For One Day Only: $1=$4, Thanks to Matching from BIG Donors
In the course of Barack Obama’s more than five years in office, much has been written about his penchant for arrogating to himself legislative powers that, we were taught in school, have historically resided with Congress. While it’s true that some of his predecessors attempted at various times to push the envelope of presidential power – FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush come immediately to mind – for the most part presidents have focused on military and foreign policy issues where they were accorded great leeway.
Mr. Obama’s latest “amendment” of the Obamacare law, however, has elevated the arrogation of legislative power to an art form. And he has done so for blatantly political reasons.
Most of us are familiar with the president’s reaction to congressional refusal to enact laws or amendments he had urged. The so-called Dream Act would have provided a way for illegal aliens to become citizens. When Congress balked, he simply ordered the Immigration and Naturalization Service not to deport them. Similarly, he ordered the Justice Department not to prosecute anyone running afoul of the federal law criminalizing the use of medical marijuana.
He acted in the same way with respect to the Defense of Marriage Act, ordering the Justice Department not to enforce it or to defend it in the Supreme Court. So too with regard to the No Child Left Behind Act and “cap-and-trade” legislation.
When the Senate wouldn’t confirm his picks for the National Labor Review Board under its “advise and consent” power, the president simply declared, in direct contradiction of Senate rules, that the Senate was not in session and appointed his choices through a “recess appointment” ruse.
And there is much, much more. But nothing can compare in sheer brazenness with last week’s announcement by the Obama administration that consumers would be allowed to keep, for two years, health insurance policies that do not meet the standards of Obamacare – in direct violation of that law.
As The New York Times put it in a March 6 news story,
The reprieve was the latest in a series of waivers, deadline extensions and unilateral actions by the administration that have drawn criticism from the law’s opponents and supporters, many saying President Obama was testing the limits of his powers….
The Times article also noted the political motivations behind the decision:
Under pressure from Democratic candidates, who are struggling to defend the president’s signature domestic policy, Mr. Obama in November announced a one-year reprieve for insurance plans that did not meet the minimum coverage requirements of the 2010 health care law.… Wednesday’s action goes much further, essentially stalling for two more years one of the central tenets of the much-debated law, which was supposed to eliminate what White House officials called substandard insurance and junk policies….
Leave it to the Times, however, to portray such developments in an astonishingly benevolent tone, as it did in an editorial on the subject the same day:
The Obama administration announced a new policy on Wednesday that will allow many people to renew their existing insurance policies for two more years even though the policies don’t provide the comprehensive coverage and consumer protections required by the Affordable Care Act. The move is designed to provide political cover for Democratic senators facing tough re-election campaigns in Republican-leaning states where the president is especially unpopular….
Ideally, President Obama would not have extended the period for retaining the less-comprehensive policies, but in the current political environment, he opted to take a step to protect healthcare reform against a Republican takeover in the Senate.
Granted, the Times is constitutionally incapable of finding any wrong in Mr. Obama’s policies, but it’s hard to recall such a lack of concern with a president’s utter subjugation of the public weal to his own ends. If this were Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, the Times would be calling for hearings of impeachment.
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
Latvia, July 4, 1941 they forced many Jews in the shul putting it on fire; everyone was burned alive
There’s blood on the reporters’ hands AND New Israel Fund for funding groups feeding lies to the UN
Respect & appreciation for our country is not only a civic value but an essential Jewish one as well
Israel, like the non-radical Islamic world. will be happy see the ISIS beheaded for once.
Kids shouldn’t have “uninstructed” Internet access, better to train them how to use it responsibly
What if years from now, IS were to control substantial territory? What world havoc would that wreak?
Rambam writes the verse’s double term refers to 2 messiahs: first King David; 2nd the final Mashiach
The Gaza flotilla has been rightfully and legally blocked by Israel’s Navy, with greetings from Bibi
The president described the attack as “an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random, but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress…”
“The only [candidate] that’s going to give real support to Israel is me,” said the 69-year-old Trump.
And whereas at the outset the plan was that Iran would have to surrender most of its centrifuges, it will now be able to retain several thousand.
Now oil independent, US no longer needs its former strategic alliances with Gulf States-or Israel
Can adoption agencies limit the placement of children to heterosexual couples only?
It wasn’t too long ago that Mr. Erdogan, in his determination to burnish Turkey’s credentials as an Islamist state at the cost of the secularism that had brought much economic and political success to Turkey, upended his country’s decades-long cooperative relationship with Israel.
Does the pope really believe that Father Dehon’s destructive anti-Jewish calumnies do not disqualify him from the highest honor of the Catholic Church because in his time everyone did it?
There was something else of great importance in play – something we would have liked to see him take into account before deciding to stand with the boycotters.
“Let’s get something straight so we don’t kid each other…[the Iranians] already have paved a path to a bomb’s worth of material,” said Mr. Biden. “Iran could get there now if they walked away in two to three months without a deal.”
Beyond the particulars of this tragic death, however, we should all be concerned about the possibility that a criminal prosecution in a major American city is being driven by fear of mobs in the street.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/an-imperial-presidency-on-steroids/2014/03/12/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: