The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (10 comments)

  1. Seattle Sam

    Charles, we live in a country where the people of the State of California can affirm their support for traditional marriage TWICE, yet have no standing to enforce their referendum if the governor chooses to ignore it.

  2. Chris D

    My understanding is that the timing of the implementation is dictated in the legislative language by one of the hundreds of “The Secretary shall determine….” instances found in the law.

  3. Actually, in this instance, ACA sec. 1513(d) provides explicitly when that monthly reporting requirement shall apply. “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

    This would appear to offer no discretion. On the other hand, the statute does not say “all months” beginning after December 31, but somehow I doubt that line of argument would carry a lot of weight in court. Then again, I don’t pretend to understand Chief Justice Roberts’ convoluted reasoning in upholding the law in the first place, so who knows?

    1. Chris D

      Thanks for the clarification!

  4. mesa econoguy

    The Law no longer exists.

    Law is whatever those in power say it is. All language is now “open to construction.”

    The founders had a name for that: tyranny.

    Obamascare is a direct form of tyranny.

  5. We have gone from Lex Rex, to Rex Lex.

    Where is Samuel Rutherford when we need him? Between the covers of a little known and less read book.

  6. Getting around a law you don’t want to obey or enforce is ‘nullification’. Executive Nullification is the Presidential analogue to Jury Nullification or even the ante-bellum notion of State Nullification.

    The classic method (since Jefferson) of executive nullification and frustration of the direction of Congress in the United States was through Impoundment of Appropriated Funds – a tactic favored by some Conservatives. But, since Nixon, The Impoundment Control Act, and Train v. City of New York (1975), impoundment has been deemed as basically illegal despite a long tradition.

    I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Maybe once upon a time there were some market for politicians who stood for upholding formal procedures even if it meant the frustrations of other parts of their agenda for policy. That era is gone.

  7. Ventura Capitalist

    Make no mistake. Rule of law is a core value of President Jarrett.

    “The most transparent administration in history.”
    — Richard Windsor

  8. Florida resident

    Sad, sad, sad situation.

  9. I was born in 1938 and raised in Brooklyn, NY, and Texarkana, TX, during WWII. I always felt secure and comfortable in the U.S., which I viewed as an extended family full of people working together to build a better future. I no longer recognize this country.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content