Posted on 10/01/2013 6:53:21 PM PDT by Libloather
“I weep for my country when I reflect that God is just and that is justice does not sleep forever”
-——Thomas jefferson
That requires two thirds of the Senate and House.
Since you posted it, would the article's proposed action have a chance to work without the required election results?
US Grant could never have been mistaken for a denizen of Detroit.
Think of the horrible precedent, by implication, of allowing Obama to rewrite all laws until congress passes additional legislation.
Such a house bill would be correctly interpreted as GOP support for Obamacare.
A republic in which no one, not individuals, business nor government employees can know what the law is, from moment to moment, is in real trouble.
Obama needs to be the FIRST one on Obamacare....Harry Reid second. God what EVIL and VILE people are our leaders.
A major problem is that even though there exist illegitimate actions for which no remedy is possible, courts generally only consider cases where party presenting the case is seeking some remedy on its own behalf. Worse, the fact that an action is found not to justify a remedy is often taken to imply that the action is--at least de facto--legitimate.
The legitimacy of a tax policy which unfairly targets some people may be challenged by anyone who is targeted, on the basis that if the policy was illegitimate the court may order a refund of monies the plaintiff had been illegitimately compelled to pay. The legitimacy of waivers, however, may not be challenged in such fashion. Those who don't receive waivers could argue that they should be entitled to them, but cannot argue that the waivers are illegitimate since that would imply that the finding that they weren't entitled was correct. Those who do receive waivers generally cannot challenge them, since the only remedy the court could impose (denying the waiver) is one for which they wouldn't need the court's assistance. The only way in which I could see that people could bring action requesting the court to find illegitimate a waiver to which they would be entitled would be if eligibility for that waiver made them ineligible for something else to which they claim they are legitimately entitled. Even there, the plaintiffs would have no basis for seeking any remedy beyond the ability to receive the latter benefit if they voluntarily decline the waiver they claim to be illegitimate.
Many statutes are written in such a way that they could not be legitimately enforced as written in all circumstances, because they would in at least some circumstances conflict with other laws or statutes. Very rarely do statutes even try to list all the cases where they would be preempted; instead, most statutes are expected to be read with an implied "except when preempted by some other law...". It is in most cases right and proper for those charged with enforcing the law to forgo enforcement of statutes in cases where it appears obvious that prosecution would be preempted by some other law. If the statutes are so poorly written that would be impossible for a reasonable person to know when it applied and when it didn't, someone charged with enforcing the law should announce that he will regard the statute as illegitimate unless or until it is clarified.
The problem with Obamacare waivers is that there isn't any clear statutory definition of who is entitled to them and who is not; while it's right and proper for someone enforcing the law to use some judgment in granting exemptions, that does not imply that such people can legitimately be given or claim carte blanche to apply whatever standards they see fit.
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.