Krauthammer: Obama’s insurance “fix” just another example of him “rewriting a law unilaterally”

posted at 10:41 am on November 15, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Yep. Hey, it’s his signature legislative achievement, so why shouldn’t he be able to mold and adapt it any which way he likes as various problems and situations arise, right? He’s the executive, and “prosecutorial discretion” is just one of those little perks of the office — never mind that this particular maneuver is a purely short-term fix aimed at staying a political conundrum rather than helping to make the law more viable, and in fact, probably quite the opposite. It is what is is.

Via RCP:

This is entirely lawless. Entirely. And the fact that nobody is talking about this. The executive executes the laws. As you say, this is another example of Obama rewriting a law unilaterally and nobody is complaining. The constitutional issue is out there. I think it’s rather embarrassing that on either side of the aisle it isn’t being raised. In fact, what the White House is doing is saying I don’t want to actually become legislation which would be the constitutional way of doing it. I want it only to be an executive action. I think that there is another irony here, that the Democratic bill by [Senator] Mary Landrieu, who is in deep trouble in Louisiana, she actually said on tape if you like your plan, you’ll be able to keep it. She is the one who wanted to introduce a bill who would allow you to keep it. It is stronger than the Republican bill in the House. It would force the insurers to take you back, and it would be indefinite whereas the Upton, the House bill, the Republican one, is only a year. I do think Harry Reid will kill the bill in the Senate, but in the House, the president was afraid of being embarrassed by a stampede and I think you’re right, this will be cover and only a few of them will go over to the other side.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

High Crimes and Misdemeanors are still impeachable offenses.

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Perhaps you weren’t a member of the Bush/Cheney apology choir during the time they were actually (not hypothetically)subverting the constitution. Maybe you expressed your disgust at the legal reasoning of John Yoo. Maybe you weren’t out there making ‘ticking bomb’ arguments in support of torture. Maybe you were outraged by the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping.
But maybe, like so many here, you were a full throated cheerleader then?
 
verbaluce on March 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

rogerb on November 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Now attack this fraud on his new bigger lie based operation, his Global Warming / Climate Change / CO2 (plant food) fraud.

Same time attack him on his amnesty push which is also lie based.

He is a lie, the whole of the Democrat Party / msm operation is first a lie and then a full “court” “press” support of the original lie.

It is a biker bar gravel parking lot knock down drag out fist/kicking fight.

We have him down on his back, attack with no mercy.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I wish the GOP would do something or at least call him out on this. Although I really don’t know what they can do?

tommer74 on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Repeal and Impeach….The GOP will do neither.

d1carter on November 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Here is my solution to help salvage the Democrats and their party:

Repeal the Law.

You have 60% of the nation at your back after all.

No?

Then I can’t help you.

Turtle317 on November 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The House GOP leadership made a huge mistake by not contesting these steps / actions when they were first overreached on by the President.

The GOP fought back when Barack Obama made the clearly illegal ‘recess nominations’ – and had won the first stage in court. They need to fight back on this – because it is past time to reestablish the limits of Presidential authority.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM

What Obama did is not even an executive action as he has not officially put his signature on anything.
It was just a verbal command that has no legal authority whatsoever.

NeoKong on November 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Next thing you know he’ll be granting waivers on the Ten Commandments.

…. and his brain dead minions will chant “Thank Obama”.

fogw on November 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM

The constitutional issue is out there. I think it’s rather embarrassing that on either side of the aisle it isn’t being raised.

Didn’t John Boehner immediately comment that he didn’t believe the President had the constitutional power to do this?

tommyboy on November 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I wish the GOP would do something or at least call him out on this. Although I really don’t know what they can do?

tommer74 on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Every GOP Senator, Congressman and Governor could be in front of any mic or camera they can find and call it UN-constitutional. Not hard really.

oldroy on November 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The legal justifications being offered are based on an agency’s “authority” to take action to protect the intent of a law, loosely defining it badly.

This action is being taken to save the President’s political hide. That is not a recognized basis for violating his oath of office or the law of the land, as he is was so fond of referring to Obamacare.

If he issued a fiat that the feds were not going to enforce laws prohibiting the robbing of banks because he wanted people to be able to rob banks, it might be a bit clearer. His action is designed to cover over a lie he uttered to the American people, not to further the intent of the legislation. It’s a pure political hack tact.

Welcome to Chicago on the Potomac.

IndieDogg on November 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Although I really don’t know what they can do?

tommer74 on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Mimzey on November 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Now the ones up for election Nov. 2014 on the Democrat Party side will have to give it a long hard thinking before they will follow this fool off any more cliffs such as this CO2 kills fraud.

In fact the R’s need to put some bills in the deal on cutting back the EPA and force these skunks into going on the record in a fools support of the CO2 con…

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM

The only reason that he gets away with this lawlessness is that Congress allows him to. The spineless, sniveling Republicans need to grow a set and teach the jugeared jackass all about that three branches of government thing.

Oldnuke on November 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

They should wack him over the head a few times, like that Democrat Senator from Alaska talked about doing to Obama.

txhsmom on November 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Didn’t John Boehner immediately comment that he didn’t believe the President had the constitutional power to do this?

tommyboy on November 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Yes he did. The problem is what recourse does the House GOP have? Articles of impeachment? If they’re afraid to death of a shutdown, they’ll never go there.

Doughboy on November 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Help me figure out the logic here……

Obama says that the cancellation of those “substandard” insurance policies have nothing to do with Obamacare.

Yet, the solution to the problem is to arbitrarily change aspects of Obamacare????? I thought the cancellations had nothing to do with the law.

Truly amazing. Dissertations by the ton-load are going to be written on this debacle.

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM

High Crimes and Misdemeanors are still impeachable offenses.

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Yes they are.

But that only matters when you have a Congress that cares about such things. The GOP House is so cowed by Obama that they don’t even mention the illegality of this “fix” (as Krathammer points out). If they can’t even talk about that, how would they ever consider such an action as impeachment (in which the Dem Senate wouldn’t convict anyway).

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Does anyone have a link that shows the minimum it would take to cancel a grandfathered plan?

fbcmusicman on November 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM

So the Upton bill only lets me keep my plan for a year? So we get to do this whole thing over again next year? Brilliant.

oldroy on November 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Meanwhile in Republican land….”Let’s be very dumb and quiet and hide away…”

albill on November 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Impeach

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM

We have him down on his back, attack with no mercy.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Look at history and you will see that the repubs will extend a helping hand and ask how they can help.

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Obama is a colossal failure…so unexpectedly…

” Oprah Winfrey has been a prominent supporter of Barack Obama. She thinks that both he and the Office of President have been treated with contempt because of the colour of his skin.

“There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says but everybody’s thinking it.”

http://therightscoop.com/video-oprah-winfrey-tells-bbc-many-americans-hate-obama-because-hes-black/

*blech*

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I’m not so sure about that. The democrats are quickly arriving at the point where they want him gone more than anyone. Impeaching him would give many democrats a chance to clean their hands of him. We aren’t there yet, but most politicians love their seat on the gravy train more than they love obozo.

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Yes he did. The problem is what recourse does the House GOP have? Articles of impeachment? If they’re afraid to death of a shutdown, they’ll never go there.

Doughboy on November 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM

In a dispute between two of the branches of government, the measure ultimately goes to the third for a decision. The GOP wasted little time filing a court case against the President’s illegal ‘recess’ appointments the end of last year – and won the first step in court before a ‘deal’ was made (and promptly reneged on by Barack Obama).

A civil suit can be filed to force the President to follow the Code of Federal Regulations in reversing the regulations created by HHS and published in June 2010, but the WH will likely counter that the President does have the authority via executive order to issue or cancel regulations outside of the standard CFR process.

The GOP’s (and many pundits like Dr. Krauthammer’s) mistake was not challenging the President unilaterally rewriting laws on other clearer issues of Presidential overreach like in enacting the Dream Act via EO / administrative processes.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM

This is a non issue. He can say whatever he wants now, but the insurance companies are bound by the law, and their plans are regulated by the separate regulators of the 50 states. The insurance executives will meet with him, nod politely, point out the problems, leave, and quietly ignore him.

So this is just him farting through his mouth again.

SunSword on November 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM

“John Fund asks if Obama is violating the Constitution with impunity:

At last night’s annual Federalist Society dinner in Washington there was general agreement that Obama had violated the Constitution. “A president has discretion to prioritize which lawbreakers to prosecute in federal court, but there is no ‘enforcement discretion’ to determine which laws on the books he will enforce,” constitutional scholar Ken Klukowski told me.

But the problem is that anyone wanting to challenge President Obama’s extra-constitutional action would have to show standing in court — some injury that would allow litigation to go forward. “He’s been clever about this,” Utah Senator Mike Lee told me. “If you are simply reducing legal burdens on people rather than curbing their behavior, it’s hard to prove an injury. It’s a dangerous precedent because it could give presidents a path to ignore laws they don’t like.”

Everyone seems to think that these matters can only be resolved by lawsuits. But standing is famously difficult to establish in these situations. Justice Scalia once wrote to attempt to dispel the notion that the courts were the place to resolve a political branch’s overreaching:

Our system is designed for confrontation. That is what “[a]mbition . . . counteract[ing] ambition,” The Federalist, No. 51, at 322 (J. Madison), is all about. If majorities in both Houses of Congress care enough about the matter, they have available innumerable ways to compel executive action without a lawsuit —- from refusing to confirm Presidential appointees to the elimination of funding. (Nothing says “enforce the Act” quite like “. . . or you will have money for little else.”) But the condition is crucial; Congress must care enough to act against the President itself, not merely enough to instruct its lawyers to ask us to do so. Placing the Constitution’s entirely anticipated political arm wrestling into permanent judicial receivership does not do the system a favor. And by the way, if the President loses the lawsuit but does not faithfully implement the Court’s decree, just as he did not faithfully implement Congress’s statute, what then? Only Congress can bring him to heel by . . . what do you think? Yes: a direct confrontation with the President.

If I recall correctly, this passage was about whether Congress could force the President to defend a statute in court — but it could apply to Obama rewriting statutes to change effective dates of provisions, to conform to his electoral comfort. “[T]hey have available innumerable ways to compel executive action without a lawsuit —- from refusing to confirm Presidential appointees to the elimination of funding” — and if things get bad enough, they have . . . impeachment.

There. I said it.

Ay way you slice it, we need to talk about Obama’s lawlessness. Nothing will happen if we don’t…”

http://patterico.com/2013/11/15/the-tough-solution-to-obamas-lawlessness-in-rewriting-statutes-hint-it-aint-lawsuits/

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Does anyone have a link that shows the minimum it would take to cancel a grandfathered plan?

fbcmusicman on November 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Doesn’t matter…

Blue Cross, back in May, changed my policy all by themselves…then sent me a letter 2 months later saying my policy isn’t grandfathered…

Electrongod on November 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I’m not so sure about that. The democrats are quickly arriving at the point where they want him gone more than anyone. Impeaching him would give many democrats a chance to clean their hands of him. We aren’t there yet, but most politicians love their seat on the gravy train more than they love obozo.

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I’d really like to believe that but I need a lot more evidence than the carping they’ve been doing this week.

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Basically, what is needed in the Senate to convict on impeachment is basically the same numbers that are needed to override a Presidential veto.

Do you think, right now, in the Senate, there are at least 22 Democrat votes to override a Presidential veto of either the Upton bill or the Landrieu bill?

Compared to the political embarrassment of actually convicting a sitting Democrat President, overriding a veto of one of those bills would be pretty easy. When it came to the Clinton impeachment, not one Democrat Senator or staffer visited the room established by the House that contained the evidence they had compiled for the case against Bill Clinton. None of them had any intention to vote to convict Bill Clinton. It would be no different today.

Where the repudiation of Obama and the progressive-fascist agenda has to take place is via the ballot box. If the GOP doesn’t, once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, history and events are very much on their side for 2014.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM

That, the little constitution thingie…and the fact that obama is an azzhole extraordinaire, a charlatanic fraud. He will veto the same bill he bloviated about yesterday.

America, obama hates you. obama hates the people, the middle and lower classes. He hates that he, the self-appointed god, was dropped to earth like a big turkey, and given to live, to watch the consequences, in punishment.

To watch him yesterday was boring/painful, only because there was a big lost sick dummy on display.

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM

They will not impeach. They will not repeal. To do either would be to show that the historic first Nobel prize winning black president is less than perfect. That will not be done under any circumstances. If they were stupid enough to impeach careers would be ruined, jobs lost and quite possibility lives. One does not impeach a living god with millions of followers some very powerful and live to tell the tale.

Dr. Frank Enstine on November 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM

What Obama did is not even an executive action as he has not officially put his signature on anything.

It was just a verbal command that has no legal authority whatsoever.

NeoKong on November 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM

You’d think a “Constitutional Scholar” would know better…..

TeresainFortWorth on November 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I’d really like to believe that but I need a lot more evidence than the carping they’ve been doing this week.

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM

The evidence will be reflected in the votes on the Upton and Landrieu bills. Reid and Obama have been very good thus far at keeping even vulnerable Dems in lockstep when it comes to protecting their agenda. But the closer we get to the midterms and the worse things get with Obamacare, we’ll see more of them break off and try to save their own asses.

Doughboy on November 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I stated we aren’t there yet, but we are getting there. Clinton was popular during his impeachment, and to most Americans it was simply about sex. Obozo’s popularity is cratering right now and he threatens to take a lot of democrats out with him. The political embarrassment is nothing compared to the political annihilation they may be facing for directly impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans. Supporting Clinton during his impeachment did not carry any penalty. Supporting obozo in the coming months may be political suicide. The democrats will be trying anything to get rid of him soon.

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Can the Supreme court step in and stop any of this? Or do they have to wait until a case is brought to them? This debacle is going to bring the country to its knees. And all these fixes are political. Who is looking after us?

COgirl on November 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I can’t help but think that if someone were to bring some other aspect of Obamacare before SCOTUS, they would relish the opportunity of a “do-over” and snap the neck of this sad, quivering legislative fiasco.

kurtzz3 on November 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

I know that people, especially those well familiar with Obama’s psychological makeup, will dismiss this sentiment, but it’s time to wave the proverbial butterfly’s wings in the expectation of producing a hurricane:

Obama must resign.

Unlikely? Yes. Preposterous, even with the current problems? Probably so. But deciding what to do with the football i.e. Obamacare is a diversion. We should focus on the misguided individual who scheduled the game in the first place.

Resignation on the grounds of incompetence would be unprecedented, of course, and would go against every cell of Obama’s being, such is his self-regard. That it might come at the request of his own party would be even more satisfying, despite the baseness of Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, et al. Obama’s always been in love with European socialists; many of them have fallen on their swords or received a knife in the back from their own. A tryst with a girl – or a boy – isn’t the only recipe for political untenability.

After five years, it’s painfully obvious that business has gone into hibernation for fear of being targeted as ‘too’ successful. Health care aside, why should we be asked to endure three more years of same? So leftists can worship a false idol some more?

A low probability does not mean impossibility. The Pirates made the playoffs and had an MVP this year. MSNBC and CNN are still on the air. It can snow in Florida.

Obama must resign. Simple. Unambiguous. Final.

Obama must resign.

jangle12 on November 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I stated we aren’t there yet, but we are getting there. Clinton was popular during his impeachment, and to most Americans it was simply about sex. Obozo’s popularity is cratering right now and he threatens to take a lot of democrats out with him. The political embarrassment is nothing compared to the political annihilation they may be facing for directly impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans. Supporting Clinton during his impeachment did not carry any penalty. Supporting obozo in the coming months may be political suicide. The democrats will be trying anything to get rid of him soon.

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Yep!

I expect it’ll get pretty ugly as Preezy digs in.

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Now here is an interesting twist that if it is the case, does put the President, and Obamacare, in some jeopardy….

The administration is not changing the rules, just declining to enforce them against the insurers. This is becoming a pattern: Obama’s position on the law seems to be that it’s his law, and therefore the law is whatever he and his appointees say it is. That’s dangerous for all sorts of reasons, not least because it makes them vulnerable to court action.

Presumably they will also not enforce the mandate against people who have grandfathered plans. But that raises an interesting legal issue. Remember that in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was a tax. And as a lawyer of my acquaintance points out, taxes have to be enforced uniformly; the Internal Revenue Service can pick and choose who it audits, but it cannot pick and choose who has to obey the law. If it declines to enforce the mandate against grandfathered consumers, it’s conceivably opening itself up to a bunch of legal challenges.

I do think that the WH has a strong case regarding Presidential authority to change federal regulations via EO, as long as the new regulations still fit within the statutory authority delegated by Congress in the legislation to the Executive branch remains. It’s not something that should be done lightly, but I think a case can be made.

However, the ‘tax’ was defined in the legislation – not via regulation. As Megan McArdle notes, the only legal way to change that is to change the legislation – there is no constitutional authority argument that permits the Executive branch / President to rewrite laws. Add to that the illegality of the IRS selectively deciding on enforcement – and we have the President opening himself up to a very real constitutional crisis.

The GOP Congressional leadership has to act on this, now, and forcefully.

My fear is that this group of ‘leaders’ will once again be too afraid of a media backlash to act.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I can’t help but think that if someone were to bring some other aspect of Obamacare before SCOTUS, they would relish the opportunity of a “do-over” and snap the neck of this sad, quivering legislative fiasco.

kurtzz3 on November 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

“If so, the case would give the high court a second crack at the landmark 2009 health care law. In June 2012, the court ruled that the law’s individual mandate complied with the Constitution because it was technically a tax, not a requirement to purchase insurance.

That’s where the PLF lawsuit comes in. The Constitution requires all revenue bills to originate in the House — known as the Origination Clause — but foundation attorneys argue that the health care law actually began in the Senate.

District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell rejected that argument, ruling that the Supreme Court had already decided on the law’s constitutionality and that the revenue-raising portion of Obamacare was “incidental” to its main mission.

In its Oct. 23 appeal, however, the foundation argues that the Obamacare tax “is an exercise solely of Congress’s tax power, and raises revenue generally to fund the government, much like the income tax.”

“The tax produces ‘considerable revenue’ for the government … ‘about $4 billion a year by 2017,’” said the 52-page appeal. “And this money is not earmarked to finance or defray the cost of any particular government program. Instead, it goes into the general fund for expenditure on whatever the government chooses—as with any other tax.”

The legislation that became the PPACA began as H.B. 3590, an unrelated bill regarding tax credits for veterans buying homes, but was stripped and replaced in the Senate as part of a process known as “gut and amend.”

The District Court ruling held that the Senate has the flexibility to replace the language of one bill with another, but in their appeal, PLF attorneys argue that, “If the Origination Clause has any meaning, it must be to bar the Senate from creating from scratch any bills for raising revenue.”

The Justice Department has 30 days to file an opposing brief, after which PLF would file a reply brief. After that, the case would be set for oral argument…”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/attorneys-obamacare-lawsuit-file-appeal/#ixzz2kjUthGhB
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Now attack this fraud on his new bigger lie based operation, his Global Warming / Climate Change / CO2 (plant food) fraud.

Same time attack him on his amnesty push which is also lie based.

He is a lie, the whole of the Democrat Party / msm operation is first a lie and then a full “court” “press” support of the original lie.

It is a biker bar gravel parking lot knock down drag out fist/kicking fight.

We have him down on his back, attack with no mercy.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Yep.

Midas on November 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

“WASHINGTON – Rep. Mo Brooks said today he has joined 39 other members of Congress in filing a “friend of the court brief” supporting a lawsuit against President Obama’s national healthcare program.

Speaking on the House floor today, Brooks announced his support of a lawsuit that claims about 20 tax increases to fund the healthcare program, known as Obamacare, are unconstitutional. The basis for the claim, Brooks said, is that the law for the taxes did not originate in the House, which is required under the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Brooks, long an opponent of the healthcare program, called on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. district to rule that the taxes are unconstitutional.

If the judges make such a ruling, “Obamacare will be dead,” Brooks said.

Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was filed in federal court in opposition to the taxes to fund the healthcare program. It’s currently on appeal after being dismissed by a district court.

Brooks said the law that raises about $50 billion annually for the healthcare program originated in the Senate.

“No American court in history has ever upheld the Constitutionality of taxes under the circumstances presented by Obamacare,” Brooks said. “Doing so now would undermine and nullify the letter and spirit of the Origination Clause in a Constitution that has served America so well for so long…”

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/11/rep_mo_brooks_backs_lawsuit_ch.html

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

“No American court in history has ever upheld the Constitutionality of taxes under the circumstances presented by Obamacare,” Brooks said. “Doing so now would undermine and nullify the letter and spirit of the Origination Clause in a Constitution that has served America so well for so long…”

Well, this is encouraging. Just hope there can be some action before we go down in flames as a country.

COgirl on November 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I wish the GOP would do something or at least call him out on this. Although I really don’t know what they can do?

tommer74 on November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

What can they do? Issue fair warning.

Boehner can give the following speech (with your friendly neighborhood tea party-extremist terrorists to provide gentle encouragement, moral support and the reminder that party unity depends on him his cooperation):

“Mr. President, what you are doing is flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional. If you do not rescind this action then we will have no choice but to begin drawing up articles of impeachment tomorrow.

“If you feel you need more flexibility, then you must come before congress and make your case. We will hear you out, but we, not you, have legislative authority under the constitution. You will abide by the laws if this nation or suffer the penalty.

“I beg you Mr. President, do not take us down this road.”

Then if he continues to defy congress, pull the trigger. (Needless to say, he better be prepared to actually do that. The consequences of getting called on a bluff for something like this would be far worse than not issuing a warning at all).

It is absolutely essential that the threat be made publicly and that the impeachment begin only AFTER he refuses to back down. The public will back us (and keep at least a few of the RINOs an squishes from having a panic attack) if, and only if, it is clear that the motivation for the impeachment is to ensure the law is followed and to deter bad behavior, rather than capitalizing on it to gain political advantage.

And that’s the way it should be. On the very off chance that Obama caves (maybe more likely now that his groupies in congress are spooked), and he CONTINUES to obey throughout his term, then the benefits of that precedent will outweigh those of impeaching him.

RINO in Name Only on November 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

The political embarrassment is nothing compared to the political annihilation they may be facing for directly impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans.

Under normal considerations, I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Self preservation of the political class is a major motivator.

But if nothing else, the last several years have convinced me that normal considerations rarely apply to ideologues – like many of those Democrats in the Senate.

Who in the Senate today, would be willing to do what Goldwater and Scott did to Nixon, going to the WH to tell him not only was impeachment from the House certain, so was conviction in a Senate trial? Or have the gravitas to convince Obama?

I think turning on the first black President would not be something that the Democrats today would do. They look long term – not short term. I also think they can look at 2012 and believe that as bad as things look today, they can still do well in 2014 with their usual message of class warfare, gender warfare, entitlements, and demonizing the GOP.

All of this could change – but to me, the Democrats have always shown more loyalty to the Party and the ideology than they ever have to doing the right thing.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Where the repudiation of Obama and the progressive-fascist agenda has to take place is via the ballot box. If the GOP doesn’t, once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, history and events are very much on their side for 2014.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Fear not, they will.

Midas on November 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

RINO in Name Only on November 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

And I should have added, this warning should be made after the house passes their own fix (but obviously not waiting for Harry Reid to act), just to help blunt any claims that the mean old GOP just doesn’t care about helpin people (ideally this would contain a sunset, though even a weaker measure would serve temporarily, just for the purposes of the exercise). In the future, we’ll need to also avoid the precedent that congress needs to address an issue itself before forcing the president not to act unilaterally, but one step at a time.

RINO in Name Only on November 15, 2013 at 11:54 AM

This is good…

“In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) attended a fundraiser where he blasted President Bush, telling the crowd, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” President Obama, however, has been far less respectful of the Constitution that Senator Obama purportedly was. In fact, Obama has steadily violated a bevy of Constitutional provisions ranging from separation of powers to specific elements of the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

This week, Obama unilaterally decided to tell insurance companies that they could now allow sale of plans in the individual insurance market that Obamacare had prevented, forcing five million Americans off the health plans they liked. As Ken Klukowski of Breitbart News has written, this is a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers:

Obama’s announcement is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause. The provisions of Obamacare causing enormous trouble for insurance plans are mandatory, and only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act.

But President Obama has a history of violating the Constitutional balance of powers. As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has noted, he has unilaterally suspended enforcement of immigration law; he has refused to prosecute drug law violators; he simply stopped defending federal laws he didn’t like, like the Defense of Marriage Act, in court; he issues waivers on Obamacare and the No Child Left Behind Act; Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has attempted to regulate carbon emissions when Congress didn’t push through a global warming bill; he appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board in violation of law; his administration rammed through an auto bailout that screwed bondholders, as well as a slush fund from British Petroleum. Strassel writes, “Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.”

President Obama’s respect for the Constitution does not extend to freedom of religion – his administration has forced religious businessowners to pay for insurance plans that cover activities in violation of religious precepts. It does not extend to freedom of speech – Obama has condemned exercises of speech he doesn’t like as violative of American principles (see, for example, the infamous YouTube video Obama said caused violence in the Middle East). It does not extend to equal protection under the laws – Obama has personally intervened in criminal cases like that of George Zimmerman.

Obama’s respect for the Constitution does not apply to protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as Obama’s deeply intrusive National Security Agency programs prove. It does not apply to Fifth Amendment protections against taking of private property. It does not apply to the Second Amendment, as Obama’s executive orders on guns show. And it most certainly does not extend to the Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ rights.

Obama has never respected the Constitution. In fact, he sees it as a barrier to his ambitions. That’s why, as a senior law lecturer at the University of Chicago, he lamented the fact that the Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” That’s why Obama repeatedly emphasizes that the Constitution stops him from doing things he wants to do — it’s an obstacle to be overcome, not the greatest governmental structure ever created…”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/15/Obama-Constitution-flashback

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM

All of this could change – but to me, the Democrats have always shown more loyalty to the Party and the ideology than they ever have to doing the right thing.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Part of my argument is clearly just me dreaming it will happen, but it’s their loyalty to party and ideology that makes me think they will turn on him. This disaster is going to get worse and worse. They don’t want to turn on the first black President, but he’s made such a mess that they will be forced to do so in order to save the party and ideology.

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

They had to pass the law before they could write/rewrite it.

pambi on November 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Politico comment

dontlivehereanymore
• 16 hours ago

One of the real tragedies of all of this : for decades decent minorities fought for civil right and equalities – and the moment they get their first black president he turns out to be a dictator – liar – a complete fraud !

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Can the Supreme court step in and stop any of this? Or do they have to wait until a case is brought to them? This debacle is going to bring the country to its knees. And all these fixes are political. Who is looking after us?

COgirl on November 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

No, they can’t “step in” without somebody bringing a court action. And that action would first have to start at the Circuit Court level, then the Court of Appeals, and finally the Supreme Court. I keep hearing how the courts try to stay out of political disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches but what’s going on is clear violations of law by the Executive against laws that the Legislative branch passed. That, to me, is one of the reasons that the Judiciary branch should be around for: To solve legal and Constitutional issues between the other 2 brances. The House GOP should pursue this angle. It worked in the case of Obama’s “recess appointments” to the NLRB, and it can work again.

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

I can almost forgive him for it, it’s what Communists do. But the Republicans not saying ANYTHING?

C’mon.

Cleombrotus on November 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Can the Supreme court step in and stop any of this? Or do they have to wait until a case is brought to them? This debacle is going to bring the country to its knees. And all these fixes are political. Who is looking after us?

COgirl on November 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

No, they can’t “step in” without somebody bringing a court action. And that action would first have to start at the Circuit Court level, then the Court of Appeals, and finally the Supreme Court. I keep hearing how the courts try to stay out of political disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches but what’s going on is clear violations of law by the Executive against laws that the Legislative branch passed. That, to me, is one of the reasons that the Judiciary branch should be around for: To solve legal and Constitutional issues between the other 2 brances. The House GOP should pursue this angle. It worked in the case of Obama’s “recess appointments” to the NLRB, and it can work again.

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Actually, there is some precedent for the Supreme Court to step in on its own, based on a case with the Florida Supreme Court.

As you may or may not recall, in November of 2000 there was a little disagreement in Florida between the Republican candidate for President and the Democrat candidate for President. The case worked its way thru the local and Federal Courts in Florida, and in nearly all of those cases (especially at the Federal Court level) the rulings went against the Democrat candidate. And many of those decisions against said candidate were issued by Democrat-appointed Judges.

Then, in the words of Gomer Pyle, “Shazzam!”. The (all-Democrat) Florida Supreme Court injected themselves into the case, unsolicited. They had not been asked by any of the lower Courts to get involved, and even the Democrat candidate had not asked for them to get involved. They did so anyway. Of course, their 3 partisan rulings in said case were all rejected by SCOTUS, by 9-0, 7-2, and 5-4 votes.

What’s so scary is that in Florida, Supreme Court Justice is not a lifetime position like SCOTUS, but rather an elected one. Every single one of the corrupt Democrat Florida Supreme Court Justices was re-elected the next time they were up for re-election.

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Damm…… did charlie fall asleep in reeducation 101 …. the beatings will continue until moral improves.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Doesn’t the Supreme Court have original jurisdictions in cases between the States or a State v. the U.S.?

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Doesn’t the Supreme Court have original jurisdictions in cases between the States or a State v. the U.S.?

Flange on November 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Not sure about that one. If so, then I stand corrected. I just thought the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of any federal case.

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.” – – H. L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I guess I had thought that Gore went to the Florida Supremes because he expected to get a favorable ruling from them (which he did until SCOTUS said “Not so fast, my friends”).

Bitter Clinger on November 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Why Charles? Obama is half melanin enhanced thats why!

neyney on November 15, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I think it’s rather embarrassing that on either side of the aisle it isn’t being raised.

The purpose of calling someone a racist is to shut down the conversation. It’s been rather effective at turning the country into a dictatorship.

Kafir on November 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Where is our protection under the Constitution? Congress should be the ones to act on our behalf but they are frozen by the fear of being called a racist. See Oprah for the latest on that.

Kissmygrits on November 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM