Should America's laws treat everyone equally? Or do you think that there should be a favored group that gets better treatment than the rest of us? And if there is a favored group, how should membership in that group be determined?
Ten years ago, these questions would be considered to have answers so obvious that even asking the questions would seem idiotic. Of course, all Americans are to be treated equally by the law. That concept is enshrined in the Constitution as "equal protection". Today, however, that concept has been not only questioned; it has been shattered.
It used to be that once Congress passed a law and the president signed it, it applied to everyone as it was written. If the law said that tax returns for individuals are due on April 15th of the following year, than on April 16th all those who failed to follow the proper procedure to get an extension for filing were in violation of the law and were subject to penalties for that failure. If someone wanted to change that date, it would require another act of Congress signed by the president. Similarly, if Congress passed a law banning the sale of clothing made with alligator hides commencing on January 1 of 2015, then on January 2, 2015, anyone selling such clothing in the USA would be subject to sanction for violating the law. Once again, the only way to change that result would be for there to be a new act of Congress signed by the president.
So here's the next situation: Congress passes a law and the president signs it. The law specifically requires American employers (with a few exceptions) to buy health insurance for employees by January 1, 2014. That act is not modified by anything that Congress does, but the president announces that he is extending that date for a year. The problem, however, is that the president does not have the authority or the power to extend the law in this way. Only Congress has that power.
This last example is exactly what president Obama did with the employer mandate under Obamacare. Obama unilaterally changed the deadline for that mandate even though he lacked the power to do that. This move by Obama was a direct usurpation of the power of Congress. The move was also a direct violation of the Constitution. If Obama could ignore Congress here, why couldn't he ignore Congress everywhere else? It could be on something with little real impact. (Obama could change the US flag to the rainbow flag to show solidarity with the Gay Rights Movement.) Alternatively, it might be something more important. (Obama could direct confiscation of all IRA's and 401k's without compensation in order to fund the deficit.) It could even get to ridiculous levels. (Obama could order the execution of those who oppose his policies.) The point is here is not that Obama is about to order executions; rather, it is that the president must follow the terms of the law unless that law is modified by Congress. The president is powerless to change the law himself.
This principle is the one which underlies the lawsuit just authorized by the House against Obama. The issue is limitations on presidential power and preservation of the power of the Congress. Obamacare and the employer mandate are just the backdrop for the lawsuit. Enforcement of immigration laws, modification of laws regarding use of coal and many other improper actions by Obama could just as easily have been used. Obamacare and the mandate, however, provide the perfect example since the law specifies January 1, 2014 as the date the employer mandate goes into effect and Obama illegally changed that.
So how have the Democrats responded to this suit? In typical fashion, the Democrat talking points (parroted by the Democrat media) is to claim that protecting the Constitution is nothing but a waste of time and money. They even call it hypocrisy. Here is what Gail Collins of the NY Times said about it:
Ten years ago, these questions would be considered to have answers so obvious that even asking the questions would seem idiotic. Of course, all Americans are to be treated equally by the law. That concept is enshrined in the Constitution as "equal protection". Today, however, that concept has been not only questioned; it has been shattered.
It used to be that once Congress passed a law and the president signed it, it applied to everyone as it was written. If the law said that tax returns for individuals are due on April 15th of the following year, than on April 16th all those who failed to follow the proper procedure to get an extension for filing were in violation of the law and were subject to penalties for that failure. If someone wanted to change that date, it would require another act of Congress signed by the president. Similarly, if Congress passed a law banning the sale of clothing made with alligator hides commencing on January 1 of 2015, then on January 2, 2015, anyone selling such clothing in the USA would be subject to sanction for violating the law. Once again, the only way to change that result would be for there to be a new act of Congress signed by the president.
So here's the next situation: Congress passes a law and the president signs it. The law specifically requires American employers (with a few exceptions) to buy health insurance for employees by January 1, 2014. That act is not modified by anything that Congress does, but the president announces that he is extending that date for a year. The problem, however, is that the president does not have the authority or the power to extend the law in this way. Only Congress has that power.
This last example is exactly what president Obama did with the employer mandate under Obamacare. Obama unilaterally changed the deadline for that mandate even though he lacked the power to do that. This move by Obama was a direct usurpation of the power of Congress. The move was also a direct violation of the Constitution. If Obama could ignore Congress here, why couldn't he ignore Congress everywhere else? It could be on something with little real impact. (Obama could change the US flag to the rainbow flag to show solidarity with the Gay Rights Movement.) Alternatively, it might be something more important. (Obama could direct confiscation of all IRA's and 401k's without compensation in order to fund the deficit.) It could even get to ridiculous levels. (Obama could order the execution of those who oppose his policies.) The point is here is not that Obama is about to order executions; rather, it is that the president must follow the terms of the law unless that law is modified by Congress. The president is powerless to change the law himself.
This principle is the one which underlies the lawsuit just authorized by the House against Obama. The issue is limitations on presidential power and preservation of the power of the Congress. Obamacare and the employer mandate are just the backdrop for the lawsuit. Enforcement of immigration laws, modification of laws regarding use of coal and many other improper actions by Obama could just as easily have been used. Obamacare and the mandate, however, provide the perfect example since the law specifies January 1, 2014 as the date the employer mandate goes into effect and Obama illegally changed that.
So how have the Democrats responded to this suit? In typical fashion, the Democrat talking points (parroted by the Democrat media) is to claim that protecting the Constitution is nothing but a waste of time and money. They even call it hypocrisy. Here is what Gail Collins of the NY Times said about it:
Rather than suing the president for everything he’s ever done, the Republicans tried to improve their legal prospects by picking a particular executive order. They settled on the one postponing enforcement of part of Obamacare that requires businesses to provide health coverage for their employees. “Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change?” demanded Boehner.
“Not a single one of them voted for the Affordable Care Act,” said Louise Slaughter, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee. “They spent $ 79 million holding votes to kill it. And now they’re going to sue him for not implementing it fast enough.”
Both Slaughter and Collins understand that what they are saying is nonsense, but they clearly care more about their party than they do about the Constitution and the future of American democracy. Hopefully, the American people understand this.
No comments:
Post a Comment