'I’m
not concerned about their opinions. Very few of them, by
the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.'
By Rick Moran
If Nixon had tried something like this,
he would have rightly been branded a “rogue president.”
Jackie Calmes, a first-class political
reporter working for the New York Times, actually had the gall to ask
the president if he had consulted White House lawyers on the constitutionality
of unilaterally delaying the employer mandate in Obamacare.
Obama’s answer would have been worthy of
King George, or perhaps a megalomaniacal dictator — not a servant of the people
in a great republic.
In
an interview
after his speech Wednesday in Galesburg, Illinois, President Obama was asked if
he consulted White House lawyers before unilaterally delaying the employer
mandate in Obamacare. Since Congress, in the Affordable Care Act, specified
that the mandate is go to into effect at the start of next year, reporters from
the New York Times asked if the president investigated whether he had the legal
authority to put it off without going through Congress.
Obama
didn’t exactly answer the question. But judging from what he said, his answer
was: No, I didn’t consult White House lawyers because I know a lot more about
the Constitution than the Republicans who are complaining about it. And
besides, they don’t think I’m legitimately the president, anyway.
“People
questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally — to
delay the employer mandate,” asked the Times’ Jackie Calmes. “Did you consult
with your lawyer?”
“Jackie,
if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any
opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class,
improve their prospects, improve their security,” Obama began.
“No,
but specifically — ” Calmes interjected.
“But
where Congress is unwilling to act,” Obama continued, “I will take whatever
administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.”
At that point, Obama explained that if
Congress doesn’t like what he’s done, then lawmakers can try to do something
about it. “I’m not concerned about their opinions,” the president said. “Very
few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.” And
some Republicans “think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the
presidency.”
Methinks the president should not be
using the word “gall” when talking about his unilateral action in superseding
the Congress and taking the questionable constitutional step of delaying the
mandate using his executive authority.
Has there been anything more revealing of
Obama’s attitude toward the Constitution?
Democracy is hard work. Getting Congress
to do a president’s bidding takes time, patience, and a determination that
President Obama lacks. He wants to take shortcuts because he believes his
executive authority can give him the immediate gratification he covets. And
besides, who is the Congress to lecture him about the Constitution?
Obamacare was passed three years ago.
Businesses have been complaining about the employer mandate for almost as long.
In short, Obama had three years to go back to Congress and ask for a delay in
implementing the mandate. The decision not to had nothing whatsoever to do with
“administration actions” and everything to do with politics. By delaying the
mandate, he is admitting defeat in successfully implementing Obamacare. To have
done so before the election would have been a devastating blow.
The delay in implementing the employer
mandate is not the only unilateral decision made by the executive branch to put
off requirements found in the Affordable Care Act.
Already,
the Health and Human Services Department has signaled the federal exchanges
will not have all the bells and whistles once promised. In March, HHS said the
small-business portals will not be able to allow individual employees to choose
their own plans in the first year, as the law requires. Small-business
employees will still be able to buy there, but only the single plan selected by
their employers. That’s just one of a few “shortcuts” that analysts say the administration
will take in the first year for the sake of functionality. “They’ve openly
acknowledged that some of that is not going to be ready,” says Caroline
Pearson, a vice president at the consultancy Avalere Health, who is watching
the exchanges’ progress.
The
administration has also indicated that, in some states, information about which
people are eligible to buy through the exchange (and with how much government
help) won’t be instantly available. To answer that question, the exchanges must
consult a yet-to-be-completed data hub that merges income information from the
IRS, disability information from the Social Security Administration, and
citizenship information from the Homeland Security Department, along with state
systems that will determine whether people with certain conditions or very low
incomes qualify for Medicaid coverage. States are updating their systems, but
few have the sophisticated computer programs that can sort out those questions
in real time or communicate the answers to the federal government. It seems
clear that some shoppers will face long delays or fill out federal applications,
only to be directed to apply again at a state website or office. In some cases,
the seamless digital experience may be replaced with paper applications.
So much for the rule of law in Obama’s
America.
http://tinyurl.com/nf59pn4
1 comment:
We dont need no steenking laws! You have me!
-Emperor Zero
Can we impeach him now?
dogsoldier
Post a Comment