Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

What should congress do about Obama's refusal to enforce his own law?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What should congress do about Obama's refusal to enforce his own law?

    By most count's Obama has either changed or refused to enforce his own health care law more than 20 times, including refusing to enforce specific dates and policy requirements.

    The reason why isn't relevant to this thread. The fact that he is arbitrarily changing the text of the law is at issue.

    Is this a problem?

    If so, what should congress/the American people do about it?
    19
    Nothing. The President has the power to do these things
    10.53%
    2
    Congress should take the President to court over it
    15.79%
    3
    The people should take the President to court over it
    31.58%
    6
    Congress should impeach the President
    10.53%
    2
    Refuse to pass any spending bills unti the President conforms (government shutdown)
    5.26%
    1
    Congress should yell loudly.
    0.00%
    0
    The people should march on Washington demanding the President obey his oath
    5.26%
    1
    Other (explain)
    21.05%
    4

    The poll is expired.


  • #2
    Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
    By most count's Obama has either changed or refused to enforce his own health care law more than 20 times, including refusing to enforce specific dates and policy requirements.

    The reason why isn't relevant to this thread. The fact that he is arbitrarily changing the text of the law is at issue.

    Is this a problem?

    If so, what should congress/the American people do about it?
    Repeal the law. It doesn't work
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
      Repeal the law. It doesn't work
      This. That's why the house has been trying so hard.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
        Repeal the law. It doesn't work
        I agree with this.

        I'm also disappointed in the apparent cowardice and/or apathy of...well, everyone who won't hold Obama accountable for...well, anything. Should they do something? Yes, absolutely. Will they? That's an excellent question.
        I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

        Comment


        • #5
          OK, but the President won't sign that bill. Now what?

          Comment


          • #6
            Courts. Another shutdown is a pretty stupid idea considering how the last one turned out.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • #7
              I voted 1. The job of Republicans is to collect large paychecks for offering tepid opposition:

              Originally posted by R.L. Dabney
              This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.

              Comment


              • #8
                The defenders of the President often cite the point that "other presidents did it, too". Or that other presidents did it MORE OFTEN?

                When has a president, however, done so many big changes to such a huge and expensive piece of legislation? Where is anything even mildly comparable?

                The DEMOCRATS should be opposing this because it sets a dangerous precedent for FUTURE presidents, even a Republican one (should one ever be elected).
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  The defenders of the President often cite the point that "other presidents did it, too". Or that other presidents did it MORE OFTEN?

                  When has a president, however, done so many big changes to such a huge and expensive piece of legislation? Where is anything even mildly comparable?

                  The DEMOCRATS should be opposing this because it sets a dangerous precedent for FUTURE presidents, even a Republican one (should one ever be elected).
                  There is a difference between a little discretion in applying the law and simply failing to apply "shall" provisions entirely.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                    There is a difference between a little discretion in applying the law and simply failing to apply "shall" provisions entirely.
                    Exactly. But remember that this was argued as "not a tax", but then the individual mandate was allowed by the SCOTUS because it IS a tax. Kinda like ""I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

                    The fact is that we're getting an entirely different animal than was sold based on "voting for it so we can see what's in it".
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                      The reason why isn't relevant to this thread. The fact that he is arbitrarily changing the text of the law is at issue.
                      The "fact" that it's "arbitrary" isn't relevant to this thread. Gotcha. I'm guessing you don't want to explain why he should be forced to implement the law you want repealed, either?

                      As ever, Jesse

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        The "fact" that it's "arbitrary" isn't relevant to this thread. Gotcha. I'm guessing you don't want to explain why he should be forced to implement the law you want repealed, either?

                        As ever, Jesse
                        The fact that Obama doesn't seem to want to actually enforce the law supports the argument that it was bad law in the first place and should be repealed.

                        This is politics. Since when do we advance honest and straightforward arguments in politics?
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Exactly. But remember that this was argued as "not a tax", but then the individual mandate was allowed by the SCOTUS because it IS a tax. Kinda like ""I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

                          The fact is that we're getting an entirely different animal than was sold based on "voting for it so we can see what's in it".
                          That's actually a basis for challenging the law. If it is a tax, it has to start in the house. That bill started in the Senate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            We have an imperial presidency, and have had one for some time. If we like the imperial presidency generally, then criticizing this imperial president for disobeying the law he fought so hard for only to abandon is hypocritical. If, on the other hand, we dislike the imperial presidency, we should oppose its other manifestations, as well.
                            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              The fact that Obama doesn't seem to want to actually enforce the law supports the argument that it was bad law in the first place and should be repealed.
                              Dear Spartacus,

                              Is that what he's done? Are you sure he hasn't just delayed enforcement covering some special cases?

                              This is politics. Since when do we advance honest and straightforward arguments in politics?
                              Since pretty much forever, away from the fringe, not that it wouldn't be a good idea even if it had never happened.

                              As ever, Jesse

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 01:42 PM
                              22 responses
                              86 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Today, 11:16 AM
                              1 response
                              24 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Juvenal, Today, 04:13 AM
                              11 responses
                              45 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:20 PM
                              22 responses
                              123 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:10 PM
                              5 responses
                              44 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X