I was only kidding about you being like Hamilton Burger!
Making a caricature of what I’m saying is not amusing, and I would think it would be less amusing for a judge that eventually has to check if your ridiculous pigeonholing works.
It does not matter if the Treasury or the department of Pony affairs is reporting trouble with the beginning of the implementation of a new law. What matters is if the opponents of a new law have reasonable reasons to impugn or discredit the reports that justify the delay.
Somebody really ought to give you some props for your campaign against Liberal Hypocrisy. Not like its really important, like Cognitive Dissonance, the number one threat to the Republic. But still…
I mean, I would do it, sure, but I’ve got such a reputation for snarkasm, nobody would have any. Maybe GIGO?
House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders (Republican led) are reportedly on the case, I will say that it will be not much of an investigation or that it will take some time.
Once again, since we are already more than a month into this, I can say that it is more likely that the “investigation” will fissle as even Republicans will see how silly it would be to take it to the floor or to the courts, but I do expect a **very **stern letter from them to the president, that will show him!
But as for the current “investigation” the OP did to declare the president as breaking the law only shows that that peculiar idea was like the one made by the Queen of Hearts in Alice in wonderland, talk about not waiting even for preliminary or good reasons to declare the justification presented by the Treasury as invalid.
What obfuscatory drivel from the OP in this exchange!
The differences between the reporting delay authorized by President Obama and the 50 state waiver threatened by then-potential President Romney are blatant and obvious, but more importantly the intent of the Chief Executive is both clear and verifiable in each case.
a) Obama’s order makes a clear justification for the delay in execution, clearly lays out the agency responsibilities for implementation and explicitly defines the limited term during which his order allows those issues which justify the delay to be dealt with, after which the requirements for reporting will begin. -Shows clear intent to “faithfully execute” the law and outlines specific justifications for the delay which can be reviewed by interested parties, including officially by the other branches of government.
b) A Romney order would have granted waivers which would exempt the requesting states from participation. -Shows clear intent to nullify PPACA; the opposite of “faithful execution” of the law.
Although it appears GIGObuster is not at all tormented by the question, I’ll take a swipe at it as a friendly gesture: I think your question is nonsense.
Executive delays or avoidances of law can be corrected (or confirmed) by court decisions or ameliorated through further legislative actions including passage of new bills and overriding of presidential vetoes, or impeachment of executive officers. That’s pretty basic separation of powers, and fundamental checks and balances, wouldn’t you agree?
Court rulings are the product of processes, not of isolated individual determinations so there’s no one “who” arbitrarily deciding any particular question of fact until arguments have been heard; and any appeal would assure multiple arguments and opinions prior to a final -and collective- decision. Legislative responses are even more collectively derived than judicial decisions so I don’t think that helps your search for the “who” that gets to decide these things either.
I think it’s self-evident that in the one case, non-enforcement falls broadly within the definition of taking care that laws be faithfully executed, and in the other case non-enforcement would amount to willful abdication of statutory responsibilities.
Who decides? I guess the Supreme Court, if it came to that. Frankly I’m no longer sure where the disagreement lies here, but I’m beginning to think maybe you’re making a deeper point that I’m missing altogether.
If Bricker is making a deeper point, he should get on with it by a less circuitous route. The question, boiled down to its essence was “How does/can the US federal government protect against executive branch recalcitrance in the execution of law?” That’s been answered. And despite the esteemed counselor’s effort to turn that question into some sort of ‘who watches the watchmen’ conundrum, the answer’s really not particularly complicated.
ETA: Nor are the constitutionally established protections perfect. We can’t inerrantly filter executive mal -or even misfeasance. But if a hitch in implementation doesn’t rise to the level of an APA suit, then maybe it’s also not some sort of wild executive overreach either.
I have admitted before that my grammar is a crime against nature, but I have to point out that when many posters do report that it is **Bricker **the one who is obfuscating and others like you report to not understand what he is pointing at, it should be something that should give him pause.
Since all of your hypotheticals involve a Republican, the rule cannot apply.
You appear to be assuming that the extreme partisans of the Left who are defending Obama are arguing from principle. That’s fine, as long as you recognize what that principle is.
Not really – if anything, my only point would be to wryly observe that in practice, Shodan’s analysis seems an accurate model. In other words, if the simplest explanation for any event is usually correct, then instead of the complicated rule formations posed by various respondents, I can reliably predict the responses here by applying the Shodan Rule.
No, you are not dealing at all with the differences reported by xenophon41, and i already pointed at your misrepresentations in the tread, it is not that simple, but it is clear that you are just trying to justify your simple view of things.
