You and I have a different idea of the nature of the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to ensure the defense the individual against the government. Our forefathers broke away from the King of England to create a republic that recognized that all individuals were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All powers not granted specifically to the federal gov’t fall to the state. All powers not granted specifically to the Fed or State fall to the local gov’t and all powers not granted specifically to any gov’t fall to The Daily Discord.
The Obama administration began in 2008 in an economic crisis—I’m sure you agree so far—when a bipartisan agreement granted the federal gov’t the power to spend trillions of dollars to stimulate the economy. This action was constitutionally controversial, but because both major political parties agreed and convinced the vast majority of citizens of the crisis, it was passed without serious constitutional challenge. I couldn’t and can’t argue with it. Then came Universal Healthcare, the largest gov’t legislation in the history of our nation. I think, if I’m wrong, name something bigger. (Wait, I retract that question to avoid another feeble attempt at humor.) But the size and scope of universal healthcare is monstrous and the real problem came when the administration and Congressional Democrats rushed the 2,000 page legislation through Congress with no bipartisan support. The law made people, like yours truly, legally mandated to purchase healthcare.
Where in the constitution is there any suggestion that the federal government has such power to force an individual to purchase health insurance? Thus the Tea Party was founded, with my support, to put a stop to this obvious constitutional violation called Obamacare. The Tea Party, with the rallying cry of constitutional limitations on the federal gov’t, made a strong showing in the 2010 election. Then the Obama administration, rather than declaring war against radical Islam, turned a blind eye allowing Jihadists to rape and impregnate Christians with future Jihadists. This has been instituted as any person with a Muslim dad is not permitted to leave Islam. Wait, didn’t President Obama have a Muslim dad? Hold on… I think Donald Trump is calling. So the Obama Administration decided instead to attack “his real enemies” the Tea Party and limited government groups.
Since Obamacare has become the law of the land, the executive branch has changed the law without going to Congress at least twenty times, including:
1.) A one year delay of the requirement that employers must report to their employees on their W-2 forms the full cost of their employer-provided healthcare (Jan. 1 2012).
2.) Administration ordered an advance draw on funds from a Medicare bonus program in order to provide extra payments to Medicare Advance plans, in an effort to temporarily forestall cuts in benefits and therefore delay early exodus on MA plans from the program (April 19, 2012).
3.) Federal exchanges for small businesses that will not be ready by the 2014 statutory deadline, delayed to 2015.
4.) Employer mandate delay (July 2, 2013) 5) Congressional opt-out offer employer contributions to members of Congress and their staff when they purchase insurance on the exchange created by the ACA a subsidy the law does not permit. (Sept. 30, 2013) 6) delay of individual mandate.
Where does the Constitution give the President the executive authority to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws? President Obama’s answer, “In a normal environment it would have been easier to call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t change the essence of the law, but we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare so I’ll just rewrite the law myself.” That’s obviously unconstitutional. You know it is, Zano. Obama’s stance is yours, “Republicans don’t understand. They’re dangerously ignorant. Meanwhile, the President has to violate the constitution in order to do what he knows is best.”
It’s not a matter of the Democrats are better than the Republicans. It’s a matter of principle–constitutional principles that I know and directly ‘feel’ being violated right now as we speak. You give him a pass, because, “He’s better than the alternative.”
How am I’m wrong?
“Anyone who would choose a little security in exchange for a little liberty deserves neither and will lose both.”