Obama usurps legislative authority again, extends health-care enrollment deadline

[johnwk]

.
The Obama administration confirmed on Monday, December, 23rd, that it has decided to once again ignore the Affordable Healthcare Act as written and will allow Americans to sign up for new health insurance plans through Christmas Eve and such new coverage will become effective on January 1st of the New Year. Of course, this action defies the separation of powers of our Constitution in that our President and its Administration is forbidden amend laws to its own liking, and this was specifically pointed out by our very own Supreme Court.

In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) our Supreme Court struck down Line Item veto powers being exercise by the president because it would allow the president an arbitrary power to adjust laws to his own liking without having to go through Congress. Under our Constitution “ All legislative Powers” are “vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”


If we look at Obama’s continual disregard of Obamacare as written and his countless striking some parts of the law down while leaving others parts to be enforced, he is not only spitting upon our Constitution and its separation of powers, but he is knowingly and willfully ignoring that our Supreme Court has already stuck down a proposed power to allow “line item veto powers” to be exercised by the president! Are Obama’s current actions in which he arbitrarily refuses to enforce Obamacare as written not the very act of exercising line item veto powers?


And why did out founders refuse to grant such power to Congress? Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), and, in discussing veto power during the framing of our Constitutio, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:


''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''


And who has been complicit in the past of wanting to allow our President to exercise line item veto power? None other than our Republican Party Leadership in Congress who has sole authority to write law. CLICK HERE for the roll call vote to allow line item veto power to be exercised by Obama.


And who is at the top of this list? None other than John Bonner, the Republican Speaker of the House!


Instead of jealously guarding Congress’ legislative authority, we have a despotic Speaker of the House who not only neglects to take Obama into court for impinging upon Congress’ legislative authority, he has shown an intentional desire to allow Obama to exercise this unconstitutional power! This snake needs to be removed from office and then severely punished for his complicit acts of tyranny!


JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story




CORRECTION: It was Representative John Boehner who allowed the bill to come to the floor which would give line item veto powers to the president. And that other snake Paul Ryan was all for it!


JWK

[Paulbot99]

This is troubling. If Republicans call out the President on this, they will be accused of trying to make people suffer for political reasons.

[LibertyEagle]

It's a one day extension. It would be a stupid battle to fight.

[Paulbot99]

I fear the precedent.

[johnwk]

It's a one day extension. It would be a stupid battle to fight.

This is just the latest change made by Obama. There are others including his various dictatorial exemptions from the law. And what does Congress do other than sit idle while Obama engages in this presidential tyranny!


JWK




If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

[osan]

This is troubling. If Republicans call out the President on this, they will be accused of trying to make people suffer for political reasons.

And they need to grow a pair and stop whining like the sissies they apparently are.

Seriously, what **** they are, all shivering and quaking at the prospect of being labeled in some scary way. How do people like this look at themselves in a mirror and not feel compelled to commit immediate suicide for the utter shame of what they allowed themselves to become?

It's a one day extension. It would be a stupid battle to fight.

That is a dangerous way of looking at it. One day or one hundred, the active principle is the same.

"We just want to ban scary looking guns... you can keep all the rest."

Capito?

I fear the precedent.

This is RIGHT thinking.

[johnwk]

It's a one day extension. It would be a stupid battle to fight.

We have been warned about submitting to tyranny:

See H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.”

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[ClydeCoulter]

We have been warned about submitting to tyranny:

See H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.”

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Thanks for the link to that "The Old Guard, May 1863" article. I have already shared it, and used it in a "conversation" I'm having with my older son.

[Acala]

I think it is the DUTY of the President, as well as every other government official, to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. Obamacare is unconstitutional (regardless of what the SCOTUS might say) because the Federal government lacks authority to enact such a law. Therefore, the President is duty-bound to NOT enforce it.

But the whole argument is silly because the entire Federal government ignores the Constitution at will. To complain that this instance will create some new precedent for unconstitutional activity is like complaining about the food on the Titanic after the hull breach.

[Keith and stuff]

This is just the latest change made by Obama. There are others including his various dictatorial exemptions from the law. And what does Congress do other than sit idle while Obama engages in this presidential tyranny!
JWK

It's only like the 15th unconstitutional, illegal change made to the law. Surely everyone deserves 15 chances, right? I mean, doesn't California have a 15 strikes law?

[mello]

Is there any news of anyone suing the President for doing that?

[johnwk]

CORRECTION: It was Representative John Boehner who allowed the bill to come to the floor which would give line item veto powers to the president. And that other snake Paul Ryan was all for it!


JWK

[nobody's_hero]

It's a one day extension. It would be a stupid battle to fight.

There is nothing so permanent as a one-day gov't extension. Or something like that.