I believe there already are laws covering perjury. So no need to 'create' a new law, it is just an order to apply it.

And here is the law - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

Title 18, Sec 1621 wrote:Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Title 28, Sec 1746 wrote:Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

So, all that any administration has to do in order to include a form in the perjury law is to add “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)” to it. That does not require any new legislation.

danivon wrote:I believe there already are laws covering perjury. So no need to 'create' a new law, it is just an order to apply it.

And here is the law - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

Title 18, Sec 1621 wrote:Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Title 28, Sec 1746 wrote:Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

So, all that any administration has to do in order to include a form in the perjury law is to add “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)” to it. That does not require any new legislation.

You're a terrific apologist for the ineptitude of the regime. You could probably take Carney's place. He's not even a convincing liar.

The problem? If said penalty was not originally part of the law, can the President, at his whim, impose it? Can he FORCE a company to certify they are not trying to skirt the edge of the law? On what authority? What in the ACA would permit this?

This eight-minute clip shows the laughable defense of the changes in the ACA. It's almost funny to hear the President in the intro saying he's "helping" businesses comply. Really? How many years do they need? The law passed in 2010.

Please don't comment without investing eight entire minutes. Becerra is a laugh-riot.

And you are really great at ignoring what the law says and jumping to conclusions based on what pundits say instead.

The penalty of perjury does not need to be part of the ACA law. All it needs is to be shown that when companies or people are filling in forms or making declarations that it is lawful for the administration to apply perjury laws. We are talking about the completion of tax forms, which are already covered by perjury law.

If you have to fill in a tax form, and you lie on it, that is perjury. Even if the relevant tax code itself does not explicitly say so. That is what the law above I quoted is about.

I am not an 'apologist' - I am using the letter of the law to show you that your argument is flawed.

Doctor Fate wrote:Please don't comment without investing eight entire minutes. Becerra is a laugh-riot.

Perhaps you had to be there, but it's not all that hilarious.

Interestingly, he is correct in that the law does say that it comes in 'after' 31 Dec 2013. It does not say it has to come in on 1 Jan 2014.

The relevant section of text was shown on screen.

"Effective Date: The Amendments made by this section will apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013"

If it had a single extra word, it would mean what you want it to mean:

"Effective Date: The Amendments made by this section will apply to the months beginning after December 31, 2013"

But it does not, and does not say something equivalent. A literal reading of the actual text could be taken to allow it to be applied to any months from Jan 2014 onward. What it really means is quite clear though - that it cannot be applied before 2014. In that, Obama is very obviously complying

danivon wrote:And you are really great at ignoring what the law says and jumping to conclusions based on what pundits say instead.

Lee is not a pundit. Wallace was quoting the statute.

The penalty of perjury does not need to be part of the ACA law. All it needs is to be shown that when companies or people are filling in forms or making declarations that it is lawful for the administration to apply perjury laws. We are talking about the completion of tax forms, which are already covered by perjury law.

Let's play it your way: is that form part of the original statute?

Answer: no.

Where does the form come from?

Answer: it comes from President Obama who declared that any company reducing employees under a specific number of employees would have to certify that they were NOT doing this to get an extension under false pretenses.

So, that form is not necessary to Congress' original intent?

Answer: No.

If you have to fill in a tax form, and you lie on it, that is perjury. Even if the relevant tax code itself does not explicitly say so. That is what the law above I quoted is about.

But, this form is in no-wise authorized or necessitated by the ACA.

I am not an 'apologist' - I am using the letter of the law to show you that your argument is flawed.

No, you are an apologist. There is nothing Obama could do that would bother you.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Please don't comment without investing eight entire minutes. Becerra is a laugh-riot.

Perhaps you had to be there, but it's not all that hilarious.

Becerra is a joke. By his reasoning, any President could declare an emergency and do whatever he/she wanted if Congress would not go along with him/her. His argument is in favor of a dictator.

Interestingly, he is correct in that the law does say that it comes in 'after' 31 Dec 2013. It does not say it has to come in on 1 Jan 2014.

The relevant section of text was shown on screen.

"Effective Date: The Amendments made by this section will apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013"

If it had a single extra word, it would mean what you want it to mean:

"Effective Date: The Amendments made by this section will apply to the months beginning after December 31, 2013"

But it does not, and does not say something equivalent. A literal reading of the actual text could be taken to allow it to be applied to any months from Jan 2014 onward. What it really means is quite clear though - that it cannot be applied before 2014. In that, Obama is very obviously complying

By your logic, any subsequent President could permanently delay it.

The stuff of banana republic.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And you are really great at ignoring what the law says and jumping to conclusions based on what pundits say instead.

Lee is not a pundit.

Lee is a pundit, albeit a politician as well. As was the guy you thought was funny.

Wallace was quoting the statute.

I also quoted the statute. The same bit. And I can read what it says. And what it does not say.

The penalty of perjury does not need to be part of the ACA law. All it needs is to be shown that when companies or people are filling in forms or making declarations that it is lawful for the administration to apply perjury laws. We are talking about the completion of tax forms, which are already covered by perjury law.

Let's play it your way: is that form part of the original statute? [/quote]No. Tax and other forms are not part of statutes passed by the legislature. But they are enabled by the administration clauses of statutes. The forms used have to comply with law, but they are not explicitly prescribed by it.

So, that form is not necessary to Congress' original intent?

Answer: No.

So, how do you propose that the HHS and tax authorities determine that companies are abiding by the law and make the correct declarations concerning their liability?

As it happens, I can show you how it is allowed. I already quoted part of the ACA in the employer mandate section:

"Any assessable payment provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68."

Subchapter B of chapter 68 refers to the part of Title 26 of the US code that is for...

Penalties that can be applied for false information when filling in forms relating to due payments and taxes.

Meaning, if you can apply perjury to a tax form, you can apply perjury to forms created for the proper administration of the ACA.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ ... bchapter-B

If you have to fill in a tax form, and you lie on it, that is perjury. Even if the relevant tax code itself does not explicitly say so. That is what the law above I quoted is about.

But, this form is in no-wise authorized or necessitated by the ACA.

It is authorised by the need for the administration to... administer the policy to assess liability for payments under the employer mandate.

No, you are an apologist. There is nothing Obama could do that would bother you.

Again, thank you for telling me what I think. Personally, I think your statement provides more of an insight into your state of mind than my own. There is plenty that Obama could do that would bother me. I opposed the intervention in Libya.

Becerra is a joke. By his reasoning, any President could declare an emergency and do whatever he/she wanted if Congress would not go along with him/her. His argument is in favor of a dictator.

Frankly, I did not get that from what he said. You appear to be projecting a little. Again.

By your logic, any subsequent President could permanently delay it.

By the logic of the way it is written, it could be delayed for some time. Again, the section you are getting all excited about is about companies having liabilities. Not about how the government has liabilities from day one.

Look, you have spent a lot of time trying to convince us that you are right, referring to peoples' interpretations of the law. I have, on the other hand, quoted you the actual law.

I'm not sure what more I can do to show that your claims are at the very least... questionable.

danivon wrote: No. Tax and other forms are not part of statutes passed by the legislature. But they are enabled by the administration clauses of statutes. The forms used have to comply with law, but they are not explicitly prescribed by it.

Right, but this form is asking for something not prescribed in the law or even implied in the law.

Essentially, "Did you reduce the number of employees in your business in order to get the additional year waiver?" In other words, "Did you do what any business would do and maximize your profits?"

Look, if a company trims two workers, saves money, and still complies with the letter of the law . . . that's not enough. They have to comply with what the President thinks is the "spirit of the law."

So, that form is not necessary to Congress' original intent?

Answer: No.

So, how do you propose that the HHS and tax authorities determine that companies are abiding by the law and make the correct declarations concerning their liability?

All companies should have the same standard. Under Obamacare version 27.1, some companies will be held to a higher, subjective standard.

As it happens, I can show you how it is allowed. I already quoted part of the ACA in the employer mandate section:

"Any assessable payment provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68."

Subchapter B of chapter 68 refers to the part of Title 26 of the US code that is for...

Penalties that can be applied for false information when filling in forms relating to due payments and taxes.

Meaning, if you can apply perjury to a tax form, you can apply perjury to forms created for the proper administration of the ACA.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ ... bchapter-B

No, because this doesn't have to do with paying a fine. It has to do with being able to certify that you complied with something that is not in the bill. I hope that is clear by now. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 5/5370055/

Employers will need to certify on a form that they did not drop employees to avoid providing coverage.

Now, suppose a company drops a few employees for some other reason--how are they going to "prove" it wasn't to avoid providing coverage? Lie-detector test? Truth serum? Maybe bring Cheney and Co back for some waterboarding?

What if the IRS decides they don't like the reason?

Remember: this is a government that nails its enemies. Ask Gibson guitars. Ask True the Vote. Ask Dinesh D'Souza.

I opposed the intervention in Libya.

Well, hey, that means you've been right twice then.

Becerra is a joke. By his reasoning, any President could declare an emergency and do whatever he/she wanted if Congress would not go along with him/her. His argument is in favor of a dictator.

Frankly, I did not get that from what he said. You appear to be projecting a little. Again.

Do you need me to quote him? Okay:

BECERRA: Well the president said we'll start it after 2013, but we're going to make sure it works well for small businesses. And the fact that -- what he's trying to do is make things work. When Congress can't pass bills, when Congress shuts down the government, the president can't just sit there. What he is saying is I won't wait.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: That is the way the Constitution is written. The president is supposed to just sit there?

BECERRA: No, he is just supposed to sit there? If we have an emergency, the president is just supposed to sit there?

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: an emergency with ObamaCare?

BECERRA: But you never know if something might happen if we just start to talk about a foreign threat here, sir.

I would hope that we would never have a chief executive who would twiddle his thumbs because Congress can't get it acts together.

WALLACE: ok.

BECERRA: We need to move. We need to move.

So, whenever we have Congress not giving the President what he wants, Becerra says he needs "to move." He was certainly implying the EO's for Obamacare are exigent.

Look, you have spent a lot of time trying to convince us that you are right, referring to peoples' interpretations of the law. I have, on the other hand, quoted you the actual law.

Without understanding how it's being applied, so your quote is kind of useless.

I'm not sure what more I can do to show that your claims are at the very least... questionable.

You could try understanding what Obama is actually doing--and what Democrats are cheering. It is so bizarre to see Congressmen and Senators hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Not all Democrats are in this camp, but too many (like Becerra) are. Democracy is messy. Sometimes the President has to meet with the opposition and compromise with them. Think Tip O'Neill and Reagan, GWB and Kennedy. Obama just threatens more executive action. I can't remember a President using it as a constant threat. That's not the way our system works. If you can't handle that, don't bother commenting.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote: No. Tax and other forms are not part of statutes passed by the legislature. But they are enabled by the administration clauses of statutes. The forms used have to comply with law, but they are not explicitly prescribed by it.

Right, but this form is asking for something not prescribed in the law or even implied in the law.

Apart from to administer the assessment of whether payments are due - including whether someone is trying to avoid them.

Look, if a company trims two workers, saves money, and still complies with the letter of the law . . . that's not enough. They have to comply with what the President thinks is the "spirit of the law."

The phrase does not originate with Obama. It comes from biblical times, when the Pharisees were the ones who elevated the letter of the law above the spirit of it.

The spirit of the law does go to intent. The original intent of the ACA was to have far more people covered by health insurance. Finagling a way of avoiding providing that cover and also the penalties does indeed go against that original intent.

So, that form is not necessary to Congress' original intent?

Answer: No.

So, how do you propose that the HHS and tax authorities determine that companies are abiding by the law and make the correct declarations concerning their liability?

All companies should have the same standard. Under Obamacare version 27.1, some companies will be held to a higher, subjective standard.

Under the original Law as written, companies with fewer than 50 employees were already held to a different standard. And so were companies with 200 or more.

No, because this doesn't have to do with paying a fine. It has to do with being able to certify that you complied with something that is not in the bill. I hope that is clear by now. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 5/5370055/

The payment is due if you have more than a certain number of employees. And that article offers zero new facts to what you have already presented.

I don't agree that a provision to ensure companies are not evading the fine/tax/payment by laying people off is a bad thing. But then I tend not to think that laying people off is a good thing.

Now, suppose a company drops a few employees for some other reason--how are they going to "prove" it wasn't to avoid providing coverage? Lie-detector test? Truth serum? Maybe bring Cheney and Co back for some waterboarding?

So a company that employs around 50 or 100 people does not have any internal records about decision-making?

What if the IRS decides they don't like the reason?

They decide whether to prosecute. And then a court decides whether to hear the case. If it does, the court then judges the case on its merits. I think that is the Judicial 'check & balance' right there. When cases come up and they are lost, then your point is proven. And the system wins at the same time.

A dictator would overrule or bypass the courts. A hyperbolist will pretend that is what Obama is doing.

So, whenever we have Congress not giving the President what he wants, Becerra says he needs "to move." He was certainly implying the EO's for Obamacare are exigent.

That part was after he started to talk about a different aspect of a President's Executive Authority - foreign threats. Yes, you do want a President who will act if Congress are sitting around arguing about whether to defend your country or not.

Look, you have spent a lot of time trying to convince us that you are right, referring to peoples' interpretations of the law. I have, on the other hand, quoted you the actual law.

Without understanding how it's being applied, so your quote is kind of useless.

Well, if it is applied literally, or within the overall spirit, then you can indeed have delays in implementation, and you can indeed have administration that assesses liability that checks for fraud.

danivon wrote:The spirit of the law does go to intent. The original intent of the ACA was to have far more people covered by health insurance. Finagling a way of avoiding providing that cover and also the penalties does indeed go against that original intent.

I'm sick of this. That's just false.

If the intent was to "have far more people covered," then the law would have ONLY dealt with them OR would have made SURE that 100% of people were covered. It failed to take either route. It impacts every American by putting new requirements on policies, causing many to be canceled. It fails to cover everyone. The CBO estimates there will be more than 30 million uninsured in 2020.

So, that is NOT the intent. This was known before the law was passed (that many would not be covered).

No, because this doesn't have to do with paying a fine. It has to do with being able to certify that you complied with something that is not in the bill. I hope that is clear by now. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 5/5370055/

The payment is due if you have more than a certain number of employees. And that article offers zero new facts to what you have already presented.

Just stop. That article says what I said, yes, but you keep missing it: the ACA does not require companies certify that they are not reducing employees to avoid the strictures of the law. The President made that up and now is going to demand people abide by it.

That is writing new law. Deal with it.

I don't agree that a provision to ensure companies are not evading the fine/tax/payment by laying people off is a bad thing. But then I tend not to think that laying people off is a good thing.

Well then, you must think the President is a moron. Not only does the ACA reduce hours worked but his proposal to raise the minimum wage will result in 500K-1M fewer jobs per the CBO.

They decide whether to prosecute. And then a court decides whether to hear the case. If it does, the court then judges the case on its merits. I think that is the Judicial 'check & balance' right there. When cases come up and they are lost, then your point is proven. And the system wins at the same time.

No, that's not a "check and balance." Who reimburses the company for the legal fees? No one.

This is what Holder, Obama and Co. did to Gibson Guitars. Gibson won, but they still lost money.

"Check and balance" is what Obama is avoiding. Now, Harry Reid wants him to do more. It's the most anti-democratic "Democratic" party we've ever seen. They are cheering on Obama-rule.

A dictator would overrule or bypass the courts. A hyperbolist will pretend that is what Obama is doing.

A realist would see that's exactly what he's doing. When someone has to sue to get the government off their back, that is not "checks and balances." Our Constitution calls that "redress for grievances."

So, whenever we have Congress not giving the President what he wants, Becerra says he needs "to move." He was certainly implying the EO's for Obamacare are exigent.

That part was after he started to talk about a different aspect of a President's Executive Authority - foreign threats. Yes, you do want a President who will act if Congress are sitting around arguing about whether to defend your country or not.

At best, Becerra was arguing against a bogey man. But, of course, you don't think the President would ever do anything to violate the Constitution. No, not Obama.

Well, if it is applied literally, or within the overall spirit, then you can indeed have delays in implementation, and you can indeed have administration that assesses liability that checks for fraud.

It's not "in the spirit" of the law. It's not "fraud" to adjust your business practices according to the law. That's what businesses DO!

Raise taxes on 'x,' they do less of 'x' or they adjust their budgets.

That's standard business. Of course, you know that. However, you will defend Obama until your last breath on Earth.

This discussion should have stopped when there was precedent cited for the president delaying implementation of a law for a period of time. The idea that delaying implementation of a law that the president himself backed somehow means the president has made a power grab is absurd on its face. ( Bush delaying review of emissions under the Clean Air Act would have been more of a concern because you're talking about the Executive Branch not complying with a law it doesn't like). Minor delays in implementing a complex reform do not equal a power grab.

freeman3 wrote:This discussion should have stopped when there was precedent cited for the president delaying implementation of a law for a period of time.

Yes, because it typically takes 6 years to implement a law--nothing to see here.

The idea that delaying implementation of a law that the president himself backed somehow means the president has made a power grab is absurd on its face.

No, it's not. He's not ONLY delaying it. This is not a 3-month or 6-month delay to work out some logistics. It is a two-year delay and it's only reason is politics.

( Bush delaying review of emissions under the Clean Air Act would have been more of a concern because you're talking about the Executive Branch not complying with a law it doesn't like). Minor delays in implementing a complex reform do not equal a power grab.

Is a 2-year delay "minor?" If so, why?

Some here have seemed to believe once Congress has passed a law, the President is pretty much free to "tweak it." Maybe not:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court Monday appeared headed toward restricting the federal government's authority to require permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Such a ruling from the court's conservative wing wouldn't affect an ongoing effort by the Obama administration to regulate the sources of global warming, but it would eliminate one method of doing so.

At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to change the threshold in the Clean Air Act for the amount of emissions from a power plant, refinery or other stationary source that requires a permit. Liberal justices said it was a reasonable move to avoid an absurd over-regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, but conservatives said it went too far.

"I couldn't find a single precedent that strongly supports your position," Justice Anthony Kennedy, the most likely swing vote, said in response to U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's defense of the EPA's move.

Kennedy is a conservative?

Congress set a standard. The EPA unilaterally changed it.

Hmm, gee, seems kinda familiar.

Doctor Fate wrote:

( Bush delaying review of emissions under the Clean Air Act would have been more of a concern because you're talking about the Executive Branch not complying with a law it doesn't like). Minor delays in implementing a complex reform do not equal a power grab.

Is a 2-year delay "minor?" If so, why?

The Bush delay to the Clean Air Act review of emissions was a 5-year one.

Kennedy is a conservative?

That's not what the article says - it describes him as a likely swing vote.

the article you quoted continues....

"Kennedy was in the majority when the high court ruled 5-4 in 2007 that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant and the EPA has authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions. If he switches sides on whether that extends to stationary sources such as power plants, it could seal the program's fate.

Though the case focuses on what Verrilli called "an urgent environmental problem ... one that gets worse with the passage of time," the court's ruling is likely to have only limited impact. That's because the government has other ways of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources."

So, umm.. the USSC may rule that a particular rule was wrong (oddly, in that it let loads of companies not need to have a permit), but it won't actually affect the bulk of the law.