Question: Where does a POTUS get the statutory authority to add a legislative rider (the Hyde Amendment) via EO – which only affects HHS budget allocations – and that goes contrary to the text of a passed Congressional bill? And how will the ACLU, who opposes the existence of the Hyde Amendment feel about this?
21 Mar
BREAKING! STUPAK SELLS OUT FOR OBAMA EO!
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Health Care, Socialized Health Care. Bookmark the permalink.
Sunday, March 21st, 2010 at 1:16 pm | 221 views
In the words of Gomer Pyle:
A Democrat is a Democrat. And in the end, they are all LIBERALS who will ditch principle every single time.
Add Stupidpak to the list of Democrats who should be defeated this fall.
Gee, what a surprise.
I told you guys, especially Mike who mocked me, that all that phone-calling was a waste of time.
Conventional politics is now moot. We need to escalate our protests to a higher, more vibrant level, or lose the nation (what little there is still worth having).
Or just sit there on your duff’s watching Fox News 24/7 as the Republic dies before your eyes.
Your call.
Well, the good news is that now the constitutional challenges can begin…
Agreed, Pat… the states rights advocates will kick into action with briefs they have been preparing for months now, and the state legislators have already been on the move with their own laws affecting the federal mandated healthcare and details.
I was hoping for a better 49th b-day tomorrow. The saddest part of all this, are those who think they’ve just won something.
I at one time was paid for killing marxist and now they run my country. What the hell happened?
Alternate headline: “STUPAK PAVES WAY FOR REPUBLICAN VICTORY IN NOVEMBER!”
It was a given that Democrats would suffer losses this November, but voting for a grossly unpopular bill, being arrogant about it, acting dismissive of voters and ignoring real problems (like unemployment)? It will be nearly impossible for Republicans not to crush Democrats across the board.
I’m reminded of a quote that applies very nicely: “Only a fool would bring this down on himself.” 53% of American voted for that fool.
The legal challenges will come. The ‘however’ in all of this has to do with legal standing and/or legal merit.
The mandatory insurance clause is probably the best avenue for a challenge since it infringes on states’ rights. Insurance regulation has, primarily and predominantly, resided with the states. An insurance practice may be regulated in CA, for example, may not be regulated in CO, or vice-versa, or interpreted differently.
Individual challenges, such as the one prepared by Mark Levine, may fall into the category of long shot. (That’s not to say it shouldn’t be done.) Does he have legal standing to constitutionally challenge O-care? As earlier said in a previous thread, we may have better standing as regular folk, in being bankrupted by the tax burden that will begin immediately.
The complexity of O-care is another ‘however’. All of the special deals that have been cut to obtain votes in the main legislation and the reconcilation bill may either surpass existing authority or does not grant new authority. For example, the Medicare adjustments would require separate changes within existing Medicare and Social Security law. (Those of you requiring links can check through the FA archives from last summer since it was discussed then.)
So much still needs to be resolved and revealed. And, we’ll find out whether the courts will be willing to entertain the legal challenges that are certain to come.
@Ivan: pray tell how phoning was a waste of time? Millions of calls to Congress put them on notice that we are watching and will not forget.
Your only idea is a lame strike!
P.S. Phoning has nothing to do with Stupidpak
Pingback: UPDATED! STUPAK SELLS OUT FOR EO! …Bribing the health care Dem stragglers with promise of Presidential EO power
The other legal challenge is that this is a perfect opening for the long-sought birther suit where someone sues the government for an injury and asks for the qualifications of the so-and-sos who enacted this junk.
@DR, Levin’s Declaratory and Injunctive Relief draft brief is moot unless the House opts to use the Resolution to do a House Rule change. We’ll have to wait until later this eve to see if that’s the passage method. It’s a procedural challenge that, as of this writing, is still to be determined.
If the House votes directly to approve the Senate amended HR 3590, as passed Dec 24th, he’ll be needing a new approach for a challenge.
@Curt: LOL! “Chump” indeed. Unless, of course, there’s an additional back room offer from the WH besides an EO we don’t know about.
Conservatives are going to have to get their act together to stop the destruction of our country before it’s too late. Rather that attacking each other they need to go after the progressives and libs.
Stupidpak has a primary challenge from a pro-baby killer:
http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com/2010/03/bart-stupak-has-primary-challenger-in.html
There are also two potential Republican challengers but as yet, none are officially declared.
I suggest we hold a fundraiser for whichever GOP candidate runs against Stupidpak. I am definetely putting him on the list of Dems I want to see defeated in 2010.
Ivan: pray tell how phoning was a waste of time? Millions of calls to Congress put them on notice that we are watching and will not forget.
Your only idea is a lame strike!
P.S. Phoning has nothing to do with Stupidpak
Ugh….you’re kidding, right?
Man it really is hard to admit you’re wrong, and pig-headed too!
It just goes to prove that there’s no such thing as a principled democrat.
The late John Asbrook introduced me to Phyllis Schlafly in 1982. Here’s what Mrs. Schlafly had to say about Stupidpak, abortion and the Dems:
Let’s host an online fundraiser for Stupidpak’s GOP opponent in this fall’s race!