Sunday, November 17, 2013

Remember when the lawyers went after telecommunication companies for violating the law based on a presidential waiver?

This is potentially the "big deal" of the Obamacare fiasco - the President does not write or rewrite laws.

The Lawlessness of the ‘Fix:’ Insurance companies would be insane to offer plans that failed to comply with the ACA. “Let’s start with the basics. The president has no power to rewrite statutes — he is bereft of dictatorial power to legitimize what Congress has made a violation of law. …Not only is a president barred from writing or rewriting laws; he is required to enforce them as Congress has written them. The only exception is when he has a good-faith reason to believe they are unconstitutional, a claim Obama can hardly make about Obamacare while crowing that the Supreme Court has upheld it. . . . He would have gotten away with it a year ago. He won’t get away with it now.”

And there's more:

As the telecoms learned, Bush’s assurance that they’d be held harmless meant nothing once Obama and his base started urging warrantless wiretapping victims to sue. The companies spent untold millions in legal fees and costs. The health-insurance companies, too, would be deluged with lawsuits by insureds who claimed that the policies were illegal and wrongly denied coverage for this or that treatment. The insurance companies themselves would get into the act, filing suits to be compensated for payouts they’d made based on the illegal policies. The Obama “waiver” would avail them of nothing in a court, where a judge would be obliged to follow the law, not Dear Leader’s enforcement preferences.
Obama’s fix, moreover, has two other serious problems. First, when Bush gave assurances to the telecoms — the assurances that Obama ridiculed — he actually had a solid constitutional argument, supported by several court precedents, that his warrantless wiretapping program was legal. That is, because the Constitution vests the president with supremacy over foreign intelligence collection, Bush was not required to comply with FISA warrant provisions. The telecoms were thus able to contend that since Bush’s request for eavesdropping assistance was legal, their compliance with it was legal. And still they were sued, repeatedly and aggressively.
By contrast, Obama has no constitutional leg to stand on in violating — and, by his waivers, encouraging violations of — the Obamacare law. The insurance companies have no hope of immunity.

No comments:

 
Who links to me?