Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Legal expert says Obama’s delay of mandate ‘blatantly illegal’

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
There's a lot of chatter about the 'decision' by the Treasury Department to delay the Employer Mandate so explicitly spelled out in the PPACA law.

Many experts seem to think the 'move' is illegal !!

I suppose bypassing Congress is not good, unless the PPACA clearly gives 'authority' to do so.

I wonder if that 'authority' is actually hidden in the law, or is Obama Inc. running amok again.


The Obama administration’s surprise announcement Tuesday that it was delaying implementation of a significant Obamacare provision may, in fact, be illegal.

The Treasury Department stated that the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, scheduled to kick in on Jan. 1, 2014, would be postponed for one year. Critics quickly called this a blatantly political move to make Obamacare less of an issue in the midterm elections. At least one legal observer is also calling it blatantly illegal, according to Breitbart News.

Legal columnist and Liberty University School of Law faculty member Ken Klukowski is also a lawyer embroiled in litigating the Affordable Care Act. He noted that the timetable in Section 1513 of the act, which provides for an employer mandate, is built into the law’s language and is mandatory.


Legal expert says Obama’s delay of mandate ‘blatantly illegal’


Get ready to see many lawsuits that may clog the system for perhaps more than the one year 'delay'

Have we had enough yet ?




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
or is Obama Inc. running amok again.

All things considered, that is my initial thought. Obama is kicking the can down the road so that the next POTUS will have to deal with the toxic fall out from Obamacare. And he's kicking the can down the road so that the poison won't show up in the 2014 elections. It isn't going to be pretty when everyone who thought they were going to get 'free' health care instead find out that they are going to have to pay a hefty new 'tax' for it.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Nope, President Obama is kicking the can down the road with the intent to let the GOP hang itself.
That and the 2014 Elections may do a lot to get some, if not a majority of the GOP out of Dongress.

M.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
It is law.

This is totally. not. legal.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Good,

And if the democrats get voted out along with them, maybe we can get this country back on the right track.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Unfortunately recent revelations do not lend much support to the government following the rule of law.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Was it a legal law in the first place?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Unfortunately recent revelations do not lend much support to the government following the rule of law.


Think there won't be a political price paid for those scandals of the current administration,plus reopening old wounds with the care act?

2014 not looking too bright the left.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Potentially,

However, I was speaking with Seabag in his thread about the postponing of Obamacare and how it could be used as a political ploy to influence the political landscape going into the future.

The short of it is, the delay tactic could be used to maintain the same support that got Obama elected and reelected.

I am sure there will be some political fallout, but voters tend to get tunnel vision when voting times comes around and they are only concerned with "what are you going to do for me here and now??"



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Unfortunately recent revelations do not lend much support to the government following the rule of law.


Think there won't be a political price paid for those scandals of the current administration,plus reopening old wounds with the care act?

2014 not looking too bright the left.



Careful Neo, have you seen the amount of front page here on ATS today for the "war on women" thread? I'm not sure who the yokels trying to make this happen in Ohio work for, but amazingly such stupid distractions worked in the last election.

It's going to be difficult to focus the public on the REAL issues while the press is shouting about the "war on women" and what a traitor Edward Snowden is while .ignoring. the. elephant. in. the. room.

We no longer have a press that believes in journalism, and Glenn Greenwald is doing an amazing job in revealing that sad truth.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
That part of the ACA says it shall go into effect after December 31, 2013. Also:



Effective Dates in 2014 and Beyond

Automatic Enrollment for Large Employers Offering Coverage

In accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary, an employer with more than 200 full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in one or more health benefits plans must automatically enroll new full-time employees in one if its plans, subject to any waiting period authorized by law, and to continue the enrollment of current employees in a health benefits plan offered through the employer. Additionally, any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage the individual or employee was automatically enrolled in. While the effective date for this requirement is a bit unclear, the provision also states that implementation is in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary. The Department of Labor recently issued guidance stating that until regulations are issued, employers are not required to comply with the automatic enrollment mandate. The Department of Labor indicated that it intends to complete the regulations by 2014.


Affordable Care Act: What Every Business Needs to Know

Not illegal at all. Of course, I don't expect anyone here to believe that. You just go on listening to Darrell Issa and John Boehner.
edit on 7/4/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 





Careful Neo, have you seen the amount of front page here on ATS today for the "war on women" thread? I'm not sure who the yokels trying to make this happen in Ohio work for, but amazingly such stupid distractions worked in the last election.


They are deflection issues to create polarization which is what the above poster was talking about with 'tunnel vision'.

'War on women' just manufactured outrage using politics best weapon 'hate' to keep the nation divided, and fighting between themselves instead on focusing on real issues such as the care act, and those other scandals.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Wow, BH I guess you missed the thread where I posted this UPDATE: Even Ezra Klein -- Ezra Klein, for god's sake! -- says this is a disgraceful low point for the Obama administration.

So enough of your nonsense. Holy crap, I never thought I'd live to see the day when even Ezra Klein was calling BS on the Obama administration's blatant subversion of one of the textbook principles of tripartite constitutional government. But there you have it.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


I don't know who Ezra Klein is, nor do I care about his opinion. I was debating the OP, which claims that what Obama did was "blatantly illegal". It is nothing of the sort.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So you're saying that they can tax us when it is politically expedient for them.

Self-serving bunch of criminals.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Originally posted by beezzer
So you're saying that they can tax us when it is politically expedient for them.


I didn't say that at all, beez. I said the ACA details the effective date and how it will be promulgated. There was never anything that said it was going into effect on Jan 1, 2014. That's just the first date that it could possibly go into effect.

Nothing illegal here.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Really BH, really-- I'm supposed to believe you don't know who Ezra Klein is yet you are here presenting yourself as some kind of legal expert on this issue?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


OK, You think I'm lying. I don't really care. I have no idea who you are (same as Ezra Klein) and I don't care. I have never presented myself as a legal expert. I freaking looked it up! You don't have to be a legal expert to look things up. Maybe you should do that.


I will now remember you as the person who called me a liar.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


This is a travesty, and a hilariously telling one at that: Obama has had four years to prepare for implementation of Obamacare. And now that an election is around the corner and it's transparently obvious that it's going to be an economy-destroying disaster, what does he do? Steamroll over our entire structure of government to unilaterally repeal the part of the plan that looked to give him the most trouble in the 2014 elections! Only to reinstate it a year later, when he won't have to worry about any more elections during his administration!

It's the twofer: contempt for the Constitution plus cowardly admission that his own signature legislation is an utter debacle.

Why do you think the administration quietly let this little bombshell slip out right before an extended holiday weekend?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

That part of the ACA says it shall go into effect after December 31, 2013


Yes, ""after December 31, 2013"" could mean any time.

Clever devils wrote it like that to cover their butts.

Now they can manipulate as they see fit.

One bigger problem will be the conflict created because the "Individual Mandate" is still in effect for January 1, 2014.

Unless of course, that legal wording also says ""after December 31, 2013"" ?

Does anyone have a link to the actual language in the actual PPACA ?

We need to confirm and double check everything now.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join