Skip to comments.Could a Republican President Gut Obamacare Unilaterally?
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 underlings blog post) that he had unilaterally chosen to delay Obamacares employer mandateits 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 Obamacares 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.
Thats 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 companiesthe ultimate recipients of those subsidies. Obamacares text states that the subsidies shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.
So, if Obama can unilaterally decide not to execute Obamacares 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 couldnt a future Republican president grant himself that same power and wield it over different parts of that same law? If Obama isnt constrained to execute laws as written, wouldnt 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 Constitutions 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 doesnt take seriously his responsibilityhis dutyto 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 Obamacares 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 wouldnt say something like this:
Well, this was a very practical decision that actually doesnt 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.
...why not?....Odungo has done everything with executive order
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
Don’t fund it. Com
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.
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. . .
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?
Shameful Chief Justice Roberts sure made a mess of everything.
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.
“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.
yes, i agree with you.
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.
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
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.
The King can do whatever he wants. Haven’t we learned that lesson yet?
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.
Con sta tution?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat Con sta tution?
Weee doon’ need no steeenkking Constatution.
Rule of Law??
We done got rid of that thing wit O’Bammy!!!
Now we’s just gon’ do what WE WANT!!!
Simply grant every American an indefinite, universal waiver.
A conservative perhaps. A Republican, no way. They don’t have the heuvos to do it.
Push comes to shove, an EO by a conservative president could defund and sweep it away as well.
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.
That's about the only way a Republican president could stop it. Democrats in the Senate will filibuster any attempts to legislate it away.
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.