Could a future President simply cancel the ACA or other laws?

[adaher]

@Marley23

To that end, remember that conservatives believe Obama is breaking the law and being a dictator when he changes the way the ACA is implemented, but they were enthusiastic when Romney said he was going to give waivers to every state that didn’t want to participate in the law.

Well, no state has to participate, that’s kinda in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the SCOTUS decision on ACA.

Everything Romney said he would do was actually in the law. Waivers are completely legal, the issue conservatives had with them was that they seemed to be less about policy and more about controlling the political damage being caused by the law. Which has pretty much been all the President has been about for the last three years.

The next shoe to drop is the small business cancellations in Oct. 2014. Given the President’s history, is there any doubt he’ll do whatever he can to move that to December?

[Marley23]

@adaher

Well, no state has to participate, that’s kinda in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the SCOTUS decision on ACA.

You’ve confused with Medicaid expansion with the entire law.

[John_Mace]

@Marley23

You’ve confused with Medicaid expansion with the entire law.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you posted the actual statement(s) Romney made.

[Marley23]

@John_Mace

Perhaps it would be helpful if you posted the actual statement(s) Romney made.

From his website:

“On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.”

People at the time pointed out that this didn’t really make sense.

[John_Mace]

“Paves the way”. Weasel words if ever there were any. I think it was deliberately vague so he could “do something” when elected and claim he had fulfilled his campaign promise. But there isn’t anything there to indicate he was going to violate the law or change it, except by working with Congress.

[Sitnam]

@BrainGlutton

No, because that would be politically (as distinct from legally/constitutionally) impossible.

Sure it is, thousand cuts and what not. See also the EPA, SNAP etc.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

The President can choose not to enforce whatever he wants.

Huh?

But yet, the President could definitely stop enforcement of the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and the required coverage, such as the contraception mandate. The current President already did just that in all three cases, either delaying enforcement completely(the employer mandate), or granting exemptions in the other two cases. All a future President has to do is write the exemption regulations such that nearly everyone is exempt.

Only if the law allows that latitude.

[lance_strongarm]

@Bone

Forget about the ACA - I see nothing preventing a president from exercising their discretion to enforce *any *law. What would be the consequence and where is that stipulated if they chose not to enforce…all federal drug laws, immigration law, etc? We already have precedent where states who try to enforce immigration laws were rebuffed (prop 187 in CA) being ruled unconstitutional even in the face non enforcement at the federal level.

Just like congress can pass laws to force everyone to buy broccoli or be subject to a tax, the president can suspend any federal law he wants to. I don’t think the limiting factor is the vested power in the office, but rather the political will.

Where do you get this stuff? The president can’t suspend laws. In fact, the Constitution requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Article 2, Section 3)

Or are you making a political statement?

(The only time a president could ignore a law is when he/she believes it is unconstitutional, since he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which comes before laws made by Congress.)

[adaher]

@Marley23

You’ve confused with Medicaid expansion with the entire law.

The entire law does not, and cannot, require the states to do anything. It can request, it can cajole, but it cannot require. States do not need waivers to exercise their basic constitutional right to not participate.

[Marley23]

@adaher

The entire law does not, and cannot, require the states to do anything. It can request, it can cajole, but it cannot require.

This is spectacularly wrong. A law is a requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that that the law could not take Medicaid funding away from states that refused to participate in the Medicaid expansion - and that’s all it did. It did not allow the states to opt out of the rules about pre-existing conditions, for example.

[adaher]

@lance_strongarm

Only if the law allows that latitude.

The hardship exemption was stretched to accomodate people who lost their insurance due to the law this year.

If it can be stretched to accomodate even wealthy people who lost their insurance, it can be stretched to accomodate people in just about any circumstance.

If you lost your job at some point during the year. If you moved. If you had wedding expenses. If you have college expenses. If you are starting a business.

“hardship” can be whatever a President wants it to be.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

The hardship exemption was stretched to accomodate people who lost their insurance due to the law this year.

If it can be stretched to accomodate even wealthy people who lost their insurance, it can be stretched to accomodate people in just about any circumstance.

If you lost your job at some point during the year. If you moved. If you had wedding expenses. If you have college expenses. If you are starting a business.

“hardship” can be whatever a President wants it to be.

Maybe, maybe not. But the hardship exemption is IN THE LAW. That’s the point.

[Shodan]

@lance_strongarm

But the hardship exemption is IN THE LAW.

And when the President chooses not to enforce that part of the law?

The only time a president could ignore a law is when he/she believes it is unconstitutional, since he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which comes before laws made by Congress.

The President does not decide what is and is not Constitutional. The Obama administration has been spanked for apparently not knowing this already.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

So, what was the “opposite” position they took on the Voter ID laws?

I said it above:

@Bricker

This is why you see liberals falling all over each other in the “Nuns vs. Obama,” thread professing their undying fealty to the law, and steadfastly excoriating the nuns for their unwillingness to follow the law…and without the slightest sense of irony taking the opposite position in the “Voter ID,” threads.

In the Voter ID thread, they were deaf to the argument that “It’s the law;” in the nuns/Obama thread, I can’t count how many people opined that the nuns needed to deal with it, since the ACA “was the law.”

[lance_strongarm]

@Shodan

And when the President chooses not to enforce that part of the law?

Huh?

That part of the law gives him the option of granting a hardship exception or not.

The President does not decide what is and is not Constitutional.

Like hell he doesn’t. He MUST. He takes an oath to uphold the Constitution too. The president is REQUIRED not to follow laws he feels are unconstitutional.

The Obama administration has been spanked for apparently not knowing this already.

No, they may have been spanked for having a different view on what’s unconstitutional or not than a court did (I’d like to know exactly what “spanking” you’re referring to), but no court said the administration was required to follow laws and wait for a court to tell it the law was unconstitutional.

[lance_strongarm]

@Bricker

In the Voter ID thread, they were deaf to the argument that “It’s the law;” in the nuns/Obama thread, I can’t count how many people opined that the nuns needed to deal with it, since the ACA “was the law.”

But you can’t just point to two “theys.” You have to identify specific posters who said both.

[ElvisL1ves]

Not if they’re faithful servants of the liberal hive mind, he doesn’t.

[lance_strongarm]

@ElvisL1ves

Not if they’re faithful servants of the liberal hive mind, he doesn’t.

Ah, but if someone is consistent in their views, they aren’t faithful servants (and should be expelled from the Brotherhood of Inconsistent Liberals).

[Learjeff]

I think that for practical purposes, the President can only get away with whatever Congress and the courts let him get away with, in this regard.

[Bone]

I think it’s pretty clear that the enforcement or lack thereof is not a matter of law, but that of politics. Already the Obama administration has said they won’t deport undocumented immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States as children, wont defend DOMA or execute provisions of DOMA, wont prosecute marijuana users in states where legal, issued waivers for the requirements of NCLB, and all the delays/waivers for ACA, etc.

If the president issues an executive order or some other directive to act or not act, or to not enforce or prosecute some federal statutes, what recourse is there really? Unless the president is succesfully impeached, it seems like the president can engage in enforcement or lack of enforcement with impunity.