The Fix Is In: Can President Obama Grant An Effective ACA Waiver To Millions Of Disgruntled Citizens?

President_Barack_ObamaPresident Obama is taking a great deal of heat for the cancellations of millions of policies after he repeatedly told citizens that if you like your policy you could keep it. He recently apologized for what seems a classic bait and switch. However, Obama has now announced a fix that raises a more serious question in my mind. Most of us have become used to a relatively high level of dishonesty from our leaders in Congress as well as the White House. This blog has documented whoppers, even perjury, that results in little more than a shrug in today’s political system. However, the “fix” involves the President unilaterally changing that scope and timing of a law. This has been a recurring concern with this President and the rise of the “Imperial Presidency” that he has established within ever-expanding executive powers. I will be discussing this issue today on CNN.

While the line between legislation and enforcement can become blurred, this view is generally reflective of the functions defined in Article I and Article II. The Take Care Clause is one of the most direct articulations of this division. The Clause states “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 4. It is one of the clearest and most important mandates in the Constitution. The Framers not only draw the distinction between making and enforcing laws, but, with the enforcement of the law, the Framers stressed that the execution of the laws created by Congress must be faithfully administered. The language combines a mandate of the execution of laws with the qualifying obligation of their faithful execution.

Nonenforcement orders challenge this arrangement by imposing a type of presidential veto extrinsic to the legislative process. The legitimacy of such orders has long been challenged as an extraconstitutional measure. Yet, since Thomas Jefferson, Presidents have asserted the discretion not to enforce laws that they deemed unconstitutional. Jefferson took a stand against the Sedition Act that was used for many blatant abuses against political enemies in the early Republic. Jefferson cited his oath to protect the Constitution compelling him to act to “arrest [the] execution” of the law at “every stage.” Jefferson’s stand represented the strongest basis for nonenforcement in a law that was used against political opponents and free speech.

From Internet gambling to educational waivers to immigration deportations to health care decisions, the Obama Administration has been unilaterally ordering major changes in federal law with the notable exclusion of Congress. Many of these changes have been defended as discretionary acts or mere interpretations of existing law. However, they fit an undeniable pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation new major standards, exceptions, or outright nullifications. What is most striking about these areas is that they are precisely the type of controversial questions designed for the open and deliberative legislative process. The unilateral imposition of new rules robs the system of its stabilizing characteristics in dealing with factional divisions.

I cannot find the authority under the ACA to grant millions of Americans an effective waiver or delay. The White House will clearly defend this as simply an exercise of discretion in the enforcement of laws. There is certainly support in such claims, though they are controversial. I just published an academic piece the explores the constitutional problems with the expansion of the powers of the “fourth Branch.” See Jonathan Turley, Recess Appointments in the Age of Regulation, 93 Boston University Law Review ___ (2013) and Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Adverse Possession: Recess Appointments and the Role of Historical Practice in Constitutional Interpretation, 2103 Wisconsin Law Review ___ (2013). I also wrote a column on the subject for the Washington Post. I fail to see how the legislative process can have meaning if a president can effectively rewrite laws in the name of agency discretion. It is an argument that adds to the already dangerous concentration of executive power under this President.

This issue has nothing to do with the merits of the ACA. As with my criticism of Sebelius for the grossly negligent administration of the law, this is not about how one feels about the law. President Obama will leave a presidency that is dangerously unchecked and Democrats will be saddled with their support of those powers when they are claimed by a president less to their liking.

The President used a clearly misleading argument to secure support for the ACA. He is now trying to reduce the outcry over that argument with a political recalibration of the law. To do so, he is acting in a clearly legislative fashion in my view. I could be wrong. The White House may find a provision in this law (that few members actually read) where it gives him the power to unilaterally grant exceptions and delays to different groups. However, they have not suggested it and I cannot see it. That leave us with the same inherent executive power argument that has been the mantra of this President in areas of surveillance, kill lists, and other areas.

The “fix” makes obvious political sense for the Administration but I fail to see the constitutional basis for such unilateral changes in a federal law.

119 thoughts on “The Fix Is In: Can President Obama Grant An Effective ACA Waiver To Millions Of Disgruntled Citizens?”

  1. A Dollar392 million application was caused to raise the structure’s capability to stand up to this affair with only minimum
    (reparable) destruction. Once the excursion plus some other reveals
    promoting welsh strap. The track record tag made a decision to publish the cd only in the usa in march 1985, The small harbour per se isn’t a notably very good pure conceal and it’s resistant to grows by
    the breakwater that was designed with thousands of substantial hindrances of sandstone quarried outside the deal with of the off-road
    earlier mentioned. Masjid ‘s-farah is positioned at 245 gulf broadway, nyc, new york 10013 in the.

    By rebuilding copyright laws to specific community
    website performs, and in need of the top fashion gurus bills and
    confining spinoff performs immediately after twelve months following clean up,
    the legislature overstepped its constitutional power and failed fully secure first amendment interests of dependancy celebrations while in the will work.

  2. LottaKatz – Have you noticed that most of the contractors you pointed out a mainly big-league “spookish” types? I mean SAIC was one until it split from Liedos this year. If you needed anything super-duper cool, and you were a spook, SAIC was your go-to company. Especially SAIC-Bechtel. Booz-Allen is the NSA contractor right? General Dynamics makes the POTUS’ secure cell phone. Can someone smell some “fish” here? Why does the ACA website have information privacy issues with this cyber- “monsters” at the helm? “Sumtin’ ain’t right here” – Dr. Henry Lee (CT Forensic Scientist)

  3. SOTB: I’m dusting it off right now and putting you up there.

    Thanks, but no need. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; just use my arguments where you see they apply.

  4. Tony and Jake … it’s always a hoot when rational thought collides with emotional hyperbole.

  5. Jake says: generally you liberals do not like to hear the truth about things when you know you have no power to change it.

    On the contrary, I agreed with you that life was unfair. But of course you cannot acknowledge that the point of rules and regulations is to make life less unfair, can you? We certainly have the power to change it: Punish unfairness, add a cost to unfairness, and it will no longer be such an attractive option to the sociopaths like you.

    Jake says: And you can stow your liberal line about me not caring about the infirm and bunny rabbits.

    See, you actually dismiss the value of caring by pretending the objective is to preserve “bunny rabbits” instead of human beings, children, the elderly, the malnourished and physically disabled and others that did nothing to bring their current hardships upon themselves.

    That very dismissiveness proves you do NOT care about them; you equate human beings and human suffering to that of a food animal.

    Jake says: You liberals are hanging on by your fingernails

    Well then, Jake, you have nothing to worry about. Why be so angry? We will fall soon enough, and your Utopian vision of selfish brutality will finally be realized. Except, of course, it won’t. You know you are lying, you know there is nothing you can do about it, you know you are in the minority and cannot win, and that is why you are angry.

    Jake says: I do not need your government telling me when and when not I should have compassion.

    We are not telling you what to feel, Jake. Feel about it however you want. Be angry, if you like, it is your Right. Just as many of us are angry about policies passed with which we disagree vehemently. Who knows, maybe your anger will convince somebody you are being oppressed and deserve relief.

    But we are not going to let you take a free ride on our dime, you will contribute your fair share no matter how you feel about it. The aid provided delivers a value that all people enjoy, and if we made paying for it voluntary, free riders would profit more than the contributors and within a generation the system would fall into despotism and rule by brutality.

    We aren’t stupid. We won’t let that happen. The best good for all is done by preventing the free riders that want to gain all the selfish benefits of a highly developed society with a decent safety net without paying anything for it (and then pretend they “made it alone”).

    You may be too dumb, or too self-centered, or too tight-fisted to recognize how our care for others ultimately benefits you by lowering prices and increasing safety and your profits. Fine, we do not have to cater to the dumbest or most selfish in our society. Be angry if you want, but you will pay your fair share, and be entitled to your fair share of the benefits whether you want them or not, whether you realize you are reaping them or not.

  6. These whacky plots make the cokehead, paranoid Oliver Stone look positively sane. I just saw Nancy Pelosi on MTP. Where does she fit in on this Machiavellian plot? If there’s a movie Cheri Oteri has to play Nancy. Pelosi has had so much plastic and botox she looks younger than Cheri Oteri now. I expected for Howdy Doody to ask her a question and for Nancy to say, “First, the most perfect Spartan cheer.”

  7. SOTB,

    Tony and Gene can be a powerful combination when they are in agreement but it’s really fun when they disagree.

  8. pdm,

    Way back up-thread you posed an excellent question that really opened up the discussion and I am going to repeat: “YOU can jump into any conversation I’m having with anyone!” and add … any time. 🙂

Comments are closed.