Kathryn, Rich, Mario, and others have eloquently and repeatedly shown how the coercive HHS contraception mandate is an assault on our civil and religious liberties (the two being inextricably linked, of course). But it’s just as much an attack on representative government and another insidious step toward government by fiat. Since when do elected officials get to decide that they are “done compromising,” as the president’s chief of staff asserted? Obviously, politics, which at its heart is the art of compromise, is too pedestrian, too . . . democratic for this administration.
In the eyes of the White House, the sham compromise on insurance payments was a sop to the serfs, granted by the magnanimity of the president, but in no way designed to derail the ideological objective of the policy. If we let this stand, if we buckle before such bureaucratic capriciousness, then we will have taken another significant step toward the imposition of government rule by fiat, and not by the will of the people. And once that victory has been secured, then the small steps will become larger and come faster and will not cease until liberty is defined solely by government officials. Or until they are opposed by a will just as strong and unyielding.
Republican House refuses to compromise = Good
Obama Adminstration refuses to compromise = Bad
Got it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoing nothing = Legal
Making law by executive decree = Illegal
Got it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama didn't make the law by executive decree - the legislature passed the law in 2009. Where were you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Constitution was adopted in 1787. Ever read it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis doesn't actually address what I said at all. Instead, it seems to be a weak rejoinder motivated by frustration generated by my pointing out that your initial statement was perfectly incorrect.
I don't know who is supposed to benefit from such a comment; did you even get any satisfaction out of writing it? I highly doubt it. Far more likely that you knew in your mind at the time that it was extremely weak sauce, but still felt compelled to respond in some way. You ought to examine that impulse next time this happens and ask yourself it it is productive in any fashion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis point was that it doesn't matter what the law says if the executive act is unconstitutional. So, he was succinctly making the argument that your bit about the Obamacare act was a non-sequitur, as related to Obama's actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, he said nothing of the sort. His initial comment:
"Making law by executive decree = Illegal"
That comment was totally incorrect. And the Constitution says nothing about the method in which the law was actually made at all.
I guess if you make up whatever argument you like, you can declare victory whenever you like. I doubt it's very satisfying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe were all busy reading the 2,000 page bill that you didn't need to read to know what was in it.
See, you are infinitely more qualified than the San Franny Nanny. She helps pass the legislation and still didn't know what was in it.
Wanda here was the only one who did!
For a better Useless, Saggy San Fran Hag, nominate Fish for Congress!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe it was here (NRO) where they mentioned that the bill has a very large number of lines saying the secretary will, can or may produce rules that everyone must follow. This law makes the EPA regulation look libertarian. There is a large amount of unspecified items that the HHS can do under this law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on the button.
It isn't law, it's JUNK LAW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, no, Frank, you so clearly do not "got it."
You missed the debt ceiling being raised, to give Obama access to $2.4 trillion in spending.
On what was the president busy compromising, when he had his fillibuster-proof senate majority? Just give one example.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell stated. I simply don't understand why the GOP is not using this issue as a springboard to attack Obamacare and vow its repeal. I'm getting increasingly nervous that the GOP thinks Obamacare is just fine, when they get to be in charge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince when do elected officials get to decide that they are “done compromising,” as the president’s chief of staff asserted?
-since when does the executive branch arrogantly cherry pick through legislation granting this and denying that? When is this "law" a "law"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe GOP bears some blame in this. Not because of their lack of caving in to the administration, but by doing their fair share of setting up the idea of an Imperial Presidency. Obama can rule by fiat in large part because so much power has been ceded to the executive, unabated by and many times aided by the GOP when "their guy" was President. Congress holds the purse strings, still, and this power Boehner has not wielded; by not stopping Obama's funding for his mandates and dictates and executive orders, he's aiding him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo that "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" stuff isn't a binding oath like swearing to tell the truth etc in court? I'm sure that would be clear if I could get my hands on a copy of the constitution that's been transcribed into legislative language.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, THAT settles it, then.
If Obama's done compromising, then I'm done commenting in Sanskrit and Swahili!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama can rule by fiat as long as the opposition does nothing to stop him.
As pointed out above, Republicans are mostly fine with the president's imperial powers - their only gripe is that they aren't the ones wielding them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike many Americans, I like puppies. Some Americans do not approve of puppies and consider them unclean, some Americans do not believe that we should have puppies as pets. Some Americans do not believe puppies should be available for sale in pet stores. The constitution does not give the president the power to require pet stores to sell puppies, or to require that people buy puppies from pet stores.
Oh, I am sorry, were we talking about birth control? Sorry. I thought we were talking about constitutional limits to government power. Notice I did not mention religion,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, if that destruction of liberty happens I think everyone--and I do mean everyone--will get just about what they deserve.
I seem to be on a computer where the Captcha downloads. Have had issues elsewhere. Strange.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Government by Fiat" ... that explains the expense, poor performance and frequent breakdowns. Got it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse