'Thank You Darling, Have a Good Time': Trump Storms Out of Interview With...
John Fetterman Says He'll Wear a Suit If Graham Platner Releases Inappropriate Texts...
Remaining '60 Minutes' Crew Remains, Upsetting the Press; the 'Cajun Raisin' Carville Prov...
The Left Sacrifices Our Girls on the Altar of Trump Derangement Syndrome
Are You Now or Have You Ever
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 323: What the Bible Says About Drinking Wine...
The Republicans Are Saps and Saps Deserve to Lose
Trump Tells Iran After Missile Barrage on Israel: 'That's Enough — Get Back...
Iran Fires Ballistic Missiles at Israel; IDF Intercepts
12 Shot, 2 Critically Wounded at Toledo’s Old West End Festival
James Talarico Goes On Damage Control For Prior Vegan Campaign
Spencer Pratt Might Get Shut Out of the LA Mayoral Race
America’s $521 Billion Fraud Problem Is Finally Meeting Its Match
Support for Ukraine Growing Among US Christian Leaders
I Am Not Setting Dates for the Second Coming, but Things Are Different...
Tipsheet

Analysis: Is the New Obamacare “Fix” Legal?

Analysis: Is the New Obamacare “Fix” Legal?

President Obama has never been one to stop and weigh the legality of his actions. From recess appointments to amnesty, the president does as he pleases, it seems. He once said that if Congress doesn’t act to fight global warming, of all things, he would. This is what democracy looks like in his eyes.

Advertisement

But his latest unilateral quick-fix to Obamacare has raised all sorts of eyebrows. Two questions: (1) What authority does President Obama have to change an existing federal statute duly passed by the Congress, and (2) is such an executive action even lawful?

Here’s Speaker Boehner on the record saying he’s "highly skeptical”:

And he’s not the only one. Over to you, Howard Dean:

"I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this, since this was a congressional bill that set this up."

Tom Fitton, the President of Judicial Watch, had this to say on the matter:

“Obama isn’t a one-man Congress. Only Congress can rewrite the Affordable Care Act. This power grab is bound to be resisted it in the courts.”

Victor Davis Hanson, meanwhile, reminds us why governing by executive privilege is “not what the framers had in mind.

All this is right out of the radical Athenian assembly, which on any given day could do whatever its majority wished and then the next undo whatever it wished. But such governance is not what the framers had in mind when they established the checks and balances of a republican tripartite government and entrusted the president with faithfully executing all the laws passed by congress and signed by him.
Advertisement

I’m no lawyer but I do have a rudimentary understanding of how checks and balances work. As I understand it, presidents don’t have the legal authority to meddle with legislation after it’s been signed into law. Presidents need Congress’s permission to make badly needed changes to existing federal statutes.

But we’ll see how this plays out in the courts. If the president’s actions are somehow ruled constitutional, this would open up a Pandora’s Box of sorts: future presidents would (effectively) be granted all sorts of new, sweeping, and awesome presidential powers. For liberty's sake, let's hope that doesn't happen.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement