Posted on 10/12/2017 9:08:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Genie is out of the bottle. We might as well use it while we got it.
We sure know the Democrats will, no matter what we do.
That’s what I was trying to get clarification on. We know Obamacare was vague in many areas, and also delegated a lot of things to the executive.
I’m trying to get clarification whether or not there are specific clauses in the legislation that allow Trump to do what he is doing. I don’t know whether he is legislating or not.
As far as the constitutionality of federal healthcare laws and programs, the courts obviously disagree with you. And the constitution gives them not you the authority. If you want the 10th to apply to healthcare you need a plan, not a rant.
This is where Chief Justice Roberts should be remembered for a very important point he made in his infamous ACA decision a few years ago: It's not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to fix a bad law
This approach by President Trump is perfect because it is perfectly legitimate. In fact, I've been anticipating something like this for some time.
President Trump is expanding an existing provision of ObamaCare so not only is it legal, it's explicitly a part of ObamaCare
“Plus, this EO can be immediately reversed in 8 years.”:
Not a chance in hell of it being “immediately reversed”. As DACA has proven, once these polices are in place it takes a long time to reverse course. And this policy will involve 10s of millions of Americans, not some 7 or 8 hundred thousand foreign born Illegals.
“Doing THAT ALONE is the death knell for Obamacare!”
Well, to be fair, ordering the IRS to not enforce the penalty pinched off the feeding tube.
Amen! As a woman, I don’t need to pay for coverage for a prostate exam. My fellow male colleagues do not need to pay for coverage for pap smears.
“....are we being hypocritical?”
I don’t think so. I actually believe the blame for Obama’s use of executive orders is often misplaced.
Legislation cleanly passed by both houses of congress can easily overturn an executive order - because a POTUS vetoing legislation in order to protect an executive order would certainly be seen as overreaching.
As long as there is obstruction and gridlock in congress, as there clearly is now, Trump’s use of executive orders is fine by me. However, if congress were to get its act together and pass a clean bill that would reverse or replace an executive order - and Trump were to veto such a bill - that would constitute executive overreach.
I think it would be hypocritical for us to support his use of the veto for that purpose. Personally, I don’t believe Trump would do that.
IMHO
That's surrender talk.
The Constitution is the ONLY legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of the Left and the Feds.
The Right - for anyone who loves America and what it stands for - must work to dismantle the $3+ trillion unconstitutional portion of the $4 trillion feds. This MUST happen if we are to recover our Free Constitutional Republic which should be our goal here.
IMO, anything less - and certainly ratifying the illegal behavior of the Left by emulating their acts - is surrender to tyranny and the Leftist thugs who would love nothing more than to take away the rest of what you thought were your freedoms, your money, AND what you thought was your life.
Where? I see nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds authority over healthcare.
"Them" refers to the courts that have the authority to interpret the laws.
That's Article III of the constitution.
And don't quote me out of context.
Any federal statute that allows the feds to do things that are not authorized by the Constitution is illegal. Since the Constitution does not authorize the feds to interfere with healthcare, the ACA has NO legitimate authority and should be rejected and nullified.
Chief Justice Roberts should be remembered for a very important point he made in his infamous ACA decision a few years ago: It's not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to fix a bad law
Chief Justice Roberts is a turncoat and deceptive. It is not the role of SCOTUS to change the law (that would be a legislative, not a judicial function) but it is their role to strike down a law as unconstitutional if they based their ruling on sound constitutional analysis and application.
Everybody talks about that, but it's not really a premium cost driver.
WITHIN REASON!...certain coverage mandates barely affect premium level.
The reason being, if everyone has the same package of coverage, those provisions will "cross subsidize" each other actually making them less expensive for everyone than if they were to be specifically chosen by the insured (cafeteria coverage)
It also is less costly for the carrier, as it allows one standard policy package, as opposed to several million custom one-offs, where the insured picks only what they want. (they would add the cost to the premium or policy fee)
WITHIN REASON!...limited coverage mandates also prevent an unscrupulous carrier from selling a cheap policy that covers nothing.
What coverage provisions do really jack up premium for everyone?
Chiropractic and mental health coverage are the most expensive.
The Constitution does not give the courts the authority to violate the Constitution (art. VI, cl. 2).
Individual ("me") and state authority and freedoms are constitutional presumptions (amend. IX and X).
One of the problems with some of these legal challenges is that the plaintiffs in the cases aren't always the parties that have the strongest constitutional arguments to make.
The Roberts quote you posted IS the problem. Roberts has abdicated his role a justice of SCOTUS.
Baloney. Roberts’ point was that the ACA was a poorly written law and might collapse under its own weight, but that didn’t make it unconstitutional on the grounds that were the basis of the legal challenge before him.
Roberts talks in terms of “fixing” a law. But “fixing” a law isn’t the issue and is irrelevant - that’s why I said Roberts is devious.
“Striking down” an unconstitutional law IS relevant and IS the issue and Roberts is loathe to do that as he has repeatedly said.
The ACA is patently unconstitutional and regardless of the feckless SCOTUS, should be ignored and not enforced by POTUS or the states.
Perhaps you aren’t aware of how easy it is to ignore the ACA. In fact, it’s almost TOO easy to ignore it. That’s why it’s so hard for most people to mount a solid legal challenge to it. A plaintiff has no standing to make a legal challenge unless it can be demonstrated that he or she has suffered harm or is likely to suffer harm as a result of it. It’s so easy to ignore it that it’s almost impossible to make the case that there’s any harm at all.
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.