Thursday, December 19, 2013

At what point does a law become a Presidential plaything?

There's a philosophical proposal called the "paradox of the heap" which goes like this: if you start with a heap of sand and then remove one grain at a time until you're left with one grain, you no longer have a heap.  But at what point did the pile of sand transition from "heap" to "not a heap"?

Obamacare is not a law.  A law is written by the Legislature and enforced by the Executive branch.  In this case of this so-called law, Obama simply waves his magic wand of "enforcement discretion" and declares "retroactive coverage" on top of shifting policies and sliding deadlines.  The letter of the "law" says that credits can be obtained only through "an exchange established by the state."  But, you know, nobody read that part of the law so state-federal-whatever.

Now, tonight, just four days before the word previously known as a "deadline", it's deja vu all over again:
The Obama administration Thursday night significantly relaxed the rules of the health-care law for millions of consumers whose individual insurance policies have been canceled, saying they could buy bare-bones health plans or entirely avoid the requirement that most Americans have health insurance.
The surprise announcement, four days before the Dec. 23 deadline for people to choose coverage that begins on Jan. 1, triggered an immediate backlash from the health insurance industry and raised new fairness questions about a law intended to promote affordable and comprehensive coverage.
Ace explains the new legislative process in Washington: "Obama creates more law with his mouth hole."
None of these fixes are designed to be fixes. They're designed to appear to be fixes, so when people are uninsured, Obama can say, "I tried. I gave them options."
Just never the option of what he promised: Of keeping health insurance they liked.
It's been said that the Supreme Court reads the newspapers too.  I hope that if Chief Justice Roberts gets another crack at this abomination he recognizes that it's not only unconstitutional, it's also not a law.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Shoot, his loopholes are beating our loopholes. What's the point of obstructing ACA if he won't stay obstructed?"

I hope that if Chief Justice Roberts gets another crack at this abomination he recognizes that it's not only unconstitutional, it's also not a law.

Is he any relation to the Justice Dept. lawyer John Roberts who told the Supreme Court that the federal government had opted to stop defending the affirmative action portion of a law covering broadcaster licensing?