems

- President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill in 1993 that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.

- the 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'.

- advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans who today oppose a mandate, such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond. Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, 20 supported the HEART Act.

- at the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, "I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax."

- Romney's implementation of the 'Health Connector' exchange and individual mandate in Massachusetts was at first lauded by Republicans. During Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Jim DeMint praised Romney's ability to "take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured."

- Romney said of the individual mandate: "I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation."

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

How quick our conservative "friends" forget:

- Obamacare originated as a conservative idea (Heritage Foundation, 1989)

- championed by conservative economists,

- supported by Republican senators ("take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured." - Senator Jim DeMint)

- implemented in Massachusetts in 2006 by the 2012 GOP Presidential Nominee ("I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation." - Mitt Romney)

- the "universal coverage requirement with a penalty for noncompliance" was first introduced Republican Senator John Chafee in 1993 - paradoxically, the GOP never questioned the constitutional issues with the mandate ('..... it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax." - Mark Pauly)

"Constitutional" issues only became an issue with conservatives when it was the Democrats introduced a 'clone' of the initial Heritage Foundation proposal and "Romneycare" - as for concrete proposals to provide affordable healthcare for the approximately 50 million uninsured Americans, there is a "deafening" silence from the "right!"

Where in the world do you come up with this vague notion that Romney is conservative? He is no more conservative than John McCain. The fact that he helped to implement a state run government health care plan has nothing to do with the conservative position.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

as i predicted the lying troll still hasn't answered

Antares wrote "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."

That was in response to this: "Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof."

The reactionary brothers mix up quotes and then lie.

You guys truly roo the day every time you mess with me.

Jake you are barely one step above franco, you are the board joke.

Awww come on now, after all where would Costello be without his Abbott?

 

[Ava]

Doesn't matter. Obamacare WILL go forward, no matter what. John "Fuck Be Upon Him" Roberts saw to that. Even if this issue goes to the Supreme Court, they will do anything to make sure Obama and Roberts' legacies will be intact.

The Constitution? That old thing?

Even it could be reversed, O has the power to veto....

We're screwed. Our only hope is to take the Senate and increase numbers in the House, in `14, so we can handcuff the monster who is proudly carrying out the mission he described to us, truthfully, though many of us worried, as we knew of his background. Some of us did our own vetting of him.

"If you want to know more about a person's character, look at their friends."


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgnWt13aO9k]Obama "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[regent]

Has anyone on this thread actually read the law, yet charges are made that Obama has changed the law. So I make the charge that Obama has now changed the law back to its original form, so now all can rest easily. Next problem?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Dante:
If you/Supreme Court literally interpret the ACA as a "tax"
then what about the requirement that tax/revenue legislation has to be set up and passed through Congress AS A TAX in order for the Congressional vote to represent CONSENT of the people/states to such a TAX?

As the argument goes, the ACA was set up and passed through Congress as a reform to a public health care act and NOT AS A TAX. In fact, the President and Congressional members in favor of this bill promoted it as NOT BEING A TAX.

So do you agree there is a different PROCESS to pass a TAX in order to follow Constitutional procedures to REPRESENT THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL VOTE???

 

[emilynghiem]

Has anyone on this thread actually read the law, yet charges are made that Obama has changed the law. So I make the charge that Obama has now changed the law back to its original form, so now all can rest easily. Next problem?

Dear Regent:
I see the whole ACA bill as not passed by the consent of the public, taxpayers, and states are otherwise forced to fund it.

There was a problem with the bill from before its very passage.

Even when it was railroaded through Congress, deals were made in exchange for votes that violate the Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

Trying to fix the minimal possible by further sidestepping and bypassing the Constitutional process of checks and balances and separation of powers MERELY COMPOUNDS the problem and makes it worse.

I compare it to trying to repair a broken bone by setting it wrong in the first place.

The whole bone may have to be rebroken to reset it correctly. This is painful, but there are no shortcuts that will fix the problem.

Just adding crutches or a wheelchair to keep the weight off the bone that is healed together wrong is NOT GOING TO FIX IT.

From the very beginning, in order for a contract to be legally binding, this must represent the CONSENT of the parties.

The Congressional lobbyists basically signed the names of taxpayers to a business contract with insurance companies, adding conditions and payment requirements that at least HALF the nation did not consent to.

You can justify this all you want to by "the letter of the law" but by the "spirit of the law" it totally defies the spirit and process of Constitutional laws which represent a contract between people and government based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED and equal REPRESENTATION, DUE PROCESS AND PROTECTION OF INTERESTS.

This bill may represent the interests of those who support it, but the rest of the taxpayers who did not consent to it deserve redress of grievances to resolve conflicts over the contract before we are held to it. that is simply the democratic process which the Constitution was designed to protect and facilitate were it not for political corruption to bypass the "consent of the governed" for partisan biases that violate the Code of Ethics.

What a mess.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Ron: The Conservatives I know do recognize Obama for taking out Bin Laden -- AFTER following through on INTELLIGENCE that was GATHERED by Bush's contested policy of WATERBOARDING a terrorist conspirator to OBTAIN the information necessary.

They give credit to Bush first and then Obama for following up, while recognizing that Obama and his ilk do NOT credit the waterboarding techniques but attack them as torture, although this raid on Bin Laden RELIED on information begotten by waterboarding.

Maybe that is why you won't hear about this in the media, that Conservatives do give credit and agree on this BECAUSE IT WOULD EXPOSE LIBERAL HYPOCRISY AS TO WHERE THE INTELLIGENCE CAME FROM.

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

Hummmm..... This whinning about Obama and ACA reminds me of the birthers crying for the Supreme Court to rule on President Obama's birth place. You condemn ACA. Then you condemn him for the ACA roll out. Then you condemn him for trying to fix the ACA roll out. Is there anything Obama can do thay you would not condemn him for? Here is a simple question for you, HAVE YOU APPROVED OF ONE THING PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE WHILE IN OFFICE?
If your answer is "NO" it shows you to be a brain dead 'Obama hater" not worth wasting time on. Just as no president is perfect, no president is wrong 100% of the time (except in your small, pitiful brain).

P.S. As for ACA once that bill was passed through Congress as "not a tax" but based on arguments on interpreting the commerce clause and/or general welfare,
and then the Supreme Court ruled that it WAS a tax, then it was already doomed. Regardless of political partisan views of either Obama or Roberts.

The issue is different interpretations of the Constitution and the powers of government to make contracts that do or do not represent which sector of the taxpaying public.

THAT is the issue, regardless of the people in government blamed for the debacle and controversy.

The point that cannot be refuted is that the people protesting did NOT CONSENT to the bill,
and the people in Congress passing it were DECIDEDLY from one major party.

So this shows a partisan bias in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

If this requires a special resolution or law passed RECOGNIZING POLITICAL PARTIES/BELIEFS similar to RELIGIOUS BELIEFS/DENOMINATIONS
then maybe we could agree to separate out people and groups by PARTY and fund such programs/policies SEPARATELY instead of different denominations fighting to dominate or exclude the other.

we need to take the concept of "SEPARATION of church and state" to a new level of separating the denominations
that DO recognize state rights separate from federal govt (the same way liberals argue to separate religious/church biases on policy from public policy through govt)

maybe we need to call a truce between partisan groups, recognize differences as mutual and equal -- similar to RELIGIOUS BELIEFS --
and QUIT competing to abuse the media or majority rule to impose either one over the other!!!

This issue is BIGGER than anything Obama or any party represents.
It is the PRINCIPLE of Constitutional equality, "free choice" and "consent of the governed" that is at stake.

 

[g5000]

g?
You are hilarious, stupid, but hilarious.

When were plans to become "compliant"?

When were small group plans supposed to be affected?

Show us the law. Quote the part he changed. You fools are claiming he changed the law.

Prove it.

You are speaking out of your asses.

Once you turds start parsing and arguing semantics you've been bested, semantics is the place the left goes to hide behind their lies.

I'll give you the semantic argument because the fact is this, this President of the United States has chosen to ignore the parts of ANY Law he does not like, including this one.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

The claim is that Obama unconstitutionally changed the ACA. No parsing at all. That is the claim.

Prove it.

All I see is a lot of bluster trying to conceal the fact you cannot prove the claim. My guess is that is because you don't even know the law. You are just a parrot regurgitating manufactured bullshit you have been fed.

 

[bripat9643]

Antares wrote "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."

That was in response to this: "Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof."

The reactionary brothers mix up quotes and then lie.

You guys truly roo the day every time you mess with me.

Jake you are barely one step above franco, you are the board joke.

Anatares has been the gift that keeps giving at the Board, and we laugh at you continually.

Now, son, if you make an OP, you have to give it evidence and support. Your opinion means nothing and no one has any duty to refute it.

Tis what tis.

The irony of your post is excruciating.

 

[bripat9643]

Show us the law. Quote the part he changed. You fools are claiming he changed the law.

Prove it.

You are speaking out of your asses.

Once you turds start parsing and arguing semantics you've been bested, semantics is the place the left goes to hide behind their lies.

I'll give you the semantic argument because the fact is this, this President of the United States has chosen to ignore the parts of ANY Law he does not like, including this one.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

The claim is that Obama unconstitutionally changed the ACA. No parsing at all. That is the claim.

Prove it.

All I see is a lot of bluster trying to conceal the fact you cannot prove the claim. My guess is that is because you don't even know the law. You are just a parrot regurgitating manufactured bullshit you have been fed.

If the ACA says such-and-such a deadline is Oct 31, and Obama unilaterally declares that the deadline will be some other date, then he has changed the law. How else would you interpret it?

 

[Antares]

Show us the law. Quote the part he changed. You fools are claiming he changed the law.

Prove it.

You are speaking out of your asses.

Once you turds start parsing and arguing semantics you've been bested, semantics is the place the left goes to hide behind their lies.

I'll give you the semantic argument because the fact is this, this President of the United States has chosen to ignore the parts of ANY Law he does not like, including this one.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

The claim is that Obama unconstitutionally changed the ACA. No parsing at all. That is the claim.

Prove it.

All I see is a lot of bluster trying to conceal the fact you cannot prove the claim. My guess is that is because you don't even know the law. You are just a parrot regurgitating manufactured bullshit you have been fed.

I'll give you the semantic argument because the fact is this, this President of the United States has chosen to ignore the parts of ANY Law he does not like, including this one.

We both know I've shoved the law up your ass at every turn g

I know you STILL think that Bronze Plans don't qualify for a subsidy, idiot.

The President of the United States has unilaterally decided which laws he will and will not enforce, sorry kid.

 

[Antares]

Antares wrote "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."

That was in response to this: "Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof."

The reactionary brothers mix up quotes and then lie.

You guys truly roo the day every time you mess with me.

Jake you are barely one step above franco, you are the board joke.

Anatares has been the gift that keeps giving at the Board, and we laugh at you continually.

Now, son, if you make an OP, you have to give it evidence and support. Your opinion means nothing and no one has any duty to refute it.

Tis what tis.

May be you ARE franco.....

 

[Spoonman]

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

Hummmm..... This whinning about Obama and ACA reminds me of the birthers crying for the Supreme Court to rule on President Obama's birth place. You condemn ACA. Then you condemn him for the ACA roll out. Then you condemn him for trying to fix the ACA roll out. Is there anything Obama can do thay you would not condemn him for? Here is a simple question for you, HAVE YOU APPROVED OF ONE THING PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE WHILE IN OFFICE?
If your answer is "NO" it shows you to be a brain dead 'Obama hater" not worth wasting time on. Just as no president is perfect, no president is wrong 100% of the time (except in your small, pitiful brain).

I applaud him for not overturning the patriot act even thought he promised he would

 

[g5000]

Once you turds start parsing and arguing semantics you've been bested, semantics is the place the left goes to hide behind their lies.

I'll give you the semantic argument because the fact is this, this President of the United States has chosen to ignore the parts of ANY Law he does not like, including this one.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

The claim is that Obama unconstitutionally changed the ACA. No parsing at all. That is the claim.

Prove it.

All I see is a lot of bluster trying to conceal the fact you cannot prove the claim. My guess is that is because you don't even know the law. You are just a parrot regurgitating manufactured bullshit you have been fed.

If the ACA says such-and-such a deadline is Oct 31, and Obama unilaterally declares that the deadline will be some other date, then he has changed the law. How else would you interpret it?

Show me.

Quote the law, not some piss rag. Quote the law.

Make sure you don't miss any provisions which allow for exemptions or extensions!