Originally Posted by ActiveShooter
Don't be so lazy and read the OP. It has a few examples. You'll never get the truth if you are too lazy to seek it. Propaganda is everywhere and it's all you can eat. You need to back away from the buffet.
I did read the OP. I think you have a hard time distinguishing bald-faced emotional appeal from facts. Throughout one amazingly giant wall of text emotional appeal babble, the author gives exactly 2 specific examples of Obama flouting the constiution: Obamacare changes and recess appointments.
Bitching about recess appointments is a ****ing joke. Plenty of presidents in the past have used that, and none have faced the all-out obstructionism from congress that Obama has. No other president has ever faced filibusters over a huge chunk of their appointments. Did you know that? No, of course not.
As far as changing Obamacare - do any of you even remember that you all voted for the guy who promised to repeal Obamacare by executive order on day 1? WTF is that if not a president changing existing laws to match their own political views? At least Obama is trying to make the law work better instead of scuttle it. Modifying an existing law is a lot more against the constitution than killing it.
In 1946, legislators passed the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the way that regulatory agencies carry out legislation. That law both gives agencies discretion in setting up laws, but holds them accountable for carrying out Congress’s intentions.
“Under the Administrative Procedure Act precedent, the courts can compel agencies that have been unreasonably delayed,” says Simon Lazarus, a senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. “Those tend to involve delays that have gone on for years.”
Courts have frequently grappled with issues of what counts as an “unreasonable” delay and, as many experts will tell you, they still haven’t set a bright line between executive discretion and disobedience.
Still, there is precedent that gives us some guidance into what is, and is not, appropriate.
In Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 Supreme Court case, the justices granted regulatory authority when it comes to filling in any ambiguous gaps in a law. “The idea there was that the agency has the experts, and it also makes the executive branch electorally accountable,” Bagley says. “You’d want the President to be making the tough calls.”
In Congressional testimony, Treasury makes a counter argument: That the agency is by no means dispensing with the law -- they still plan to implement it -- but rather making an adjustment, well within executive discretion. The agency says this authority stems from its power to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title.”
Moreover, this is something that the agency has done more than a dozen times before, without a peep from Congress.
“On a number of prior occasions across administrations, this authority has been used to postpone the application of new legislation when the immediate application would have subjected taxpayers to unreasonable administrative burdens or costs,” Mark Iwry, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Retirement and Health Policy at Treasury, told legislators.
Its also possible, legal experts say, that it's too soon to determine whether this delay counts as not implementing the Affordable Care Act – or if it's a more mundane show of discretion. If the administration had, for example, announced that it never intended to require employers to provide health benefits, that would near certainly be seen as flouting the law. But if they delay it until 2016, or 2017? That’s a greyer area.
“It depends on whether there’s really clear progress towards the implementation of the statute,” says Rob Weiner, a former associate deputy attorney at the Department of Justice, whose work focused heavily on Affordable Care Act litigation. “If they were doing nothing, at some point, I think that a court would suggest it's not an exercise of discretion and say enough is enough.”