Originally published July 9 2013
Ironically, Obama's delay of Obamacare implementation is itself unconstitutional
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) So much of what President Obama does in wielding the power of his office is unconstitutional, so it should surprise no one that action he took recently regarding the implementation timeline of his signature achievement - Obamacare - is most likely unconstitutional as well.
Bypassing Congress as usual, Obama - through executive action - ordered a one-year delay in the so-called employer healthcare mandate contained within Obamacare that was set to kick in, so that Democrats who passed the unpopular act won't have to face tremendous voter backlash during the 2014 election cycle.
In announcing the delay, the White House said it was simply "listening to businesses about the health care law," but that's pure BS. If Obama and Democrats cared about the impact this law would have on businesses, they would not have included the mandate - which requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide them with expensive health insurance coverage- in the first place.
What is really going on, you see, is that Obama and his Democrat supporters who voted for the law are afraid of voter backlash. Americans are beginning to figure out that the so-called "Affordable Care Act" a) will not be affordable at all and, in fact, will increase coverage costs for most Americans; b) will expose lawmakers who touted its benefits as liars when the law does not deliver as promised; and c) is more likely to collapse the nation's healthcare system than "reform" it. And many of us will want to take out our frustrations on those who forced Obamacare down our throats.
That will likely come anyway, employer mandate or not. Business owners aren't stupid; they realize that, sooner or later, the administration definitely will enforce the employer mandate. So they will make hiring decisions appropriately (reducing the number of full-time employees while increasing the number of part-time employees, among other tactics).
But what is at issue now is whether Obama's decision to do another end-run around Congress is even legal, since his job is to enforce the law of the land - and in this case, provisions of the very law he wanted.
Not surprisingly, the administration is claiming it has all the authority in the world to implement the delay. According to Roll Call, a publication that focuses on Congress, a Treasury Department official says the administration has "longstanding administrative authority to grant transition relief when implementing new legislation like the ACA."
Three House committees beg to differ and are already looking into the decision. And Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the decision is just "another in a string of extra legal decisions" made by this president.
"As a former constitutional law teacher, President Obama must know that this action gets into very questionable constitutional territory," Issa said in a statement. "It also paves the way for future administrations to simply not enforce parts of Obamacare they don't believe are functioning well."
Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., chairman of the Education and Workforce subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, has asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate Obama's action.
"I believe this administration has made a habit of bypassing Congress and it sets a very dangerous precedent," he said in a statement. "Both Republicans and Democrats should be very concerned, and I will continue to closely monitor these actions and hold the president accountable."
"If President Obama wants to make changes to Obamacare, he must come to Congress. ... We are a nation governed by laws written by Congress, not memos and blog posts written by bureaucrats," adds Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Obama's penchant to act as an "imperial" president is "a fascinating transformation" for him, says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University who has become a top administration legal critic.
"He rightfully criticized President Bush for violating the separation of powers and using signing statements to rewrite legislation, but Obama has been far more aggressive in circumventing Congress and far more successful in creating an imperial presidency," Turley told Roll Call.
'There really isn't anything they can do'
Some see this as a "transformation" of Obama, but those who knew him before he took office and who studied his legislative and legal positions when he was an ascending state and U.S. senator, like me, know that this is the real Obama - always has been, always will be.
This president, like his most recent predecessor, has no respect for the rule of law and does not feel constrained by the U.S. Constitution. What's more, he has co-opted the very constitutional system he abuses. Under the very same Constitution, we the people have no legal recourse to remove this president from office because even if the House impeaches him, the Senate won't convict because it is held by a Democrat majority.
Regarding delaying the Obamacare employer mandate, Timothy Jost, a longtime supporter of the health care law and a law professor at Washington and Lee University, summed it up when he told Roll Call: "I don't see the courts intervening here. I'm sure Congress will hold hearings but there really isn't anything they can do."
The time has come to stop allowing "The Establishment" to spoon-feed us candidates. Washington, in its present form, is not going to fix Washington in its present form, because those who currently make up The Establishment created Washington in its present form. If that sounds like an anti-incumbent rant, maybe it is. But truth be told, we're not getting closer to liberty and freedom with the current bunch of career politicians and bureaucrats. It's time to clean house.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml