• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Scholar: Obama Is Not King, Cannot Suspend ObamaCare

Were you as concerned when Bush was doing it? By the way, I'm only posting Bush because he was the last Republican president.

Michael McConnell, the constitutional scholar who wrote the article, was appointed as a federal judge by Bush, so bringing up Bush doing the same kind of thing actually makes sense in order to test the source's credibility on the issue. BEcause of that, I'd be interested in the author's stance on your question. Sadly he does not post here, so I have to dig to see if he ever made any statements about it.
 
if i rob a house and get charged with a crime of doing so because the law states it is against the law to take things from a house that is not yours, and i say i didn't violate the law because i was given permission from the owner to do so the proof is mine to show i was given permission

the ACA law is clear on specific implementation dates written into the law so your in violation if you don't follow those dates ...

Good, there ya go. Now show me in the law exactly where these specific dates are written into the law.
 
because there is a bill of sale saying when you bought the vehicle just like there is a specific date when Obama care to be implemented in the law

Prove it. Which is actually the point.
 
The Executive branch of govt and the Legislative branch are co-equal.

Therefore, one branch (ie the Legislative) does not have the power to force the other (ie The Executive) to do anything

the constitution does. there are checks and balances written into the constitution to keep from any of the branches from abusing there powers
 
the constitution does. there are checks and balances written into the constitution to keep from any of the branches from abusing there powers

And where does the constitution say Obama must implement every part of the ACA on the day the legislation says it should be implemented on?

And where does the ACA say that this policy must be implemented on a specific date?
 
Michael McConnell, the constitutional scholar who wrote the article, was appointed as a federal judge by Bush, so bringing up Bush doing the same kind of thing actually makes sense in order to test the source's credibility on the issue. BEcause of that, I'd be interested in the author's stance on your question. Sadly he does not post here, so I have to dig to see if he ever made any statements about it.
I did not realize that. And it would be quite interesting to know.
 
It just seems to me that if there is a law on the books, voted for and approved by the House and the Senate and then signed by the President, it should be enforced fully by the government. I really think it is sad that ANY administration has decided not to enforce laws they disagree with. I would think that ANY President who fails to ensure his (or her) administration does not fully enforce the laws of this Nation is in fact putting themselves in a position to be impeached (spelling?) for failing to uphold the Constitution and defend the Nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Just my thoughts....
 
And where does the constitution say Obama must implement every part of the ACA on the day the legislation says it should be implemented on?

And where does the ACA say that this policy must be implemented on a specific date?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than April 1, 2014, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall assess a penalty
fee (as determined under subparagraph (B)) against a
health plan that has failed to meet the requirements
under subsection (h) with respect to certification and documentation
of compliance with—

etcetera
 
It just seems to me that if there is a law on the books, voted for and approved by the House and the Senate and then signed by the President, it should be enforced fully by the government. I really think it is sad that ANY administration has decided not to enforce laws they disagree with. I would think that ANY President who fails to ensure his (or her) administration does not fully enforce the laws of this Nation is in fact putting themselves in a position to be impeached (spelling?) for failing to uphold the Constitution and defend the Nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Just my thoughts....

Ideally he would go to congress and they would pass and amendment delaying it.
 

Thanks for posting that, but the text orders an officer of the executive branch to take action. An argument can be made that the legislative branch does not have the authority to do that.
 
Thanks for posting that, but the text orders an officer of the executive branch to take action. An argument can be made that the legislative branch does not have the authority to do that.

No it cant.

Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
No it cant.

Yes, it can

Please note that the constitutional quote you posted is limited to laws which are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

The constitution does not give Congress the power to order the Executive Branch around. I will concede that an argument could be made that, in *this* case, ordering the executive is "necessary and proper...." but that just means that there is a conflict within the constitution. How it would be resolved by the courts is unknown, which is why I've been saying "an argument could be made..."
 
Yes, it can

Please note that the constitutional quote you posted is limited to laws which are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

The constitution does not give Congress the power to order the Executive Branch around. I will concede that an argument could be made that, in *this* case, ordering the executive is "necessary and proper...." but that just means that there is a conflict within the constitution. How it would be resolved by the courts is unknown, which is why I've been saying "an argument could be made..."

"and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "
 
"and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

Again, the constitution does not give congress, or any dept or officer, the power to order the executive branch around (with the exception of POTUS)
 
Again, the constitution does not give congress, or any dept or officer, the power to order the executive branch around (with the exception of POTUS)

And again, that's literally what Sec 8 does. That is fundamentally what a law is, an order to do something.
 
Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed


Were you as concerned when Bush was doing it? By the way, I'm only posting Bush because he was the last Republican president. Quite frankly, I'm not that concerned (Constitutionally speaking) that any President is doing it, as long as it is done in a limited capacity.
So then forget the legislative branch. Let the executive write the laws. Sound democratic to you? I'm pretty sure the reason this country was founded was to prevent such actions.
 
So then forget the legislative branch. Let the executive write the laws.
Why would we do that? Is Obama or Bush writing laws or asking law enforcement to do something for which there is no law for?

Sound democratic to you?
No, but you seem to be the only one suggesting it, so why are you asking me?

I'm pretty sure the reason this country was founded was to prevent such actions.
You are, of course, referring to the so-called checks and balances of our system. Tell me, is not enforcing an unjust law (let's say DOMA, for example) not a check on the legislative branch? If the President is required to enforce what Congress does, regardless of the morality of it, is that no less democratic than your scenario?
 
Why would we do that? Is Obama or Bush writing laws or asking law enforcement to do something for which there is no law for?

No, but you seem to be the only one suggesting it, so why are you asking me?
Allowing the President to suspend a portion of a law that has been passed is exactly that. Why have a legislature if you think it is acceptable for the President to just suspend portions of the law? That's along the same lines as line-item vetoing of a law, and example of a president acting as a legislator.

You are, of course, referring to the so-called checks and balances of our system. Tell me, is not enforcing an unjust law (let's say DOMA, for example) not a check on the legislative branch? If the President is required to enforce what Congress does, regardless of the morality of it, is that no less democratic than your scenario?
So Obama is now morally against the individual mandate? I don't think so. The point is the President does not have the power to decide what portions of a bill he doesn't like. If he didn't want the individual mandate passed, he should have vetoed the bill. If all laws are subject to the morality of one man, then we are living under a system no better than monarchy.

I am glad the law is not being enforced, as I see it as unjust. But it sets the precedent for laws that are perfectly just and signed into law being treated the same way. The whole reason we have a legislature is so the president is not the final say in what portions of a bill are just or not.
 
Allowing the President to suspend a portion of a law that has been passed is exactly that. Why have a legislature if you think it is acceptable for the President to just suspend portions of the law?
Uhh...really??? The reason is so legislation can be passed as a whole, and if the President feels some part of it is unconstitutional or impossible, then he can not enforce that particular part while keeping the important parts of the legislation as a whole. This is a check on the legislative branch.

Using your logic, why bother having a President if he just has to do what Congress says?

So Obama is now morally against the individual mandate?
Did I say that? Did Obama say that? If the answer is no, then why are you using my example for something it was not intended?

The point is the President does not have the power to decide what portions of a bill he doesn't like.
Many Supreme Court decisions have said otherwise.

I am glad the law is not being enforced, as I see it as unjust.
So in other words, you agree with what he did, you just want to complain anyways. I see.

The whole reason we have a legislature is so the president is not the final say in what portions of a bill are just or not.
And the whole reason we have a President involved in the law process is to provide a check on Congress. This is like 5th grade Social Studies.
 
Last edited:
Uhh...really??? The reason is so legislation can be passed as a whole, and if the President feels some part of it is unconstitutional or impossible, then he can not enforce that particular part while keeping the important parts of the legislation as a whole. This is a check on the legislative branch.

Using your logic, why bother having a President if he just has to do what Congress says?
What you are describing is the line item veto. It was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in Clinton v. City of New York, as a breach of the legislative powers of Congress. The President does not have to just do what Congress says--he can veto bills. He can't rewrite them by vetoing parts of it or refusing to enforce bills already signed into law.

Did I say that? Did Obama say that? If the answer is no, then why are you using my example for something it was not intended?
No, he didn't. That's the point. You justified the unconstitutional suspension of a legitimately passed law on the grounds that it was immoral. So if nobody who is doing the suspension thinks its immoral...your argument is moot.

Many Supreme Court decisions have said otherwise.
Really? Name them. Clinton v. City of New York says the precise opposite.

So in other words, you agree with what he did, you just want to complain anyways. I see.
No. I disagree with what he did. I also disagree with the mandate. There is no contradiction there. I don't believe in violating the Constitution to get what I want passed into law, or to remove what I don't like.

And the whole reason we have a President involved in the law process is to provide a check on Congress. This is like 5th grade Social Studies.
Which you apparently flunked, because the line item veto is unconstitutional, and the president does not have the power to be a legislator. That's what separation of powers is about. The president has checks on the legislature through his veto power. The Congress does have the bulk of formal legitimate power in the United States, and the founders intended it that way. You're the one who needs a history lesson. And a good intro into constitutional law as well.
 
What you are describing is the line item veto.
No, it's not.

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTEUNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.

The President does not have to just do what Congress says--he can veto bills.
Really? When did Obama have the chance to veto DOMA?

No, he didn't. That's the point. You justified the unconstitutional suspension of a legitimately passed law on the grounds that it was immoral.
I did of a particular law as an example. The fact you're trying to twist to a different case is beyond ridiculous.

So if nobody who is doing the suspension thinks its immoral...your argument is moot.
Furthermore, I'd argue postponing enforcement is not the same as refusing to execute it. I seriously have no idea what your point even is, but I'm not sure you really care, as long as you get to criticize Obama.

Really? Name them. Clinton v. City of New York says the precise opposite.
View the link above.

Which you apparently flunked, because the line item veto is unconstitutional
But since I wasn't talking about the line item veto, apparently it wasn't me who flunked, now was it?
 
Last edited:
I thought we both agreed that Obama does not believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional? If Obama thought the mandate was unconstitutional, which according to your argument would allow him to refuse to enforce it, why did he advocate for it and sign it into law?

Really? When did Obama have the chance to veto DOMA?
He didn't, and he shouldn't. It was passed under Clinton. The President does not get to rewrite laws. What is the point of a legislature if the president can reject any law passed at any time?

I did of a particular law as an example. The fact you're trying to twist to a different case is beyond ridiculous.
I'm talking about the individual mandate. Your entire argument is that a president can refuse to enforce laws he deems unconstitutional. If Obama does not think it is unconstitutional, then how can he suspend it? Even if I grant the president such a power, your argument fails.

Furthermore, I'd argue postponing enforcement is not the same as refusing to execute it. I seriously have no idea what your point even is, but I'm not sure you really care, as long as you get to criticize Obama.
I'd criticize anyone. Your appeal to partisanship as my motives is pathetic. What is my point? The President is not a legislature. He does not get to decide the laws passed under another administration are unconstitutional. If Romney were elected president (god forbid) and refused to enforce the entire Affordable Care Act because he argued it was constitutional, would you be defending him?

But since I wasn't talking about the line item veto, apparently it wasn't me who flunked, now was it?
What you described was the line item veto. Being deliberately confuscating is not a valid debate tactic.
 
Back
Top Bottom