Indicator for November?

[Truth Detector]

Please indicate for me where the President has overstepped his powers with regards to the ACA?

He is disregarding portions of the law based on purely political purposes. You know, changing it as he goes by letting certain deadlines to pass without enforcement, changing deadlines contained in the law and allowing people to keep their old plans even though the law outlaws plans that do not meet the specific minimum requirements of the law.

Are you dishonestly feigning ignorance of this Counselor?

Back to my question regarding your original premise you keep purposefully avoiding; what "situation" is it that Republicans are facing this fall?

 

[Truth Detector]

I grew up next door to that district, I don't believe the characterization of these voters is correct, its more complex than that. The last two paragraphs has been the mantra of the Conservative movement for 30 years, its yet to have come true.

Those last two paragraphs define Democrats; they like meaningless simple sound bites (hope and change comes to mind) and pandering to low information voters promising them more pork.

 

[cawacko]

I grew up next door to that district, I don't believe the characterization of these voters is correct, its more complex than that. The last two paragraphs has been the mantra of the Conservative movement for 30 years, its yet to have come true.

So only conservatives of the last 30 years think voters are entitled? Really? And only conservatives of the last 30 years think politicians pander? Really? You are saying voters aren't entitled. And you are saying politicians don't pander. Wow.

 

[Truth Detector]

So only conservatives of the last 30 years think voters are entitled? Really? And only conservatives of the last 30 years think politicians pander? Really? You are saying voters aren't entitled. And you are saying politicians don't pander. Wow.

He's amazing isn't he? LOL

Maybe he'll eventually get to my question about what this "situation" is facing Republicans in November.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm all for reinventing the law and making it better, it is a flawed law, almost all complex laws are.

That wasn't the discussion; it was the fact that the President thinks he can reinvent it for political purposes without Congress and the political impact such efforts have on public opinion. Do you have this much trouble following a debate in the courtroom Counselor?

 

[Truth Detector]

I did not intent for the word "situation" to contain a negative or positive connotation.

I am asking you what that "situation" is because you are the one claiming there is a "situation." What is it?

One can be in a great situation or a bad situation.

Thank you for sharing the obvious.

Todays election might tell us something about whose situation is great or bad... Everyone is in a situation.

As I stated; the only "situation" that I know of is the one where polls suggest that there is a possibility that Democrats could LOSE the Senate in the fall. Republicans obviously won't "lose" the House and their "situation" right now in the Senate is in the minority and can only increase rather than decrease. What "situation Republicans are facing" are you talking about?

 

[Teflon Don]

Please indicate for me where the President has overstepped his powers with regards to the ACA?

Did the ACA give Obama the authority to give out waivers? Did it authorize him to institute his numerous delays?

That Obama acts like a two bit thug reminiscent of Castro and Stalin is less worrying to me than the acquiescence of Congress

Let me ask you this. Let's say there were a GOP President right now and he were incorporating the same delays; would the left be silent? Would you? I doubt it.

You would be screaming for impeachment

 

[Truth Detector]

Please indicate for me where the President has overstepped his powers with regards to the ACA?

Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s
By George F. Will, Published: August 14, 2013

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

......

Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”

Neither does the Constitution confer on presidents the power to rewrite laws if they decide the change is a “tweak” not involving the law’s “essence.” Anyway, the employer mandate is essential to the ACA.
.......

Obama should be embarrassed that, by ignoring the legal requirement concerning the employer mandate, he has validated critics who say the ACA cannot be implemented as written. What does not embarrass him is his complicity in effectively rewriting the ACA for the financial advantage of self-dealing members of Congress and their staffs.

......

The ACA says members of Congress (annual salaries: $174,000) and their staffs (thousands making more than $100,000) must participate in the law’s insurance exchanges. It does not say that when this change goes into effect, the current federal subsidy for this affluent cohort — up to 75 percent of the premium’s cost, perhaps $10,000 for families — should be unchanged.

When Congress awakened to what it enacted, it panicked: This could cause a flight of talent, making Congress less wonderful. So Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management, which has no power to do this, to authorize for the political class special subsidies unavailable for less privileged and less affluent citizens.

If the president does it, it’s legal? “Exactly, exactly.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...bd6cb2-044a-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

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.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041112_Obamacare_unconstitutional_implementation_delay.html#ixzz2vfl7oFlY

 

[Truth Detector]

Did the ACA give Obama the authority to give out waivers? Did it authorize him to institute his numerous delays?

That Obama acts like a two bit thug reminiscent of Castro and Stalin is less worrying to me than the acquiescence of Congress

Let me ask you this. Let's say there were a GOP President right now and he were incorporating the same delays; would the left be silent? Would you? I doubt it.

You would be screaming for impeachment

BINGO; but you see, it is okay because it is "their" guy who is the "decider" usurping the Constitution dontchyaknow.

 

[Jarod]

He is disregarding portions of the law based on purely political purposes. You know, changing it as he goes by letting certain deadlines to pass without enforcement, changing deadlines contained in the law and allowing people to keep their old plans even though the law outlaws plans that do not meet the specific minimum requirements of the law.

Are you dishonestly feigning ignorance of this Counselor?

Back to my question regarding your original premise you keep purposefully avoiding; what "situation" is it that Republicans are facing this fall?

I already answered your question...

Is enforcement of the law, constitutionally, left to the executive branch?

 

[Jarod]

He's amazing isn't he? LOL

Maybe he'll eventually get to my question about what this "situation" is facing Republicans in November.

Again Ill answer your question... I don't know, that's what I am trying to determine.

 

[Jarod]

Did the ACA give Obama the authority to give out waivers? Did it authorize him to institute his numerous delays?

That Obama acts like a two bit thug reminiscent of Castro and Stalin is less worrying to me than the acquiescence of Congress

Let me ask you this. Let's say there were a GOP President right now and he were incorporating the same delays; would the left be silent? Would you? I doubt it.

You would be screaming for impeachment

If that's the fact, are the Conservatives just letting him get away with it out of the kindness of their harts? Why has the Senate not drawn up articles of impeachment?

 

[NOVA]

If that's the fact, are the Conservatives just letting him get away with it out of the kindness of their harts? Why has the Senate not drawn up articles of impeachment?

Obama has been changing the ACA as it was passed...thats an obvious fact
He and his AG ignore and refuse to enforce immigration law
He and his AG refuse to enforce federal drug laws
If he can change this legislation on a whim, and pick and choose what laws to enforce, can he change other laws at will...?

What you should already be aware of is...
Impeachment begins in the House and must pass a full house vote...the Senate has nothing to do with it...
The House becomes the prosecurters
The Senate draws up the rules to hold a trial and they become the jury....

Now is it clear to you why it ain't gonna happen....I'll give you a clue....Harry Reid's Senate is the jury....

What is kinda of strange to me that the issue isn't brought up in the Supreme Court....a President overstepping his authority seems to be a
constitutional issue first....

 

[Jarod]

Obama has been changing the ACA as it was passed...thats an obvious fact
He and his AG ignore and refuse to enforce immigration law
He and his AG refuse to enforce federal drug laws
If he can change this legislation on a whim, and pick and choose what laws to enforce, can he change other laws at will...?

What you should already be aware of is...
Impeachment begins in the House and must pass a full house vote...the Senate has nothing to do with it...
The House becomes the prosecurters
The Senate draws up the rules to hold a trial and they become the jury....

Now is it clear to you why it ain't gonna happen....I'll give you a clue....Harry Reid's Senate is the jury....

What is kinda of strange to me that the issue isn't brought up in the Supreme Court....a President overstepping his authority seems to be a
constitutional issue first....

You are correct, I misspoke.

SO why don't they at least try to impeach him... ?


Ill tell you why, this is how historically Presidents have used their enforcement power. Its not unconstitutional.

 

[Truth Detector]

Again Ill answer your question... I don't know, that's what I am trying to determine.

You don't know? You have to be the only political debate person in America that doesn't know. I just told you a few posts back. The situation is that Republicans will HOLD the House and have a good chance to take over the Senate; so how this a "situation" for the Republicans?

It certainly is a problematic "situation" for Democrats; wouldn't you agree?

 

[Jarod]

You don't know? You have to be the only political debate person in America that doesn't know. I just told you a few posts back. The situation is that Republicans will HOLD the House and have a good chance to take over the Senate; so how this a "situation" for the Republicans?

It certainly is a problematic "situation" for Democrats; wouldn't you agree?

I don't know if that's true.

 

[Truth Detector]

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

He is disregarding portions of the law based on purely political purposes. You know, changing it as he goes by letting certain deadlines to pass without enforcement, changing deadlines contained in the law and allowing people to keep their old plans even though the law outlaws plans that do not meet the specific minimum requirements of the law.

Is enforcement of the law, constitutionally, left to the executive branch?

What does this have to do with the Imperial President re-writing law using Executive orders Counselor?

 

[Jarod]

The word "situation" does not have a negative or positive connotation. I can be in a good situation, just as likely as I am in a bad situation.

 

[Jarod]

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

He is disregarding portions of the law based on purely political purposes. You know, changing it as he goes by letting certain deadlines to pass without enforcement, changing deadlines contained in the law and allowing people to keep their old plans even though the law outlaws plans that do not meet the specific minimum requirements of the law.



What does this have to do with the Imperial President re-writing law using Executive orders Counselor?

What he is doing, has done, is no different than what ALL other presidents have done with laws and its perfectly Constitutional. If it weren't you know the R's would be jumping to impeach him. Its not like he was getting a BJ in the Oval.

 

[Truth Detector]

If that's the fact, are the Conservatives just letting him get away with it out of the kindness of their harts?

How are the Conservatives letting him get away with it Counselor?

Why has the Senate not drawn up articles of impeachment?

Gee I don't know Counselor; why do you think the SENATE CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS appear to be unconcerned with an Imperial Presidency usurping his Constitutional limitations...the SAME DEMOCRATS WHO STOOD UP AND CHEERED when the Imperial President declared in his SOU that he didn't need the Congress and would find any way he could around them to forward his agenda?

LMAO