Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar (Read 1487 times)
cutgov90
Ex Member


changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:41am
Print Post  
obama can't legally change obamacare dates

without whole law going back to congress

totally illegal

impeach obama
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #1 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 3:56pm
Print Post  
Quote:
obama can't legally change obamacare dates

without whole law going back to congress

totally illegal

impeach obama


True enough wrt to the Pres selecting portions of the law to enforce vs ignore.  And IMO Obama would already be in impeachment hearings if it wasn't for the fact the Reps don't want to be tarred as the party that impeached a Black President.

However the is a bigger issue here.  Obamacare created another federal bureaucracy that is going to have the power to regulate - which effectively has the force of law.

We've already seen what happens when the FCC decides they can create rulings on broadcast content or wants to extend their tentacles into the internet.  We see what has happened when the EPA (an executive agency)  can effectively take away your property rights w/o any impartial proceeding or compensation.   Regulatory agencies are an awful idea, but to the extent they are needed at all - their powers should be minimized, their oversight stringent and they should be answerable to the legislature, not the executive.

Not many understand this, but in the UK system of law a judge can find you guilt of some act that is generally considered against the public interest but not any specific law.  That is not true in the US where to be tried they need to refer to a specific charge (our liberty is law).  So for example Charles Keating (see S&L Crisis) abused the (very stupid) FSLIC insurance system and in the UK he could be nailed for it.  In the US he was eventually only convicted of wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud - not for taking advantage of the dumass government insurers.

But to get around the inflexible US system legal it seems that politicians have invented regulatory agencies that can at least fine and take property rights away at the whim of the rulers.

Sad state of affairs, and impeachment won't solve it.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #2 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:30pm
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 3:56pm:
True enough wrt to the Pres selecting portions of the law to enforce vs ignore.  And IMO Obama would already be in impeachment hearings if it wasn't for the fact the Reps don't want to be tarred as the party that impeached a Black President.

However the is a bigger issue here.  Obamacare created another federal bureaucracy that is going to have the power to regulate - which effectively has the force of law.

We've already seen what happens when the FCC decides they can create rulings on broadcast content or wants to extend their tentacles into the internet.  We see what has happened when the EPA (an executive agency)  can effectively take away your property rights w/o any impartial proceeding or compensation.   Regulatory agencies are an awful idea, but to the extent they are needed at all - their powers should be minimized, their oversight stringent and they should be answerable to the legislature, not the executive.

Not many understand this, but in the UK system of law a judge can find you guilt of some act that is generally considered against the public interest but not any specific law.  That is not true in the US where to be tried they need to refer to a specific charge (our liberty is law).  So for example Charles Keating (see S&L Crisis) abused the (very stupid) FSLIC insurance system and in the UK he could be nailed for it.  In the US he was eventually only convicted of wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud - not for taking advantage of the dumass government insurers.

But to get around the inflexible US system legal it seems that politicians have invented regulatory agencies that can at least fine and take property rights away at the whim of the rulers.

Sad state of affairs, and impeachment won't solve it.




Impeachment and conviction would solve the problem of Obama violating the Constitution.
The problem of Congress violating the Constitution is a different matter, and the fiction of 'regulations' written by unelected executive branch bureaucrats  supposedly being 'law' is yet another.
What is a fact is that all branches of our national government have been complicit in violating the Constitution for a long time now, they're just getting much bolder.
It's what both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney called for, a government of men, not law.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Coopers
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 434
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Joined: Dec 22nd, 2010
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #3 - Mar 30th, 2014 at 7:23am
Print Post  
The thread starter is a troll. Don't feed him.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #4 - Mar 30th, 2014 at 3:59pm
Print Post  
Coopers wrote on Mar 30th, 2014 at 7:23am:
The thread starter is a troll. Don't feed him.

Could it be Shiva_TD, back with a different name?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #5 - Apr 3rd, 2014 at 1:28pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 30th, 2014 at 3:59pm:
Could it be Shiva_TD, back with a different name?


How sweet of you to miss me while I was off working.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #6 - Apr 3rd, 2014 at 4:16pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 1:28pm:
How sweet of you to miss me while I was off working.

That's right, you're starting up a new company. How's it going? Selling any product or service yet? Is the gross on line with your projections?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nate
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 98
Joined: Mar 12th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #7 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 1:17am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 30th, 2014 at 3:59pm:
Could it be Shiva_TD, back with a different name?


You think Shiva_TD is a troll? Not a libertarian for sure but I'd hardly say s/he is a troll.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #8 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 7:00am
Print Post  
Nate wrote on Apr 11th, 2014 at 1:17am:
You think Shiva_TD is a troll? Not a libertarian for sure but I'd hardly say s/he is a troll.

By the definition of internet forum troll, Shiva is a troll.
You think she's here to advance the cause of liberty? Obviously not.
Maybe to convert libertarians to 'progressive' thinking? Perhaps.
What I see is constant attempts to derail any actual libertarian discussion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Reply #9 - Apr 11th, 2014 at 10:52am
Print Post  
Maybe the starter is a troll, but there is content here.

Jeff wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:30pm:
Impeachment and conviction would solve the problem of Obama violating the Constitution.


OK - point for you. But it's the smaller part of the problem.

Quote:
The problem of Congress violating the Constitution is a different matter, and the fiction of 'regulations' written by unelected executive branch bureaucrats  supposedly being 'law' is yet another.


There are agencies in the legislative AND executive branches.  Consider (FCC, FDA, Social Security) vs  EPA or Dept.of.Agriculture for example.   AFAIK the only part of the Constitution that Congress violates in delegating power to agencies is the enumerated powers, and they do that all the time and the SCOTUS supports it.   THe lawfulness of the EPA has been in doubt since it was crated under Eisenhower.

But I believe the mechanism for a legislative agency is all wrong in principle, but does not violate the constitution.  Congress validly passes a law saying that it delegates power to regulate interstate commerce (an enumerated power) to the ICC, and that it's regulations have the force of law.  Then the unelected ICC regulators write whatever regulations they please - and the congress has oversight.  That seems to not violate the constitution at all.  (A LOT of what the Congress does violates the enumerated powers limitation, but that's a different issue than delegation to an agency).

At least in the case of the ICC or the FCC you can pester your representatives and have a voice.   That's not true of the executive EPA - you have noo representation in control of EPA.

Quote:
What is a fact is that all branches of our national government have been complicit in violating the Constitution for a long time now, they're just getting much bolder.


Not so sure it's "much bolder".   It's incremental in one direction and has been going on at least since the Andrew Jackson admin.  The idea that it's OK for government to constantly surveille all citizen via metadata w/o warrant, or to kill suspected US citizens overseas, or that you lose all expectations of privacy when you exercise your right to assemble via an airport is shocking in any time, but in another decade it will seem "normal", and the few non-sheep will cease to look-up.   I find ist shocking that anyone think social-security is a lawful function of our federal government - but almost no one else is concerned.

Quote:
It's what both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney called for, a government of men, not law.


And what King Obama is implementing from the WhiteHouse.   Gotta say I enjoy hearing the biased rhetoric from this clown.   'If Reps don't like Obamacare, they should propose their own plan for socialistic heathcare and redistributionism' - type arguments are indeed bold lies posing as challenges.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › changing a law means it must go back to congress, illegal for obamacar
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy