The birthplace of the Constitution is going to save the day!

[TerpEagle]

And the answer to my questions is????????????????

You must be a speed reader.

---
The White House can’t simply decide not to set up a law; that much is clear in the constitution, which says the executive branch “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
At the same time, Congress has also given the executive branch some flexibility in determining what it means to “faithfully” execute a law. It’s hard, after all, for legislators to predict every thorny issue that will come up in the process of turning laws into regulations.

...

Its also possible, legal experts say, that it's too soon to determine whether this delay counts as not implementing the Affordable Care Act – or if it's a more mundane show of discretion. If the administration had, for example, announced that it never intended to require employers to provide health benefits, that would near certainly be seen as flouting the law. But if they delay it until 2016, or 2017? That’s a greyer area.
---

It's the President's duty to execute the law - hence being the head of the Executive Branch. But implementation is not a cut and dry issue therefore there is flexibility in how the law is executed as long as it is faithfully executed.

So changes to the law and it's implementation or time of implementation of certain aspects do not denote illegal actions within the power of the Presidency.

Read the rest yourself.

[TerpEagle]

I was doing none of the above, YOU put forth the example, I was just showing that your example was a poor one because in the FF time, not everyone voted, as YOU suggested by referring to that timeline.

Yes. You said I didn't deserve to vote. I said the founding fathers would be proud of that statement.

You provided with me obscure Constitutional amendments that show historically that the founding fathers in fact ALSO believed that certain people (citizens) didn't deserve to vote - much like your statement to me.

You with me now?

[Eagle Road]

You must be a speed reader.

---
The White House can’t simply decide not to set up a law; that much is clear in the constitution, which says the executive branch “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
At the same time, Congress has also given the executive branch some flexibility in determining what it means to “faithfully” execute a law. It’s hard, after all, for legislators to predict every thorny issue that will come up in the process of turning laws into regulations.

...

Its also possible, legal experts say, that it's too soon to determine whether this delay counts as not implementing the Affordable Care Act – or if it's a more mundane show of discretion. If the administration had, for example, announced that it never intended to require employers to provide health benefits, that would near certainly be seen as flouting the law. But if they delay it until 2016, or 2017? That’s a greyer area.
---

It's the President's duty to execute the law - hence being the head of the Executive Branch. But implementation is not a cut and dry issue therefore there is flexibility in how the law is executed as long as it is faithfully executed.

So changes to the law and it's implementation or time of implementation of certain aspects do not denote illegal actions within the power of the Presidency.

Read the rest yourself.

I read it in full, I was just waiting for a YES the WH IS twisting what was voted into law, I doubted you would because it undermines you whole argument and response to my question,

Congratulations, you didn't disappoint.

[T.D-Bag]

One of many OP eds...

"In this case, however, the "they're all bums" reaction is off-base. This shutdown is not the result of the two parties acting equally irresponsibly. It is the product of an increasingly radicalized Republican Party, controlled by a deeply disaffected base that demands legislative hostage-taking in an effort to get what it has not been able to attain through the electoral process or the judiciary."

One would have to be blind or living under a rock to disagree............

[TerpEagle]

I read it in full, I was just waiting for a YES the WH IS twisting what was voted into law, I doubted you would because it undermines you whole argument and response to my question,

Congratulations, you didn't disappoint.

You understand that it's the Executive Branch's job to implement a law, right? And that implementation is a fluid exercise, right?

[Eagle Road]

You understand that it's the Executive Branch's job to implement a law, right? And that implementation is a fluid exercise, right?

OK, I'll try this one last time, so you believe that it is perfectly fine for possibly as few as one person, alone, could make a change to a law that would affect huge numbers of the general pop. without due process?

So if tom, the WH said, also exempt from ACA is everyone born on a wed. or a rainy day or Aug. 4th is exempt?


That is a pretty damn slippery slope, personally, I really don't have a problem with a national health care system, I don't like someone telling me I HAVE to.

I'll go one further, IF EVERYONE was included in the SAME plan, I would not be nearly so belligerent about it, but as it is now, I feel as though I am being portrayed as a lesser person, at least when compared to exempted parties.

Hopefully that will help you understand my viewpoint, I'm not unreasonable, I just want a LEVEL playing field.

[T.D-Bag]

OK, I'll try this one last time, so you believe that it is perfectly fine for possibly as few as one person, alone, could make a change to a law that would affect huge numbers of the general pop. without due process?

So if tom, the WH said, also exempt from ACA is everyone born on a wed. or a rainy day or Aug. 4th is exempt?


That is a pretty damn slippery slope, personally, I really don't have a problem with a national health care system, I don't like someone telling me I HAVE to.

I'll go one further, IF EVERYONE was included in the SAME plan, I would not be nearly so belligerent about it, but as it is now, I feel as though I am being portrayed as a lesser person, at least when compared to exempted parties.

Hopefully that will help you understand my viewpoint, I'm not unreasonable, I just want a LEVEL playing field.

Laughable... but you have no problem allowing 1/30th of the Govt. to shut down the Govt.

[Eagle Road]

Laughable... but you have no problem allowing 1/30th of the Govt. to shut down the Govt.

I never said I didn't have a problem with it, stop putting words in my mouth.

So you are fine with discrimination and segregation?

[Maniac]

Actually, it's not even that good of a comparison. That would suggest closing the government down to prevent a bill from becoming law.
.

Sure it is. Right to own weapons is law. Obamacare is law. Parts of it have already taken effect.

Anyway the point is you can't close down the government if you dont get your way.

[Maniac]

That is a pretty damn slippery slope, personally, I really don't have a problem with a national health care system, I don't like someone telling me I HAVE to.

Actuarially, it doesn't work at an affordable level if everyone isn't buying coverage. And no matter how young or healthy you are, you never when you going to break your leg. For a single twenty-something, it's not all that much more than car insurance.

And there's a ton of stuff in it to prevent abuse and lower costs. Higher deductibles to get people going to urgent care instead of emergency rooms. Lots of preventative screenings are completely covered.

[tjl88]

Sure it is. Right to own weapons is law. Obamacare is law. Parts of it have already taken effect.

Anyway the point is you can't close down the government if you dont get your way.

The republicans offered to pass everything as long as special exemptions were taken out. Why didn't that pass? Why are there any waivers?

The President does not enforce a lot of immigration laws, why the surprise someone would oppose his laws.

[Maniac]

The republicans offered to pass everything as long as special exemptions were taken out. Why didn't that pass? Why are there any waivers?

The President does not enforce a lot of immigration laws, why the surprise someone would oppose his laws.

Yeah that was amusing. They caught Boehner negotiating all those waivers for his staff and then pretending he was against it. Doosh.
Personally I think Congress should have to buy into the exchange. That would give them the incentive and understanding to make it work better.

It's fine to oppose rhetorically whatever they want. It's unacceptable to shut down the government or blow up the country's credit rating when they don't get their way.

All administrations' pick and choose how they enforce laws and regulations.

[slag]

Might even make them read it before they pass it.

[TerpEagle]

Sure it is. Right to own weapons is law. Obamacare is law. Parts of it have already taken effect.

Anyway the point is you can't close down the government if you dont get your way.

I agree with your point.

[slag]

So do I.