Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could a Republican President Gut Obamacare Unilaterally?
The Weekly Standard ^ | 7:01 AM, AUG 2, 2013 | BY JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Posted on 08/02/2013 5:03:56 AM PDT by onyx

On the cusp of the July 4 holiday weekend, President Obama quietly announced (via an underling’s blog post) that he had unilaterally chosen to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate—its requirement that businesses with 50 or more workers provide federally approved health insurance. Obama claims to possess the legal authority to choose not to execute this aspect of the law that he spearheaded and signed, despite the fact that Obamacare’s text declares that the Shared Responsibility for Employers Regarding Health Coverage provision, commonly known as the employer mandate, “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” 

That’s almost exactly the same language that Obamacare uses to refer to the starting date for its budget-busting exchange subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, over the next ten years, Obamacare would funnel a colossal $1.212 trillion from American taxpayers, through Washington bureaucrats, to insurance companies—the ultimate recipients of those subsidies. Obamacare’s text states that the subsidies “shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.”  

So, if Obama can unilaterally decide not to execute Obamacare’s employer-mandate provisions (which “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013”), does this mean that a future Republican president can unilaterally decide not to execute its exchange-subsidy provisions (which “shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013”)? If Obama can grant himself what Nebraska Senate hopeful Ben Sasse calls a de facto “line-item veto” over parts of an existing law, then couldn’t a future Republican president grant himself that same power and wield it over different parts of that same law? If Obama isn’t constrained to execute laws as written, wouldn’t a future GOP president enjoy similar liberties? 

In truth, if a future Republican president were to claim to have the authority to choose not to execute Obamacare as written, it would represent an egregious violation of the public trust, the presidential oath, and the separation of powers. The most essential power or duty that the president possesses is one that we generally (perhaps too casually) take for granted: his constitutional responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The first line of Article II (the Constitution’s executive article) reads, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”; the full executive power is vested in just one person. If we elect a president who doesn’t take seriously his responsibility—his duty—to execute the laws as written, then the Constitution affords us little recourse (at least short of impeachment). In this way, both the Constitution and the citizenry put an extraordinary level of trust in just one man.

If a future Republican president were to claim to have the power not to pay out Obamacare’s taxpayer-funded exchange subsidies — the power to delay that portion of the law for whatever period of time he chose and thereby effectively change the law — it would be a gross abdication of duty. If that were to happen, hopefully that Republican president would not threaten to veto as “unnecessary” subsequent legislation to amend the law and grant the delay that he or she sought, thereby restoring the rule of law. And hopefully he or she wouldn’t say something like this:

Well, this was a very practical decision that actually doesn’t go to the heart of us implementing [Obamacare]….

I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security...but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people. 



Read More


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: goppotus; obamacare

1 posted on 08/02/2013 5:03:56 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx

...why not?....Odungo has done everything with executive order


2 posted on 08/02/2013 5:06:28 AM PDT by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Would a Republican president gut obamacare unilaterally> It is to laugh. No Republican president is going to cause that many bureaucrats to lose their jobs.
3 posted on 08/02/2013 5:07:19 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/econohttp://www.fee.org/library/det)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

No. Ted Cruz explains why. He was all over talk radio on this

His talk w Hugh Hewitt was very succinct and his argument reasonable and Hugh played devil’s advocate very well.

Any dream of retracting any entitlement program once it’s in and running is a dream and only a theory

Never happen

Don’t fund it. Com


4 posted on 08/02/2013 5:10:49 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
I think its possible because its a tax at the very least a Republican potus and the House should be able to get rid of it.

Supposely, our traitorous Supreme Court Chief Justice set up obamacare as a tax so it would be easier to get rid of. We shall see.

You can be sure the rats would lawyer it to death for years.

5 posted on 08/02/2013 5:14:43 AM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin our secret weapon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Call it the “Obama Doctrine”, and since the Dems aren’t fighting it NOW, consider it a fait accompli when WE do it to them. . .


6 posted on 08/02/2013 5:20:14 AM PDT by Salgak (http://catalogoftehburningstoopid.blogspot.com 100% all-natural snark !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
If President Obama possess the legal authority to delay the employer mandate despite what the law says, then any future President has the same legal authority and it wouldn't "represent an egregious violation of the public trust, the presidential oath, and the separation of powers". How could it unless Obama making this unilateral decision is the same thing?

Is it because the fictional president in this hypothetical situation is a Republican that he or she is expected to actually obey the law? Perhaps this hypothetical President is white so they can't call any criticism racist?

7 posted on 08/02/2013 5:21:35 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911

Right.
Shameful Chief Justice Roberts sure made a mess of everything.


8 posted on 08/02/2013 5:22:12 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Perfect!


9 posted on 08/02/2013 5:23:07 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onyx

I don’t remember anywhere in the Constitution where it says that any laws passed by congress are permanent and carved in stone. Other than the Constitution, any law can be reversed by congress.


10 posted on 08/02/2013 5:36:19 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

“Other than the Constitution, any law can be reversed by congress.”....

Assuming the standing president doesn’t veto it. Better have enough votes in place that he is unable to veto. Then again there is that pesky “executive order”. The executive order is like the “race card”, play it when needed.


11 posted on 08/02/2013 5:49:29 AM PDT by Progov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onyx

yes, i agree with you.


12 posted on 08/02/2013 6:05:49 AM PDT by Shivam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onyx

The author assumes there will be a Republican president in the future...and he also assumes that Obama will actually stand down as president on January 20, 2017.

I think it’s wise not to ASSUME anything in regards to Obama, who many patriots believe will not leave office unless forced to do so by a downward change in his fortune.

The fact is that Obama since 2011 has conducted himself as a dictator, and there has been no effective counter attack from the loyal opposition, who allowed him to steal the election of 2012.

I submit, what is stop Obama from becoming the “President For Life” if he wants the office? The U.S. Constitution? It hasn’t stopped him from conducting a five year run of almost daily acts of treason.


13 posted on 08/02/2013 6:05:49 AM PDT by Jack_Reed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

DEFUND AND REPEAL.

FR is funded solely by the freedom loving folks
who love and use it.
Please donate today!

14 posted on 08/02/2013 6:06:31 AM PDT by RedMDer (http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jack_Reed
The Constitution also didn't stop him from usurping the office for which he's not eligible.
15 posted on 08/02/2013 6:14:24 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Don't assume Shahanshah Obama will allow another election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jack_Reed

Ted Criz is saying that if the republicans win the senate in 2014 that it cannot be repaled or got rid of.

I think he has enough imagination to envision a conservative pres in the future in his prediction

He says once it s in it s in

So I can’t imagine why this waste of time article is worth considering


16 posted on 08/02/2013 6:17:05 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: onyx
No; the Democrats will Sue and take the Executive Actions to the USSC, where there would be a Ruling to stop it as "Un-Constitutional".

HOWEVER, since we have a One-Party (NWO/Progressive/Money-controlled) government now, there is nothing left of a Constitutional government in this country.

The Prolitereat is in place, and no We The People is in their vocabulary or Agenda.

17 posted on 08/02/2013 6:22:24 AM PDT by traditional1 (Amerika.....Providing public housing for the Mulatto Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

The King can do whatever he wants. Haven’t we learned that lesson yet?


18 posted on 08/02/2013 6:23:10 AM PDT by Gritty (Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are void-Jefferson, 1798)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
No question onyx. Some of the rumors are that he was being blackmailed by the regime for basically "buying his adopted kids" so he had to do the regimes bidding or face the consequences.

Haiving no guts he did the reigmes bidding. Feeling guilty abott the entire thing he supposedly set it up as a tax so it could be gotten rid of easily,once again we shall see.

19 posted on 08/02/2013 6:29:26 AM PDT by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin our secret weapon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Con sta tution?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat Con sta tution?

Weee doon’ need no steeenkking Constatution.

Rule of Law??
What’s THAT!?!?

We done got rid of that thing wit O’Bammy!!!
Now we’s just gon’ do what WE WANT!!!


20 posted on 08/02/2013 6:58:01 AM PDT by Flintlock ("The redcoats are coming" -- TO SEIZE OUR GUNS!!--Paul Revere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Simply grant every American an indefinite, universal waiver.


21 posted on 08/02/2013 7:06:15 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Just make sure the waiver also includes the Obamacare taxation component. I can absolutely imagine them waiving mandatory participation while still I,posing the tax/fine.
22 posted on 08/02/2013 7:11:13 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: onyx

A conservative perhaps. A Republican, no way. They don’t have the heuvos to do it.


23 posted on 08/02/2013 7:13:30 AM PDT by Professional Engineer (I am not cynical. /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Progov

Push comes to shove, an EO by a conservative president could defund and sweep it away as well.


24 posted on 08/02/2013 7:20:16 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: onyx

No. The same Democrats who say it’s legal for Zer0 to unilaterally alter 0bamaCare would say the opposite for a Republican president, and the GSM would throw their old positions down the memory hole. Welcome to Ingsoc.


25 posted on 08/02/2013 11:12:53 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Could a Republican President Gut Obamacare Unilaterally?

That's about the only way a Republican president could stop it. Democrats in the Senate will filibuster any attempts to legislate it away.

26 posted on 08/02/2013 11:17:05 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson