- JD Barleycorn
- 11-15-2013, 12:39 AM
Apparently CJ hasn't heard what Howard Dean said about Obama having the authority to change the law. Yes, the law that CJ says is not in effect yet. Surprise! It is in effect and it has a built in time table that must be obeyed. To do as Obama says is to break federal law. You see CJ, this is a country of laws and not men. Obama, though he may think so, is not a dictator. He has to obey the law even if he was the one who signed it into law. I suggest that you go back to school and take some pre-law classes.
- CJ7
- 11-15-2013, 02:24 AM
Apparently CJ hasn't heard what Howard Dean said about Obama having the authority to change the law. Yes, the law that CJ says is not in effect yet. Surprise! It is in effect and it has a built in time table that must be obeyed. To do as Obama says is to break federal law. You see CJ, this is a country of laws and not men. Obama, though he may think so, is not a dictator. He has to obey the law even if he was the one who signed it into law. I suggest that you go back to school and take some pre-law classes. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
apparently you can't read ... the Law wasn't changed, just postponed. You and Dean deserve each other, you're both idiots. Howard Dean ... BBBAAAWWWWAAAHHAHAHAHA
- LexusLover
- 11-15-2013, 03:36 AM
For years on here a poster was "un-American" if the poster didn't support ACA....
.. now the whining liberals are claims a poster is "un-American" if the poster opposes changing it.
There were Republicans and Democrats wanting to pass a bill with language postponing the "roll out" and that group was demonized and ridiculed on here ...
.. now look where we are!
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
The President of the United States cannot tell health insurance companies what they can sell and what they cannot sell..... that is not sliding down any slippery slop ...
... that's a plunge into an abyss..
An old saying: "Bad facts make bad laws."
.. now the whining liberals are claims a poster is "un-American" if the poster opposes changing it.
There were Republicans and Democrats wanting to pass a bill with language postponing the "roll out" and that group was demonized and ridiculed on here ...
.. now look where we are!
Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
The President of the United States cannot tell health insurance companies what they can sell and what they cannot sell..... that is not sliding down any slippery slop ...
... that's a plunge into an abyss..
An old saying: "Bad facts make bad laws."
- BJerk
- 11-15-2013, 08:01 AM
I think that JD Barleycorn and ExNyer have a point here. It is dangerous to let a President pick and choose - we could get a conservative someday who guts this very law, and lets the insurance companies run wild!!
Article II Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law
The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[17] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called the Take Care Clause,[18] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause.[19] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President,[18] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[20] By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the law and control the law execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."[19] Addressing the North Carolina ratifying convention, William Maclaine declared that the Faithful Execution Clause was "one of the [Constitution's] best provisions."[19] If the President "takes care to see the laws faithfully executed, it will be more than is done in any government on the continent; for I will venture to say that our government, and those of the other states, are, with respect to the execution of the laws, in many respects mere ciphers."[19] President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Discussing a tax rebellion, Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to" that duty.[19]
According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause as standing for the proposition that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.[21] Quite the contrary: The Take Care Clause demands that the President obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution.[22] In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Supreme Court explained how the President executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2."
The President possesses wide discretion in deciding how and even when to enforce laws. He also has a range of interpretive discretion in deciding the meaning of laws he must execute. When an appropriation provides discretion, the President can gauge when and how appropriated moneys can be spent most efficiently. However, the President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)). Nor may the President take an action not authorized either by the Constitution or by a lawful statute. (See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)). Finally, the President may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or "cancel" certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power.[19]
Some Presidents have claimed the authority under this clause to impound money appropriated by Congress. President Jefferson, for example, delayed the expenditure of money appropriated for the purchase of gunboats for over a year. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors sometimes refused outright to expend appropriated money.[19] The Supreme Court, however, has held that impoundments without Congressional authorization are unconstitutional.[23]
It has been asserted that the President's responsibility in the "faithful" execution of the laws entitles him to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus[citation needed]. Article One provides that the privilege may not be suspended save during times of rebellion or invasion, but it does not specify who may suspend the privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may suspend the privilege if it deems it necessary. During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege, but, owing to the vehement opposition he faced, obtained congressional authorization for the same.[citation needed] Since then, the privilege of the writ has only been suspended upon the express authorization of Congress.
In Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws. In that case the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "[t]he Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance."[24] Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch.
Article II Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law
The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[17] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called the Take Care Clause,[18] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause.[19] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President,[18] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[20] By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the law and control the law execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."[19] Addressing the North Carolina ratifying convention, William Maclaine declared that the Faithful Execution Clause was "one of the [Constitution's] best provisions."[19] If the President "takes care to see the laws faithfully executed, it will be more than is done in any government on the continent; for I will venture to say that our government, and those of the other states, are, with respect to the execution of the laws, in many respects mere ciphers."[19] President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Discussing a tax rebellion, Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to" that duty.[19]
According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause as standing for the proposition that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.[21] Quite the contrary: The Take Care Clause demands that the President obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution.[22] In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Supreme Court explained how the President executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2."
The President possesses wide discretion in deciding how and even when to enforce laws. He also has a range of interpretive discretion in deciding the meaning of laws he must execute. When an appropriation provides discretion, the President can gauge when and how appropriated moneys can be spent most efficiently. However, the President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)). Nor may the President take an action not authorized either by the Constitution or by a lawful statute. (See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)). Finally, the President may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or "cancel" certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power.[19]
Some Presidents have claimed the authority under this clause to impound money appropriated by Congress. President Jefferson, for example, delayed the expenditure of money appropriated for the purchase of gunboats for over a year. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors sometimes refused outright to expend appropriated money.[19] The Supreme Court, however, has held that impoundments without Congressional authorization are unconstitutional.[23]
It has been asserted that the President's responsibility in the "faithful" execution of the laws entitles him to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus[citation needed]. Article One provides that the privilege may not be suspended save during times of rebellion or invasion, but it does not specify who may suspend the privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may suspend the privilege if it deems it necessary. During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege, but, owing to the vehement opposition he faced, obtained congressional authorization for the same.[citation needed] Since then, the privilege of the writ has only been suspended upon the express authorization of Congress.
In Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws. In that case the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "[t]he Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance."[24] Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch.
- BJerk
- 11-15-2013, 08:03 AM
Actually, you do. Those are lousy comparisons.It is tough to make a good comparison. It is no longer a legal insurance contract when the policy fails to meet the new law, the ACA.
All of those activities are ILLEGAL. The underlying activities (drug selling, drunk driving, war, operating when you are not a doctor) are harmful to people and are illegal for that reason.
Purchasing health insurance is LEGAL. The underlying activity (providing healthcare) isn't harmful.
Your problem is that you don't like the terms of the contract for SOME of the policies. You disagree with the price and the coverage and you don't like variations in coverage.
So, you set up a false premise - ALL health policies are bad, not just some, but the people just don't know it. And that's how you justify destroying perfectly acceptable insurance policies. Originally Posted by ExNYer
- gnadfly
- 11-15-2013, 08:29 AM
what the fuck are you asking? Did health insurers target aids patients for rescission? YES.I think you meant to say do insurance companyies drop and cut off insurEDs because of their health?
Has it happened since Obama became president? I don't know.
did and do insurance companies drop and cut off insurers because of their health? FUCK YEAH.
what's your point? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
So based on your link, the answer is YES but if they do the insured gets $10 million.
The link says that the insured was dropped when the insurance company claimed he had a pre-existing condition that he didn't reveal. Which I think insurance companies have the right to do so. The insured didn't have the condition and logically, neither was it before the policy was issued. Your link is from 2010 that references something that happened in 2002.
My point is that you and Obama are both liars...but you knew that so that's why you feign outrage. Again, Assup Emeritus, seek mental help immediately. Don't wait for your policy to kick in. We are tired of playing your shrink.
- Yssup Rider
- 11-15-2013, 08:40 AM
I think you meant to say do insurance companyies drop and cut off insurEDs because of their health?Your point is asinine gonad. You don't GET $10 million if their insurance company drops you, unless you sue them and win.
So based on your link, the answer is YES but if they do the insured gets $10 million.
The link says that the insured was dropped when the insurance company claimed he had a pre-existing condition that he didn't reveal. Which I think insurance companies have the right to do so. The insured didn't have the condition and logically, neither was it before the policy was issued. Your link is from 2010 that references something that happened in 2002.
My point is that you and Obama are both liars...but you knew that so that's why you feign outrage. Again, Assup Emeritus, seek mental help immediately. Don't wait for your policy to kick in. We are tired of playing your shrink. Originally Posted by gnadfly
Your question was poorly phrased and meant to elicit the kind of response you have posted.
So I suppose you've succeeded in showing everybody your ass again. My bad for responding to you.
- gnadfly
- 11-15-2013, 08:42 AM
Apparently CJ hasn't heard what Howard Dean said about Obama having the authority to change the law. Yes, the law that CJ says is not in effect yet. Surprise! It is in effect and it has a built in time table that must be obeyed.... Originally Posted by JD BarleycornSo how was BHO able to delay the business mandate?
For years on here a poster was "un-American" if the poster didn't support ACA.... Originally Posted by LexusLoverWRONG AGAIN LL! They were called "racist." WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
[SIZE=3]It is dangerous to let a President pick and choose - we could get a conservative someday who guts this very law, and lets the insurance companies run wild!! Originally Posted by Bert JonesSome progressives in the media have picked up on the first part of your statement. We moderates are more concerned with government running wild than insurance companies.
- WTF
- 11-15-2013, 08:48 AM
- CJ7
- 11-15-2013, 10:22 AM
So how was BHO able to delay the business mandate?
The same way he postponed the business clause before this personal clause, and the same way Bush postponed Part D.
good lord, the morons bitch bitch about the law being so F'd up, then bitch bitch about taking it off the table for a year
The same way he postponed the business clause before this personal clause, and the same way Bush postponed Part D.
good lord, the morons bitch bitch about the law being so F'd up, then bitch bitch about taking it off the table for a year
- CJ7
- 11-15-2013, 10:49 AM
[QUOTE=gnadfly;1054547434]So how was BHO able to delay the business mandate?
http://www.bcbsm.com/content/microsi...reporting.html
http://www.bcbsm.com/content/microsi...reporting.html
- nwarounder
- 11-15-2013, 05:57 PM
So how was BHO able to delay the business mandate? Originally Posted by gnadflyHe didn't delay the business mandate, or delay the ability to people to keep their insurance for another year. Nobody white-outed the law, and it remains as passed. He ordered the IRS (through the justice dept) to not enforce the law as written for businesses, and he ordered the federal prosecutors not to prosecute insurance companies if they disobey the law and keep offering policies that do not comply with Obamacare. However, states can still prosecute the insurance companies if they have mirrored, or have passed similar laws that make it illegal in their state.
No different than ignoring, or not enforcing our immigration laws or the CSA, and that is why you see no cases against this law, the law remains the same and you can't press charges against the prez for disobeying his oath. There is no law against that.
- CJ7
- 11-15-2013, 06:15 PM
He didn't delay the business mandate, or delay the ability to people to keep their insurance for another year. Nobody white-outed the law, and it remains as passed. He ordered the IRS (through the justice dept) to not enforce the law as written for businesses, and he ordered the federal prosecutors not to prosecute insurance companies if they disobey the law and keep offering policies that do not comply with Obamacare. However, states can still prosecute the insurance companies if they have mirrored, or have passed similar laws that make it illegal in their state.presidential power over the IRS died with Nixon.
No different than ignoring, or not enforcing our immigration laws or the CSA, and that is why you see no cases against this law, the law remains the same and you can't press charges against the prez for disobeying his oath. There is no law against that. Originally Posted by nwarounder
nice try though
- CJ7
- 11-15-2013, 06:29 PM
Beerfart found a moron ... wonder how it worked out for Dr Larry?
BBBBBAAAAWWWWWHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ployer-Mandate
BBBBBAAAAWWWWWHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ployer-Mandate
- nwarounder
- 11-15-2013, 06:52 PM
