Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders

[SMS]

Once the SCOTUS ruled it as a tax, and legal because it is one, doesn't that leave caveats such as that inert?

I believe not, because the areas where they are exercising the "Secretary's discretion" concern the administration and oversight of the program, like who gets waivers and effective dates etc...All of that that is clearly written into the law and is therefore, well, the law.

The Supreme Court did not/cannot modify the letter of the law in ways such as taking out the phrase "Such as the Secretary my determine"...

 

[SoonerBorn]

I believe not, because the areas where they are exercising the "Secretary's discretion" concern the administration and oversight of the program, like who gets waivers and effective dates etc...All of that that is clearly written into the law and is therefore, well, the law. The Supreme Court did not/cannot modify the letter of the law in ways such as taking out the phrase "Such as the Secretary my determine"...

I was just thinking that tax exemption is to come from The Legislative Branch just as tax origination is supposed to come from there as well.

Doesn't the SCOTUS strike down segments of laws regularly? Didn't they do that with Arizona's immigration law and some states' voter ID laws recently? One more question: wasn't the ruling solely on the mandate within the law itself and nothing else?

I'm being very earnest and sincere with my questions, btw.

 

[SMS]

Oh I get you. It's a good discussion.

I believe they got around the "appropiation/tax bills need to originate in the House" provision because the original shell of the legislation did originate in the House....it came out looking nothing like the original legislation but it still originated there.

SCOTUS can strike down segments of legislation but I don't think there is any precedent for them strip a particular phrase. In this case the legislation is full of language that gives the Secretary great latitude...they did not rule on that authority and I don't think anyone who challenged the law in court brought that authority into question.

So that's how we got left with this mess and that's how Barry's EOs are "Constitutional", IMHO...

 

[SoonerBorn]

Oh I get you. It's a good discussion. I believe they got around the "appropiation/tax bills need to originate in the House" provision because the original shell of the legislation did originate in the House....it came out looking nothing like the original legislation but it still originated there. SCOTUS can strike down segments of legislation but I don't think there is any precedent for them strip a particular phrase. In this case the legislation is full of language that gives the Secretary great latitude...they did not rule on that authority and I don't think anyone who challenged the law in court brought that authority into question. So that's how we got left with this mess and that's how Barry's EOs are "Constitutional", IMHO...

I certainly think a case could be made either way; therefore, your "...." above hits the mark.

 

[XD-9Guy]

Came across this quote the other day. Fits this discussion perfectly.

Our forefathers knew what would screw this thing up, they told us what to watch out for and yet, here we are.

 

[mugsy]

Much of the uproar over Barry's executive orders and his alleged usurpation of Congress is overblown. Read the EOs. They are narrow in scope and in almost every case they exercise real authority given the Executive branch by the text of the legislation.

For example, the EOs revolving around the Affordable Care Act are perfectly legal because the legislation is full of the the phrase "Such as the Secretary may decide/determine". The Secretary works for the President, the President can direct her, through and EO, to decide/determine how he wants.

If anyone is to blame for Barry's EO-fest, it's Congress for writing those back doors into the legislation.

The blame lies squarely with a President who either cannot or will not truly compromise with Congress - frankly I don't think he has the requisite negotiating and leadership skills. Working with Congress is a lot more than giving a speech and the President has shown no inclination to actually do it, vice talk about it, claim he has done it, etc.

I agree with you that some of the EO fears are overblown, but some aren't, and some of the overblown fears are due to the President's own publicity campaign to show how autonomous and potent he is. He has literally put the fear into his opponents, a very unwise move IMO given his penchant for bending and pushing at the edges of the law.

 

[ASP785]

I agree with you that some of the EO fears are overblown, but some aren't, and some of the overblown fears are due to the President's own publicity campaign to show how autonomous and potent he is. He has literally put the fear into his opponents, a very unwise move IMO given his penchant for bending and pushing at the edges of the law.

I fundamentally disagree with our President on almost everything. However in the pursuit of the truth, he's got 124 more executive orders to sign before he catches up with President Bush and 214 to catch up with Reagan. I voted for Bush and am a huge fan of Reaganomics, but let's not blow this hugely out of proportion as I do not think it advances the conservative cause.

I think mugsy has it right. The true cause for concern is his flippant attitude in stating he is willing to bypass congress to pass whatever he wants. That scares me and it should you too.

 

[Glocktogo]

The blame lies squarely with a President who either cannot or will not truly compromise with Congress - frankly I don't think he has the requisite negotiating and leadership skills. Working with Congress is a lot more than giving a speech and the President has shown no inclination to actually do it, vice talk about it, claim he has done it, etc.

I agree with you that some of the EO fears are overblown, but some aren't, and some of the overblown fears are due to the President's own publicity campaign to show how autonomous and potent he is. He has literally put the fear into his opponents, a very unwise move IMO given his penchant for bending and pushing at the edges of the law.

Yeah, but it's Rush Limbaugh and FOX News' fault that he can't work with Congress, didn't you hear?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ma-blames-fox-news-for-failuresagain-n1784088

Back on topic, I heard Holder today saying that the person in charge of investigating the IRS scandal being an Obama donor to the tune of $5,600 wasn't an issue, because "career professionals" made the choice.

Holder couldn't explain sh*t to a fly.