Doctor Fate wrote:The President arbitrarily exempted employers having between 50-99 workers. He did that.

It is not common to delay implementation for a year. It's also not something that is unprecedented in terms of scope.

No President has ever exerted this much power over this much of the economy.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The President arbitrarily exempted employers having between 50-99 workers. He did that.

The law already exempted employers with less than 50 employees, and set a different standard for 200+ Those numbers are also 'arbitrary'.

Actually, it is common. Very often a law will rely on secondary legislation (often devised by the administration rather than the legislature) to operate, and so while it may be in force, it may not be applicable until that time.

No President has ever exerted this much power over this much of the economy.

FDR?

The economic downturn of 1937–38, and the bitter split between the AFL and CIO labor unions led to major Republican gains in Congress in 1938. Conservative Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined in the informal Conservative Coalition. By 1942–43 they shut down relief programs such as the WPA and CCC and blocked major liberal proposals. Roosevelt himself turned his attention to the war effort, and won reelection in 1940 and 1944. The Supreme Court declared the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional, however the AAA was rewritten and then upheld.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The President arbitrarily exempted employers having between 50-99 workers. He did that.

The law already exempted employers with less than 50 employees, and set a different standard for 200+ Those numbers are also 'arbitrary'.

Are they in the statute? In other words, the law specifies certain groups for disparate treatment? If so, then does it give the President authority to further discriminate on whatever basis he sees fit, including political?

Go ahead. I'll wait. I'm asking for ONE example. I'm sure since it's "common," you have a long list.

The ACA had deadlines IN the law. Obama is ignoring them. What's his authority?

rickyp wrote:fate

The ACA had deadlines IN the law. Obama is ignoring them. What's his authority?

So did Medicare Part D. Bush extended those deadlines ....

There are dozens of precedents where the Executive chose to implement the law different than the prescriptives of the law, in order to deliver on the objective. And there is a Supreme Court Decision establishing this as constitutional.
Simply ignoring the precedents and the SCOTUS ruling isn't a winning argument.

The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority.

TURLEY: I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What' so bad that will come of this?

TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don't believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we're beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, 'I'm going to ignore this,' or, 'I'm going to shift funds that weren't appropriated by Congress into this area.'

The president's State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it's dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we've never seen it to this extent.

KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn't have -- they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits --which they've done -- I mean, what are they supposed to do?

TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they're just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.

But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.

I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn't matter what party held the White House. But what we're seeing now is the usurpation of authority that's unprecedented in this country.

Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News the executive and legislative branches shouldn’t need a judicial referee in these cases.
“Given the gridlock between the political branches, it’s perhaps politically inevitable the court would assume this kind of power, but I don’t really think it’s good for the country, and I don’t think it’s good for the court,” he said.

Decisions such as delaying the Obamacare employer mandate “simply are utterly routine exercises of power and haven’t done anything to set precedents that would enlarge or could enlarge the future power of president,” Lazarus said. “It is just a politically-driven piece of hyperbole to suggest otherwise.”

rickyp wrote:I'll raise your Turley with a Lazarus ...And there's nothing like a raised Lazarus ...

Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News the executive and legislative branches shouldn’t need a judicial referee in these cases.
“Given the gridlock between the political branches, it’s perhaps politically inevitable the court would assume this kind of power, but I don’t really think it’s good for the country, and I don’t think it’s good for the court,” he said.

Decisions such as delaying the Obamacare employer mandate “simply are utterly routine exercises of power and haven’t done anything to set precedents that would enlarge or could enlarge the future power of president,” Lazarus said. “It is just a politically-driven piece of hyperbole to suggest otherwise.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-obama-ov ... e-actions/

Point is Fate that Heckler V Chaney went to Scotus .... Because of that, there won't be a successful court challenge to the current use , and even if it started to wend its way through the courts the ACA will be enforced under the Executive Orders for the time that takes....Say 2 years... At which point it becomes moot as the deadlines will all have been passed.
All this "constitutional blarney" signifies nothing.

Respondents had been convicted in Oklahoma and Texas criminal courts and sentenced to death. The procedure to be used was lethal injection. They applied first to the FDA, stating that while the drugs to be involved in the lethal injection had been approved, the manner in which they were going to be used had not, in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's prohibition against "misbranding". They also argued that the Act's procedures for "new drugs" should be applicable, given that these drugs were being utilized for a new and un-tested purpose. More simply, they were arguing that the FDA had not certified that the drugs were "safe and effective" for human executions, and thus should be barred for being distributed via interstate commerce.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Go ahead. I'll wait. I'm asking for ONE example. I'm sure since it's "common," you have a long list.

It being Valentines weekend, I trust you will be patient. But be warned, it will not be your strawman standard - my point is that it does happen that legislation is delayed and/or phased in implementation.

danivon wrote:Still with the last President.. Under the 1997 Clean Air Act, the executive is supposed to review emissions limits every 5 years. Bush's administration put it off for another 5 years until 2008.

What is illegal and irrational is not a company’s commonsense deliberation over its costs, it is Obama’s edict. And look what attends this one: criminal prosecution if Obama’s Justice Department decides the business has falsely certified that its staffing decision was not motivated by Obamacare.

Think about that for a second. The waiver is illegal. It flouts the language of the Obamacare statute, under which the employer mandate is required already to have been implemented by now. There is nothing in the law that empowers Obama to waive the mandate, much less to attach lawless conditions to such a lawless waiver. A business that seeks the waiver and fails to pay the mandated tax (in lieu of providing the required coverage) is in violation of federal statutory law, regardless of its compliance with Obama’s outlaw edict. The payments required by the statute, after all, are owed to the public, not to Obama – he’s got no authority to deprive the government of these funds just because it would harm Democrats to collect them.

Yet, Obama proclaims his illegal waiver with impunity – Congress apparently unwilling to stop him. You, on the other hand, will be prosecuted for breaking the “law” if you do not comply to Obama’s satisfaction with the illegal and irrational condition he has unilaterally placed on his illegal waiver.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Still with the last President.. Under the 1997 Clean Air Act, the executive is supposed to review emissions limits every 5 years. Bush's administration put it off for another 5 years until 2008.

I think that's a pretty good example.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Still with the last President.. Under the 1997 Clean Air Act, the executive is supposed to review emissions limits every 5 years. Bush's administration put it off for another 5 years until 2008.

I think that's a pretty good example.

So that with the other two means I have satisfied your demand for just one example where a different President has delayed implementation of a law or failed to do what it says, and in none of them do I see any Supreme Court verdict to say it was illegal for them to do so.

The first is more relevant though - not just a delay, but a partial delay for a subset of the affected plans.

On your McCarthy quote, I've looked through the law as written, and it does not say that the Executive must impose the employer mandate by a certain date. It says that employers are liable for it. the number of times that 'experts' (whatever their political persuasion) conflate the two does not make them the same thing.

Doctor Fate wrote:
Right, nicely looking over the penalty of perjury, which the President has no right to impose.

None.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Right, nicely looking over the penalty of perjury, which the President has no right to impose.

None.

That is not what McCarthy wrote. There would be potential prosecutions (and the Executive is quite clearly the arm of government that would raise and pursue them). Obviously a court would decide on any such prosecutions, as happens now for perjury or other criminal charges.

As I understand it, if the IRS or another tax collecting agency belives you have lied on a tax form, they will look into whether to pursue a charge.