Looking for a Democrat who screams: Enough changes to Obamacare without congressional consent
During the Obama Care debate in late 2009, we called for a Senate Democrat to stand up and say "stop." From Pryor in Arkansas to Kagan in North Carolina to Landreaux in Louisiana, they all went along with it.
Or maybe they thought that the Supreme Court would throw it out or do the job that they didn't have the courage to do.
We ask again: Is there a Democrat willing to tell President Obama that he does not have the authority to change a law that Congress passed?
President Obama has changed Obama Care again as reported by the Wall Street Journal:
"Under the new Treasury rule, firms with 50 to 99 full-time workers are free from the mandate until 2016. And firms with 100 or more workers now also only need cover 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and after, not the 100% specified in the law.
The new rule also relaxes the mandate for certain occupations and industries that were at particular risk for disruption, like volunteer firefighters, teachers, adjunct faculty members and seasonal employees. Oh, and the Treasury also notes that, "As these limited transition rules take effect, we will consider whether it is necessary to further extend any of them beyond 2015." So the law may be suspended indefinitely if the White House feels like it.
By now ObamaCare's proliferating delays, exemptions and administrative retrofits are too numerous to count, most of them of dubious legality. The text of the Affordable Care Actspecifically says when the mandate must take effect-"after December 31, 2013"-and does not give the White House the authority to change the terms.
Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. His Administration's cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people. The White House has refused to suspend the individual insurance mandate, despite the harm caused to millions who are losing their previous coverage. Liberals say the law isn't harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite."
We remember back in 1998 when Senator Lieberman went to the floor of the US Senate and criticized President Clinton's behavior. It earned Senator Lieberman a lot of respect all over the country.
Where is a Democrat US Senator who will go to the floor and say: "You can't change the law without coming to us! Read the constitution."