• 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

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Michael McConnell: Obama Suspends the Law

Like King James II, the president decides not to enforce laws he doesn't like. That's an abuse of power.

By MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL, Wall Street Journal

President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

Michael McConnell: Obama Suspends the Law - WSJ.com

question liberals would you be silent if a republican president did the same?
 
Does the law authorize him to do this? I have never heard a yes or a no based on the law and Congress hemorrhages its Constitutional authorities to the executive and independent agencies.
 
By that logic the dreamers program would be illegal as well.
 
Does the law authorize him to do this? I have never heard a yes or a no based on the law and Congress hemorrhages its Constitutional authorities to the executive and independent agencies.

there are clear specific implementation dates written into the law. i am unaware if there are exceptions within the law to ignore those dates. the burden of proof of that is the responsibility of ones who say he isn't violating the law
 
I guess instead of trying repeal it Republicans should just focus on the 2016 election and just suspend it.
 
By that logic the dreamers program would be illegal as well.

does the dreamer program have a clear specific implementation date written into the law?
 
the burden of proof of that is the responsibility of ones who say he isn't violating the law

??????????????????????
 
Michael McConnell: Obama Suspends the Law - WSJ.com

question liberals would you be silent if a republican president did the same?

A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.

The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.

"The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA president Michael S. Greco, a Massachusetts attorney. "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked."

The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws including a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot Act, whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.

Administration officials describe them as a part of routine presidential practice.

"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."


Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
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.
 
Signing statements have been abused far too much in expanding the power of the executive branch. Unless there is specific legislative authorization letting the executive change the implementation dates, Obama has exceeded his authority.
 
Im torn. I dont think he should violate the law, but I would have no problem with him suspending this forever.
 
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.

I wasnt concerend because I was of the opinion that when Bush did it, it was meaningless as well. A signing statement can not change the law. They can write them all they want.
 
??????????????????????

if i say he is in violation of the law by ignoring the implementation dates written into the law. And you say he is not because there are exceptions to not implement the law on those dates it is your responsibility to show those exceptions
 
I wasnt concerend because I was of the opinion that when Bush did it, it was meaningless as well. A signing statement can not change the law. They can write them all they want.

What's going to stop O? Who has legal standing to challenge any of this in court?
 
there are clear specific implementation dates written into the law. i am unaware if there are exceptions within the law to ignore those dates. the burden of proof of that is the responsibility of ones who say he isn't violating the law

Ok....

You robbed a house. Prove that you did not violate the law. That is your burden of proof, using your logic. If you can't actually prove that you have never robbed a house, then you are guilty, apparently.
 
does the dreamer program have a clear specific implementation date written into the law?

The dreamer program was Obama saying existing law was not to be inforced on a certain group of people
 
Ok....

You robbed a house. Prove that you did not violate the law. That is your burden of proof, using your logic. If you can't actually prove that you have never robbed a house, then you are guilty, apparently.

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 unless you can prove there is exception in the law that allows you not to and that burden is up to you to prove
 
Michael McConnell: Obama Suspends the Law - WSJ.com

question liberals would you be silent if a republican president did the same?

Presidents can not make laws but thanks to Executive power they can direct their agencies to enforce or nullify part of the law. No need to panic...If president happens to overstep his bounds, then congress (republicans ) can add previsions that would nullify his executive order and of course Supreme court can overrule his executive order (actually that would be an interesting move by Congress or the court)

Now my question to you...Why does this bother you? I thought one aspects of Obama Care that many didn't like was the employer mandate...he is actually listening to you guys and doing what you asked, removing the employer mandate....

That is good for the employers, and employees...This is a good thing...Why are you upset about this?

And to answer your question... If a republican president removed portion of the a law than I didn't like, I actually..wait for it...Wait for it...Be happy that he removed it...Why wouldn't I??

I mean it would mind numbing stupid and massively dishonest and hypocritical of me to bitch and moan about the certain laws and when a President with letter in front of his name other than my party affiliation actually do the exact thing that I wanted, then I go on forums and Bitch about it... but that is just me...

Diving Mullah
 
if i say he is in violation of the law by ignoring the implementation dates written into the law. And you say he is not because there are exceptions to not implement the law on those dates it is your responsibility to show those exceptions

I believe that if one accuses another of acting in an illegal nature, it is their obligation to prove their case. Not the defense's.
 
What's going to stop O? Who has legal standing to challenge any of this in court?

Congress. Chances are he did this just to get Republicans in congress to look stupid by suing him TO IMPLEMENT obamacare. Its all fun and games to these people.
 
I believe that if one accuses another of acting in an illegal nature, it is their obligation to prove their case. Not the defense's.

if you are told by law you have 30 days to register you vehicle and you go past that date with out are you not in violation of the law? if there is an exemtion written in the law that states you are exempt because your where out of state isn't the burden of proof up to you to prove you where out of state?
 
if you are told by law you have 30 days to register you vehicle and you go past that date with out are you not in violation of the law? if there is an exemtion written in the law that states you are exempt because your where out of state isn't the burden of proof up to you to prove you where out of state?

How do you know i went past the date?
 
Presidents can not make laws but thanks to Executive power they can direct their agencies to enforce or nullify part of the law. No need to panic...If president happens to overstep his bounds, then congress (republicans ) can add previsions that would nullify his executive order and of course Supreme court can overrule his executive order (actually that would be an interesting move by Congress or the court)

Now my question to you...Why does this bother you? I thought one aspects of Obama Care that many didn't like was the employer mandate...he is actually listening to you guys and doing what you asked, removing the employer mandate....

That is good for the employers, and employees...This is a good thing...Why are you upset about this?

And to answer your question... If a republican president removed portion of the a law than I didn't like, I actually..wait for it...Wait for it...Be happy that he removed it...Why wouldn't I??

I mean it would mind numbing stupid and massively dishonest and hypocritical of me to bitch and moan about the certain laws and when a President with letter in front of his name other than my party affiliation actually do the exact thing that I wanted, then I go on forums and Bitch about it... but that is just me...

Diving Mullah

no the only authority he has is how the law would be enforced he cant ignore or not enforce the law. if what you say is true there is no reasons to have laws if the president can just ignore them and my friend that is a dictatorship

because what Obama is doing is slowing down the train wreck till after the 2014 election so the wreck doesn't damage democrats trying to get reelected they shoved Obama care down my throat and i want to shove back down theirs make them own the mess it is
 
Last edited:
How do you know i went past the date?

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
 
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
 
question liberals would you be silent if a republican president did the same?

I don't think that's the question. In Bush's case, much of the world, including liberals, disagreed with his actions in question.
In this case, Obama suspending the law, appears to be supported by republicans (?) since they hated and opposed it in the first place.

The end result is that if they want to pursue Obama on his violation, they can, and the courts may indeed rule against Obama on this and he reverses positions/course on the suspension. That may be the case. They'd have to take him to task on this though. They won't though (I assume), because who would push that through when they are mostly, apparently OK with the delay? I don't follow this topic much but that's just my guess.
 
Back
Top Bottom