Is Obama Care Legal?

Article One of the Constitution affords the legislative power to the Congress, made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

“The legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Wikipedia

What does the legislative branch execute?

“They can declare wars, make laws, have the power to borrow money when they think it’s necessary, and they collect taxes.”

The executive branch, which is the White House, does not have the power to make or change the law.

I succinctly remember the White House amending Obama Care a number of times, inclusive of the 2015 delay to the Employer Mandate.

There have been a plethora of subsidies, and waivers realized by the White House to Obama care, all of them without Congressional approval, and thus prohibited by our Constitution.

In fact, Obama Care as is it was originally approved by the Congress is a very different law to what we see now

Yet the only thing that we hear from the White House is that the House of Representatives is keeping the country hostage.

It makes sense then that if the law has been altered by the White House in delaying the Employer Mandate, that at very least, the Individual Mandate would be delayed as well.

Should a law that has been so altered be obeyed?

Two suits are being leveled against Obama Care.

The links are at the bottom.

One is by a Florida dentist who charges that he the spent resources to comply with the Employer Mandate which then was illegitimately delayed by the White House.

He stipulates that monies which he expended could have been channeled somewhere else.

“I feel that he crossed the red line when he chose to waive the employer mandate. He generally rules by executive fiat, and he feels that he’s a Congress of one,” Larry Kawa, a Florida dentist, told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

 Kawa said the president doesn’t have the authority “to pick and choose which parts of the law he’s going to enforce for the sake of political convenience.”

 The lawsuit — filed by Judicial Watch on Kawa’s behalf in the Southern District of Florida against the U.S. Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service — argues that the delay of the employer mandate “exceeded statutory authority, is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and is otherwise unlawful.”

 At issue is whether the administration — by deciding on July 2 to postpone for one year the mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees — violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 statute which governs how federal agencies can establish regulations and sets up a process for federal courts to review agency decisions.

 Kawa believes the administration did violate the APA. Furthermore, Kawa tells Newsmax, under Article II of the Constitution, the president has the “duty to enforce those laws and not only is he not enforcing them, but he’s changing them.”

 According to the lawsuit, Kawa “expended substantial time and resources, including money spent on legal fees and other costs, in preparation for the ’employer mandate’ taking effect on Jan. 1, 2014” and that he “would not have expended resources and incurred these anticipatory costs in 2013” if he knew the mandate would take effect in 2015.”  Newsmax

The second suit comes from Oklahoma. This one supports my premise. It deals with the IRS re interpretation of the law about subsidies, without Congressional approval.

If we are to begin somewhere, let it be by scrutinizing the numerous amendments, waivers and subsidies made by the White House to Obama Care, without Congressional approval.

America’s eyes are once again in the wrong place. When will she learn?

Charles Krauthammer’s comments are worthy of reading.

“President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama¬care are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.

Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obama¬care five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.

Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate— the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?”

The two suits.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s