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

[themuzicman]

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?

[Catholicity]

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

[Shadow Templar]

Repeal the law. It doesn't work

This. That's why the house has been trying so hard.

[Zymologist]

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.

[themuzicman]

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

[Darth Executor]

Courts. Another shutdown is a pretty stupid idea considering how the last one turned out.

[Epoetker]

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

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.

[Cow Poke]

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).

[themuzicman]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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".

[Juvenal]

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

[Spartacus]

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?

[themuzicman]

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.

[Spartacus]

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.

[Juvenal]

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