Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/16/2012 5:47:42 PM PDT by markomalley
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a General Counsel and legal staff to ensure that the agency’s actions are lawful. Did they take the day off last Thursday?
We have to question whether the department lawyers were consulted at all about the “Information Memorandum” issued by HHS last Thursday that invites states to come up with creative excuses (aka “demonstration projects”) to suspend the work requirements in the welfare reform law.
Given the clear, unambiguous, and binding legal prohibition for that type of waiver, if they were consulted, the lawyers involved were embarrassingly careless in approving language that is in direct violation of federal law. Because there is no legal basis for permitting the waivers at issue, HHS needs to follow the law and withdraw the illegal Memorandum.
Last Thursday, our colleagues Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley were among the first to expose the Obama Administration’s plan—through the HHS Memorandum—to gut the work requirement that was an essential foundation of the landmark welfare reform law of 1996. They explained one reason why the waiver authority cited by HHS does not allow the Secretary to waive the key work requirements. It turns out there is an even clearer, and express, legal prohibition in the 1996 statute against what HHS seems to want to do.
In short, the HHS action that would be highly questionable when you read the authorities cited by HHS becomes completely indefensible when you examine all the relevant law.
As Rector and Bradley noted, the waiver authority cited in the HHS Memorandum only authorizes the Secretary of HHS to suspend certain reporting requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) law, not the underlying work requirements in section 407 of the act, now codified in 42 U.S.C. § 607. The HHS Memorandum advances the flimsy argument that:
While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407 [now section 607 of the code], section 402(a)(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.
Rector and Bradley correctly argued that the best way to read these different provisions is that the Secretary’s power to waive state reporting requirements should not be read to permit the Secretary to do what the waiver provision does not authorize and indeed forbids by implication: waiving the substantive work requirements of another section.
But there is an even more pointed reason to come to the same conclusion: Federal law expressly prohibits the Secretary from waiving the work requirements!
Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that “a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.” In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.
On the same day the HHS Memorandum was issued, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R–MI) and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R–UT) sent a pointed letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius asking for the department’s legal reasoning by the end of today (Monday), stating that they “believe [HHS's position] is deeply flawed and specifically contradicted by TANF and related statutory language.” A source from the Finance Committee indicated that as of the time of this writing, the Secretary has not yet acknowledged their request.
Some sort of explanation is obviously needed. The statutory language here is so clear that it is difficult to imagine how HHS could justify the language of the Memorandum or its primary object. The least painful approach for the department is to retract the Memorandum. An explicit confession of error would be nice, but an implicit acknowledgement is all that is necessary. But whatever the explanation, HHS needs to follow the law and withdraw the illegal Memorandum.
Everything else the bastard has done is illegal, so why would one more matter?
“Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges”.
I agree, makes me wonder why a Conservative/Republcan President can’t get away with similar actions—never mind, I know.
Unfortunately for Americans, the commie ‘RATS OWN all of the courts, lawyers and judges these days. Americans, especially conservatives and Christians, are just SOL.
This is exactly why the 2nd amendment is in jeapordy: Obama has given anumber of illegal orders and the Congress sits on their hands.
After you’ve allowed a President with illegal qualifications to be elected..
THEN.. the word illegal is nebulous.. nonsense...
After you’ve made an in your face racist to become Attorney General what then is illegal?..
The very word illegal has become nonsense..
Illegal aliens have become Undocumented insurgents.. protected by federal minions..
NOTHING is now illegal EXCEPT what Zero-Obama says is illegal..
Justice Roberts is now Obamas bitch... a very dicy situation..
He’s looting the treasury to buy votes.
You can’t give money away without the permission of congress.
He’s looting the treasury to buy votes.
You can’t give money away without the permission of congress.
Sebelius most probably would have found it a sacred honor to work for Stalin or Lenin.
*
BFD, what are the sheeple going to do about it? Not a dam thing but whine,cry, bitch and moan that’s all.
Would have? (NB: I don't typically believe in reincarnation...but in Ø's case...)
As if O cares about the law....
He’s trying his darn best. :)
Article II, §3, clause 5: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
Article II, §3, clause 5: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
I guess next Obama will just end the tax cut extension debate and have the IRS issue new guidelines requiring the tax rates he wants.
Dems don’t have to follow no stinkin’ laws ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.