The president's precident

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

AKA "The Fix"

So in the lead up to the shutdown President Obama was telling his critics that the ACA was “settled” and “here to stay”. But in a effort to stave off growing backlash, and the threat of house Democrats siding with Republicans on the Keep Your Health Plan Act, the President is announcing that he will delay enforcement of the act's policy requirements and employer mandate until after the 2014 election cycle. (May 2015)

So in a seriously surreal moment Tea-partiers and the GOP establishment find themselves nodding in a agreement with Howard Dean...

So does the president have the authority to "fix" a problematic law? The short answer is no, he doesn't. If the President doesn't even get a line-item veto. He certainly doesn't get to rewrite or amend a statute without sending it back to congress.

Now I understand the desire to do "whatever it takes" to salvage the President's signature achievement but it sets a dangerous precedent. Would Obama, and his party as whole, be similarly supportive of a hypothetical pro-life president's attempts to unilaterally "fix" abortion law, or a libertarian president "fixing" the federal tax code? Personally I suspect that the vast majority of Democrats would be up in arms, and that calls for impeachment would on the speaker's desk before lunch.

And yet here we are...

Personally I find these developments deeply troubling.

I've been told that I put too much stock in "dead white slave-holders", but I still believe that the chief thing that stands between the US and a neo-soviet or fascist style police state is not the fact that we get to elect a new set of Ivy-League overlords every 4-8 years but the fact that there are, in theory at least, rules and standards that even our Ivy-League overlords must adhere to. "a government," as John Adams used to say "of laws not of men".

Only time will tell what sort of effect Obama's presidency will have on "rule of law" but unless there is some serious push-back and soon I don't see it being a good one.

I would hope that those who criticized Bush for his "Imperial Presidency" would see this as well.

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Not of course, that that makes a difference to you.

No it doesn't, because robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery no matter how you try to justify it. You are so eager to demonize your ideological opponents that you ignore the obvious implications of your own words.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Thank you for proving my point.

How is it "demonizing" you when I'm simply pointing out your premise?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

By forgoing critique in favor of hyperbole.

But i suppose i should thank you for doing so, you make yourself an easy target.

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: By forgoing critique in favor of hyperbole.

And what part of your premise have I "hyperbolized?"

You seem to think "hyperbolize" means, "making allowing the sick and the poor to die sound like a BAD thing."

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

No it in this means case it mean pretending that there is an alternative that that everything would be rainbows and unicorns if we just let you have your way.

People die.

Full stop.

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: No it in this means case it mean pretending that there is an alternative that that everything would be rainbows and unicorns if we just let you have your way.

LOL! And I'M the one you claim is "hyperbolizing?"

Nowhere have I said anything close to "there would be rainbows and unicorns" if we instituted single-payer healthcare reform. Nowhere have I, or anybody else, claimed that doing so would mean that nobody would ever die.

Doesn't it embarrass you that you have to resort to this type of misrepresentation?