Let’s say enough legislators thought that the likely cost of Obamacare was way more than they expected and they didn’t like the IRS involvement in the administration.
Could they suspend further implementation until those things were changed?
I think the trick (in general) would be to have clear triggers or some entity they all trusted to “certify” that the goals had been accomplished.
I think you get the idea … has anything like that happenned before or do you know of any reasons why it couldn’t? Not why it won’t or shouldn’t, please.
Well, if enough legislators wanted to change Obamacare, they could just pass a new law amending or repealing it. Congress passed the original law, so of course they can change it.
How many legislators is ‘enough’ depends on whether the President vetoes the new law, but enough legislators can override the veto.
Can Congress do anything short of passing a new law? Not with any legal force, no. Legislators can informally ask an executive agency to do or not do something, but that’s not binding. But Congress only acts formally by passing laws.
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War if that counts. And although not officially suspended, the government through various means doesn’t always enforce laws. We are in the midst of that confusion now regarding marijuana and immigration laws. However, in those cases the law remains in place, active, and enforcement tends to be selective, not suspended.
Sure, things like this happen all the time. Congress and the President can pass a new law that changes implementation dates. One recent example is the STOCK Act, which would have required certain financial disclosures by members of Congress and various Executive Branch officials. The STOCK Act was passed in 2012, then late that year the deadline for filings was delayed by several months. Then in April 2013, another law was passed to exclude various people from having to make those filings.
Now, I know someone is going to rant about the STOCK Act, but I say: the substance is irrelevant. This is simply an example of laws being passed to delay implementation of an existing law, and even further modifying the application of the law.
If a law involves spending any money, then Congress can throw up roadblocks by refusing to pass a budget that includes any money to implement or enforce the law.
If the law involves a government agency to implement or enforce the law, and if the agency is one that is headed by a person that the President appoints, then the President can make a major effect on the implementation/enforcement by the person he chooses to head the agency. If the appointment is one that must be confirmed by Congress, then Congress can make a major effect according to who they will or won’t confirm.
All these effects, of course, can change with every Congressional or Presidential election.
Another option is, Congress could always defund the program in the next budget. The program might still be on the books, but not much will come of it if there’s no money to pay anyone’s salary.
From the executive side, note that the President cannot simply refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress for a program. Congress can provide the President with some leeway as to how to allocate funds, and a certain level of discretion in how a program is administered is inherent in the President’s job. Finally, there are some areas where the President’s decision-making authority is committed exclusively to him and cannot be overridden by Congress – prosecution of crimes being a big one.
So, a President could not “impound” money approriated by Congress for the purpose of administering the ACA. He or she might have some room to have the IRS set policy about, for example, the imposition of fines for failure to purchase health insurance. He or she definitely has the power to decide whether or not to prosecute someone for failure to pay a fine thus imposed.
Nope. The Federal Government’s authority to do so is stated, but in Article I, spelling out powers of Congress and their limitations. Taking the two ex parte cases involving Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus together, it appears that the President can only suspend it when authorized, beforehad or retroactively, to do so by Congressional resolution. (One held his doing so invalid; the other that Congress had retroactively validated it.)
