Wrong. Executive orders can not be used to tell the Executive branch NOT to implement a law. They can provide guidance on how TO implement the law but cannot stop a law that has been enacted.
"First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees"
If there is no specific time table at what point does a delay of implementation (a week, a month, a year) become a rewriting of the law? Should we impeach if he's 30 min late from enforcing a specific law?
Furthermore, how do you feel about Eric Holder making a decision not to pursue the prosecution of mandatory drug sentences for minor offenses? This is just as much, if not more, of a "rewriting" of the law.
Furthermore, how do you feel about Eric Holder making a decision not to pursue the prosecution of mandatory drug sentences for minor offenses? This is just as much, if not more, of a "rewriting" of the law.
Personally I think that prosecutors having the ability to keep things on the back burner is a good thing. If something is a stupid law and the legal system isn't enforcing it because of moral reasons then fine.
Furthermore, how do you feel about Eric Holder making a decision not to pursue the prosecution of mandatory drug sentences for minor offenses? This is just as much, if not more, of a "rewriting" of the law.
Furthermore, how do you feel about Eric Holder making a decision not to pursue the prosecution of mandatory drug sentences for minor offenses? This is just as much, if not more, of a "rewriting" of the law.
How did you feel about them not enforcing DoMA?
I'm not the one arguing about the executive branch executing certain powers regarding enforcement of the law.
Furthermore, how do you feel about Eric Holder making a decision not to pursue the prosecution of mandatory drug sentences for minor offenses? This is just as much, if not more, of a "rewriting" of the law.
How did you feel about them not enforcing DoMA?
I'm not the one arguing about the executive branch executing certain powers regarding enforcement of the law.
Really we have both extremes going on at the same time. The selective enforcement of drug, immigration and other polices that are debate topics while at the same time the government defends it's use of stop and no cause vehicle check points.
If you are asking me. I wish for less government interaction.
Really we have both extremes going on at the same time. The selective enforcement of drug, immigration and other polices that are debate topics while at the same time the government defends it's use of stop and no cause vehicle check points.
If you are asking me. I wish for less government interaction.
Yeah, that's not really a federal policy decision...
I think Obama should be impeached for violating the Oath of Office to "uphold and defend the Constitution." Violation of this oath is considered a "high crime" according to the Constitution and thus a valid reason for impeachment.
I have always been wary of using this argument because of how it makes some people sound. I hear it a lot with arguments over the second amendment. People will say "the governor is making this type of gun illegal, violating the second amendment, thus he is not defending the constitution and is a traitor and needs to be impeached". However as a radio personality I like by the name of Tom Gresham pointed out, because it is so unlikely to happen, when people yell about it, it just makes them sound crazy and it hurts the argument more then helps it. People think "look at that crazy person over there, I don't want to have the same opinions as them or be associated with them". I am not saying Dragonmaster sounds crazy, just that fear of sounding crazy myself would prevent me from adding my voice for anything like that until public critical mass was reached and I was not the one standing alone in the corner.
Overall when I see bad things in government happen like the mishandling of TARP funds, NSA 4th amendment violations, or the executive branch overreaching what powers I feel it should have, I essentially just feel powerless to do anything about it. I cast my votes in a blue state, so it does not matter who I vote for in governor or president, yet these people have the most influence over how the laws that affect my life are implemented. So when the president does something I think is wrong, what can I really do about it other then give money to legislative organizations focused on opposing the viewpoints I also disagree with?
I don't have a major problem with DOJ not prosecuting minor drug offenses. Not prosecuting is not the same as legalizing. At a later date they could start prosecuting them again and having the law on the books helps them 'coerce' small time drug people into turning in bigger drug people.
Regardless it is not a rewriting of the law.
What I would have a problem with would be DOJ not prosecuting certain crimes because they want to enact a more stringent set of laws regarding those crimes. If, for example, they were not prosecuting people who illegally sell guns to people who are not allowed to own guns for the purpose of enacting stricter gun laws. I would have a problem with that.
As to how long the executive branch can hold of on implementing a law that has been passed? How many years ago was the ACA passed? Why is it only being implemented piecemeal? Either the law should be postponed in its entirety or not at all. I would also say that the executive branch has had a long time (in this case) to prepare and/or ask congress to otherize a delay. I do not think it is within the power of the executive branch to delay implementation of a law without the consent of congress. They can delay enforcement actions but not the law itself from going into effect.
The only other exception would be if the executive branch feels the law is unconstitutional. In that case I would expect them to file suit in court to block the law.
Regarding DOMA... I would have preferred if the Executive branch had filed suit opposing the law rather than stop defending the law in court. But that may not have been possible due to the law being on the books for so long.
What I would have a problem with would be DOJ not prosecuting certain crimes because they want to enact a more stringent set of laws regarding those crimes. If, for example, they were not prosecuting people who illegally sell guns to people who are not allowed to own guns for the purpose of enacting stricter gun laws. I would have a problem with that.
That happens for people who fail background checks.
As to how long the executive branch can hold of on implementing a law that has been passed? How many years ago was the ACA passed? Why is it only being implemented piecemeal? Either the law should be postponed in its entirety or not at all.
If I recall correctly the law was passed such that it would be implemented in piecemeal. Not only to give the states and other entities times to enact the policies but to also allow those who don't like the law time to repeal it.
Which I think they held their 40th vote to do so a week ago!
This is correct, it was designed for each piece to come online at different times. However, if a piece is not ready then it is up to the executive branch to contact the legislative branch and request the law be changed. A change that the House was more than willing to support no less.
It is not up to the executive branch to simply ignore the law and its hard dates for when things are to be implemented. To do so can jeopardize the entire system because the law was designed to be implemented this way.
Think of it like an assembly line. Each piece of the health care system is added after previous systems are put in place. If the previous.systems are not in place later parts of the system may not work and must also be delayed.
You wouldn't have the car factory go, "oh shit, we are out of gears for the transmission. Fuck it, just bolt it on and we can just toss those gears in the trunk when they come in."
I think Obama should be impeached for violating the Oath of Office to "uphold and defend the Constitution." Violation of this oath is considered a "high crime" according to the Constitution and thus a valid reason for impeachment.
I have always been wary of using this argument because of how it makes some people sound. I hear it a lot with arguments over the second amendment. People will say "the governor is making this type of gun illegal, violating the second amendment, thus he is not defending the constitution and is a traitor and needs to be impeached". However as a radio personality I like by the name of Tom Gresham pointed out, because it is so unlikely to happen, when people yell about it, it just makes them sound crazy and it hurts the argument more then helps it. People think "look at that crazy person over there, I don't want to have the same opinions as them or be associated with them". I am not saying Dragonmaster sounds crazy, just that fear of sounding crazy myself would prevent me from adding my voice for anything like that until public critical mass was reached and I was not the one standing alone in the corner.
I can understand that, as the vast majority of people calling to impeach so-and-so do tend to be crazy unless you get something as blatant as Watergate. As bad as the NSA stuff is, it's not as blatant as Watergate was, and there is still a chance (albeit a very slim chance, and I'm not holding my breath) that it can be cleaned up properly (as opposed to just swept under the rug, which is what I think the administration really wants to do) without anything as extreme as impeachment.
Overall when I see bad things in government happen like the mishandling of TARP funds, NSA 4th amendment violations, or the executive branch overreaching what powers I feel it should have, I essentially just feel powerless to do anything about it. I cast my votes in a blue state, so it does not matter who I vote for in governor or president, yet these people have the most influence over how the laws that affect my life are implemented. So when the president does something I think is wrong, what can I really do about it other then give money to legislative organizations focused on opposing the viewpoints I also disagree with?
I hear ya... I also have been calling and emailing my congressman and senator quite a few times to complain about it.
At this point, though, I'm really demotivated to vote. To use overly extreme examples, it feels like when I step into the ballot box, I have to choose between Hitler and Stalin and I'd rather not vote for either of them, even though Stalin may be (at least according to Churchill), the lesser evil (then again, Churchill also said Satan was a lesser evil than Hitler, so take that as you may).
I have looked at a few third parties to see if any of them align with my beliefs more than the glorified racketeering organizations that pass for the major political parties these days. So far, it seems like the Modern Whig Party comes closest to my own personal beliefs (which is funny as our own Greg compared me to old-school Whig Henry Clay on Twitter a while back). I actually did vote for a Whig candidate in 2000 for a local position oddly enough. However, I'm starting to feel like I'll end up leaving most, if not all, of the ballot blank next time I step into a voting booth.
Except in most cases it's the difference between Getting kicked in the balls and having your arm cut off. While they both hurt one does way more lasting damage.
Except in most cases it's the difference between Getting kicked in the balls and having your arm cut off. While they both hurt one does way more lasting damage.
More like a choice between having your left or right arm cut off.
Politicians suck and even the ones who say they want what you want always manage to give you some broke ass version of what you want and then cry, "it's the best we could cuz... Opposition party..."
If I ask for a ham and swiss and my elected official hands me a ham and swiss that was dipped in a porta potty after an all day hippie concert well... I'd rather have no ham and swiss. If he hands me a ham and provolone I could probably accept that. I could even accept it on rye rather than a kaiser but when it comes covered in fermented shit? I'd rather just stay hungry.
I could even take it with a side dish as long as I am not forced to eat a crappy side dish but can instead pass it to my hungry friend.
This is correct, it was designed for each piece to come online at different times. However, if a piece is not ready then it is up to the executive branch to contact the legislative branch and request the law be changed. A change that the House was more than willing to support no less.
So you want a congress, that has done less than the famous Do Nothing Congress, to adjust the timelines for the ACA? Rather than have the Executive see that there is an issue and then adjust as needed? What happens if/when Congress doesn't/can't make those changes?
All it takes is one guy in the Senate to stop the whole thing. The only thing that Boehner can get his party together to do is to ask them to completely repeal the ACA, with nothing to replace it with.
Do you really think that Congress could do anything to change the ACA? Even just adjusting the dates? Really?
"Do nothing" is not always a bad thing, it depends on the viewpoint of the observer. If congress is busy infringing my civil rights than I would prefer it do nothing.
The House has already PASSED a bill to change some of the implementation dates. You remember the House, the thing controlled by those evil Republicans?
Let's not forget it was a Democrat who famously told us that we can't see what is in the bill until AFTER we pass it. It was also Democrats who crafted the bill ignoring Republicans and their input. It was also Democrats who used legislative sleight of hand to 'deem' the bill passed rather than actually vote on the bill and follow the expected procedure.
ACA is still a horrible law. It does not do what the people want it to do and the chief beneficiary of the bill is the health insurance industry because the law forces EVERYONE to purchase health insurance from private companies.
It does not do what the people want it to do and the chief beneficiary of the bill is the health insurance industry because the law forces EVERYONE to purchase health insurance from private companies.
Definitely. Supposedly one model used for the crafting of the ACA was Switzerland's health care system, which also requires everyone to purchase health insurance from private companies. However, one significant difference is that the Swiss government mandates:
All insurance companies are required to have a fairly extensive level (more so than the most basic plans here) of coverage they have to provide for their standard plans
The Swiss government regulates the rates for those standard plans
All of these standard plans are required by law to be non-profit
Insurance companies are allowed to sell add-ons to the standard plans at a profit, but these add-ons tend to be things such as private hospital rooms, dental plans, and so on. If you have cancer and need months of expensive chemotherapy to treat it, for example, that's all covered by the standard plans.
We don't see anywhere near the extent of these regulations on the private insurance market under the ACA.
I'm going to disregard HMTKsteve's attempt to portray the republicans during the healthcare as reasonable and wanting to actually negotiate in good faith.
Watching McConnell though attempt to manage his primary challenge is entertaining.
I'm going to disregard HMTKsteve's attempt to portray the republicans during the healthcare as reasonable and wanting to actually negotiate in good faith.
Indeed. Every time the Democrats agreed to something the Republicans wanted, the Republicans would always move the goalposts.
Remember, the whole individual mandate to buy insurance thing was originally a Republican idea.
Regardless of any antics performed by the Republicans a bill that the President claimed was so important and far reaching that ALL work performed in creating it must be performed in the bright light of transparency and openness was instead negotiated in darkness and secrecy.
Yes, the individual mandate was an idea floated first by Republicans but was it something they actually wanted and felt would pass constitutional muster or was it one of those ideas like, "we could have world peace if we just killed everyone who doesn't agree with us." Which while being technically correct is also something extremely wrong.
My understanding is that Republicans wanted health insurance reforms while Democrats really wanted a single payer system. Those two ideas do not mesh no matter how much compromise occurs. It's not like mixing chocolate and vanilla ice cream, more like trying to mix oil and water.
It may have also been a case of one side offering up a package deal with the other side cherry picking the package as a counter offer.
EDIT:
Also, the individual mandate was a response to the Clinton plan of implementing single payer. It was a lesser of two evils idea at the time. Sort of a ,"instead of cutting of my arm how about just cutting off my hand instead?" Idea.
So the GOP has voted to ban CNN and NBC from debates unless their entertainment divisions don't air their Hillary specials? Sigh, they are just trying to hide their crazy, batshit, primary debates as much as possible.
The House has already PASSED a bill to change some of the implementation dates. You remember the House, the thing controlled by those evil Republicans?
First, no one, I certainly didn't, call the Republican's evil.
Second, of the challenges I listed were both the current Republican opposition to the ACA in the House and the filibuster in the Senate. Not knowing of any bill that passed the House Having just gone over all the bills pass by the 113th, all 22 of them in the past 8 months, Congress and seeing 0 mention of the ACA I went and looked through all the bills introduced into the House. I found only one bill (HR607) to delay the ACA, which was introduced in February and made it to a subcommittee in April. No votes, no nothing. So on the off chance that Thomas on LoC isn't up to date, could you point me to the vote record that your citing?
Let's not forget it was a Democrat who famously told us that we can't see what is in the bill until AFTER we pass it. It was also Democrats who crafted the bill ignoring Republicans and their input. It was also Democrats who used legislative sleight of hand to 'deem' the bill passed rather than actually vote on the bill and follow the expected procedure.
I don't know to who you are referring to who said that we can't see what's in the bill until after we pass it, could you enlighten me?
To the point that the ACA was crafted ignoring the Republican's input I recall the bill being rewritten a few times with specific reference to the things that Republican's were complaining about, I'll have to dig around for references later however.
I, again, must profess ignorance to what you mean by legislative slight of hand to 'deem' the bill passed rather than vote on it. Do you mean that somehow the PotUS signed the bill without both the House and Senate voting, and passing, the ACA?
I will agree with you that the ACA is a terrible bit of legislation. It certainly isn't what I would have liked anyways.
Comments
"First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees"
http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx
Furthermore, how do you feel about Eric Holder making a decision not to pursue the prosecution of mandatory drug sentences for minor offenses? This is just as much, if not more, of a "rewriting" of the law.
If you are asking me. I wish for less government interaction.
Overall when I see bad things in government happen like the mishandling of TARP funds, NSA 4th amendment violations, or the executive branch overreaching what powers I feel it should have, I essentially just feel powerless to do anything about it. I cast my votes in a blue state, so it does not matter who I vote for in governor or president, yet these people have the most influence over how the laws that affect my life are implemented. So when the president does something I think is wrong, what can I really do about it other then give money to legislative organizations focused on opposing the viewpoints I also disagree with?
Regardless it is not a rewriting of the law.
What I would have a problem with would be DOJ not prosecuting certain crimes because they want to enact a more stringent set of laws regarding those crimes. If, for example, they were not prosecuting people who illegally sell guns to people who are not allowed to own guns for the purpose of enacting stricter gun laws. I would have a problem with that.
As to how long the executive branch can hold of on implementing a law that has been passed? How many years ago was the ACA passed? Why is it only being implemented piecemeal? Either the law should be postponed in its entirety or not at all. I would also say that the executive branch has had a long time (in this case) to prepare and/or ask congress to otherize a delay. I do not think it is within the power of the executive branch to delay implementation of a law without the consent of congress. They can delay enforcement actions but not the law itself from going into effect.
The only other exception would be if the executive branch feels the law is unconstitutional. In that case I would expect them to file suit in court to block the law.
Regarding DOMA... I would have preferred if the Executive branch had filed suit opposing the law rather than stop defending the law in court. But that may not have been possible due to the law being on the books for so long.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/27/should-the-government-go-after-gun-buyers-who-fail-background-checks/
http://sittingduckpolicy.com/2013/biden-no-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
Which I think they held their 40th vote to do so a week ago!
It is not up to the executive branch to simply ignore the law and its hard dates for when things are to be implemented. To do so can jeopardize the entire system because the law was designed to be implemented this way.
Think of it like an assembly line. Each piece of the health care system is added after previous systems are put in place. If the previous.systems are not in place later parts of the system may not work and must also be delayed.
You wouldn't have the car factory go, "oh shit, we are out of gears for the transmission. Fuck it, just bolt it on and we can just toss those gears in the trunk when they come in."
At this point, though, I'm really demotivated to vote. To use overly extreme examples, it feels like when I step into the ballot box, I have to choose between Hitler and Stalin and I'd rather not vote for either of them, even though Stalin may be (at least according to Churchill), the lesser evil (then again, Churchill also said Satan was a lesser evil than Hitler, so take that as you may).
I have looked at a few third parties to see if any of them align with my beliefs more than the glorified racketeering organizations that pass for the major political parties these days. So far, it seems like the Modern Whig Party comes closest to my own personal beliefs (which is funny as our own Greg compared me to old-school Whig Henry Clay on Twitter a while back). I actually did vote for a Whig candidate in 2000 for a local position oddly enough. However, I'm starting to feel like I'll end up leaving most, if not all, of the ballot blank next time I step into a voting booth.
Politicians suck and even the ones who say they want what you want always manage to give you some broke ass version of what you want and then cry, "it's the best we could cuz... Opposition party..."
If I ask for a ham and swiss and my elected official hands me a ham and swiss that was dipped in a porta potty after an all day hippie concert well... I'd rather have no ham and swiss. If he hands me a ham and provolone I could probably accept that. I could even accept it on rye rather than a kaiser but when it comes covered in fermented shit? I'd rather just stay hungry.
I could even take it with a side dish as long as I am not forced to eat a crappy side dish but can instead pass it to my hungry friend.
Oklahoma.. Is a joke.
All it takes is one guy in the Senate to stop the whole thing. The only thing that Boehner can get his party together to do is to ask them to completely repeal the ACA, with nothing to replace it with.
Do you really think that Congress could do anything to change the ACA? Even just adjusting the dates? Really?
The House has already PASSED a bill to change some of the implementation dates. You remember the House, the thing controlled by those evil Republicans?
Let's not forget it was a Democrat who famously told us that we can't see what is in the bill until AFTER we pass it. It was also Democrats who crafted the bill ignoring Republicans and their input. It was also Democrats who used legislative sleight of hand to 'deem' the bill passed rather than actually vote on the bill and follow the expected procedure.
ACA is still a horrible law. It does not do what the people want it to do and the chief beneficiary of the bill is the health insurance industry because the law forces EVERYONE to purchase health insurance from private companies.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/
- All insurance companies are required to have a fairly extensive level (more so than the most basic plans here) of coverage they have to provide for their standard plans
- The Swiss government regulates the rates for those standard plans
- All of these standard plans are required by law to be non-profit
Insurance companies are allowed to sell add-ons to the standard plans at a profit, but these add-ons tend to be things such as private hospital rooms, dental plans, and so on. If you have cancer and need months of expensive chemotherapy to treat it, for example, that's all covered by the standard plans.We don't see anywhere near the extent of these regulations on the private insurance market under the ACA.
Watching McConnell though attempt to manage his primary challenge is entertaining.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/mcconnell-obamacare-probably-ok.php?ref=fpb
Remember, the whole individual mandate to buy insurance thing was originally a Republican idea.
Yes, the individual mandate was an idea floated first by Republicans but was it something they actually wanted and felt would pass constitutional muster or was it one of those ideas like, "we could have world peace if we just killed everyone who doesn't agree with us." Which while being technically correct is also something extremely wrong.
My understanding is that Republicans wanted health insurance reforms while Democrats really wanted a single payer system. Those two ideas do not mesh no matter how much compromise occurs. It's not like mixing chocolate and vanilla ice cream, more like trying to mix oil and water.
It may have also been a case of one side offering up a package deal with the other side cherry picking the package as a counter offer.
EDIT:
Also, the individual mandate was a response to the Clinton plan of implementing single payer. It was a lesser of two evils idea at the time. Sort of a ,"instead of cutting of my arm how about just cutting off my hand instead?" Idea.
If they want to pay for their own primary then they can do whatever they want.
Second, of the challenges I listed were both the current Republican opposition to the ACA in the House and the filibuster in the Senate. Not knowing of any bill that passed the House Having just gone over all the bills pass by the 113th, all 22 of them in the past 8 months, Congress and seeing 0 mention of the ACA I went and looked through all the bills introduced into the House. I found only one bill (HR607) to delay the ACA, which was introduced in February and made it to a subcommittee in April. No votes, no nothing. So on the off chance that Thomas on LoC isn't up to date, could you point me to the vote record that your citing? I don't know to who you are referring to who said that we can't see what's in the bill until after we pass it, could you enlighten me?
To the point that the ACA was crafted ignoring the Republican's input I recall the bill being rewritten a few times with specific reference to the things that Republican's were complaining about, I'll have to dig around for references later however.
I, again, must profess ignorance to what you mean by legislative slight of hand to 'deem' the bill passed rather than vote on it. Do you mean that somehow the PotUS signed the bill without both the House and Senate voting, and passing, the ACA?
I will agree with you that the ACA is a terrible bit of legislation. It certainly isn't what I would have liked anyways.