An exploration into Obama's rationale defending his authority to un-cancel health insurance policies.

First - The legislative Act states that on January 1 of 2014 health insurance WILL provide and conform to certain things. For the purpose of this column it isn't necessary to list those things the Act says WILL be done.

Second - This is federal law. Certain things WILL happen.

Third - Obama claims he can suspend or decide to enforce or not enforce Law that is on the books at his discretion.

From a Washington Post article the Obama administration defends it's authority to do this:

White House Defends Legality of ObamaCare Fix wrote:“The Supreme Court held more than 25 years ago that agencies charged with administering statues have inherent authority to exercise discretion to ensure that their statutes are enforced in a manner that achieves statutory goals and are consistent with other administrative policies. Agencies may exercise this discretion in appropriate circumstances, including when implementing new or different regulatory regimes, and to ensure that transitional periods do not result in undue hardship." -The Obama administration.

The Supreme Court case in question, HHS says, is Heckler v. Chaney in 1985. That case involved a lawsuit brought by inmates who were sentenced to death by states. They sued to force the FDA to take action to block the use of certain drugs in state lethal injections, on the theory that the FDA has no authority to approve this use of the drugs. But the Court ruled that private citizens cannot force a federal agency to bring an enforcement action, even one in keeping with federal statutes.

In the Wikipedia article on Heckler v. Chaney we find this nugget:

Heckler v. Chaney - Wikipedia wrote:The Court's opinion skirted the jurisdictional issue, ruling that an agency's decision not to pursue an enforcement action is presumptively unreviewable, as such actions are "committed to agency discretion by law" under § 701(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

In other words, any discretion of an agency is determined by law under 701(a)(2) of the APA which says:

701(a) wrote:§ Section 701. - Application; definitions

This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that -

(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or
(2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law

In other words, agency discretion would be defined by Congress and put in law, either in the actual law that created the agency or some other legislation that came after. But the discretion is defined by law.

It's obvious to see why. Anything else would be anarchy. If a federal agency were not constrained by the law in it's actions it could actually nullify the law that defined it's purpose.

This is the flimsy excuse for a rationalization of Obama's unilateral actions that the Obama administration has offered. This is anarchy. Nothing more nor less.

A few weeks ago Jay Carney described the pre-ObamaCare health insurance market as having been a "wild west" where insurers just did whatever they wanted to. In actual truth the Left is creating a "wild west" of lawlessness. Obama is like the villain in an old western movie. The villain and his boys ruthlessly take over the farms and ranches of the town so they can expand their cattle empire. [The chicanery invoked in getting ObamaCare passed.] The villain explains to the towns people: "Those farmers and ranchers were bad apples. They were doing you all wrong. The best thing for this town is my cattle empire. Farmer Jones and farmer Smith had to go. And that farmer Jimmy Stewart is the worst of them all. If farmer Jimmy Stewart hadn't pissed off my boys you folks wouldn't have any problems at all. He's the trouble. We've got to hunt him down and bring that bad apple farmer Jimmy Stewart to justice! I own the law now."

The bad guys have taken over the town. Obama is the law. Anarchy reigns.

Dictatorship is anarchy. It is the opposite of the self-governance and stability America was founded on. This is why everything involving health care is now in chaos. Anarchy and chaos is all the Left offer.

We've got to get our town back.

---

Here's another finding:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97—1374
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES v. CITY OF NEW YORK .
June 25, 1998 Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

Excerpt: "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

Dear KMTC,

Your cleverly convoluted, twisted reasoning has glanced off my tiny head without effect. See my folded back ears? See my paws tightly covering them? The only question left for you to answer is from Dear Leader Himself; "What are you going to do to stop me, punk?"

Anarchy would imply lawlessness. What Obama is attempting to do is dictate law. All it takes for this to happen is for no one to challenge him on these grounds. The silence in the republican ranks on this very issue has been shocking. I'm learning more about republicans than I am about democrats in these last few weeks and none of it has been especially encouraging.

The problem with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is deciding which Prole gets to be Dictator.

if we were talking about Zimbabwe, it would be predictably funny. If we were talking about Venezuela, it would be predictably funny. If you said 5 years ago we'd be talking about the USA, it would be unthinkable.

INGSOC wrote:Anarchy would imply lawlessness. What Obama is attempting to do is dictate law.

The Law that differentiates a state of anarchy, a state of lawlessness, from a state of civilization is not the whims of a man or a group of men codified. A state of lawlessness is not simply a state of laws-lessness. A lion in the jungle could rule over his domain by day-to-day whim and force, all codified. That is not a Lawful state, it is still the state of the jungle. The jungle animals are no closer to living in a civilized state.

The Law is inherent in the nature of Man and Man's condition, is discoverable, and is then codified as Right. The laws of man, in order to rise above a state of Lawlessness, are informed by the Law and then codified. There is a difference between a state of Lawlessness and a state of laws-lessness. To the extent that what is identified Right is actually a reflection of the nature of Man and Man's condition actually has anything to do with reality is the extent to which the laws are just laws. A law-making body that makes laws that have no relation to the Law is itself a part of a state of anarchy and the laws made don't foster civilization, they destroy it.

Dictatorship is a state of anarchy as it is unmoored from Law. The very nature of using coercive force to make others bend to your will is a part of a state of Lawlessness.

Comrades, it has often been posited that the political spectrum is better represented by a circle, rather than as the traditional left-to-right linear representation.

In some ways I would agree, because with total anarchy - no rules - on the far right (not the far left, Comrade Treatment Center) and with total government control on the far left, you miss the fact that total government control, one way or another, always eventually slips into anarchy.

The founders, obviously, understood human nature and realized that anarchy - no rules - will never work, because it quickly devolves into The Biggest Dog Rules. Likewise, human nature is such that communism, on the other end of the linear spectrum, will never work - no matter how many guns the government shoves into the faces of the people, human beings will always be intrinsically lazy, given a chance, and will do the least that they can. This is why the pilgrims' colony almost starved to death completely (they were each given a plot of land, and whatever they produced was put into the common store house and divided up equally).

America was designed specifically with a limited - even minimal - set of laws, and with the design of representational government, not "rule". People in our government, who supposedly work for we the people, have forgotten this, in their fog of communistic desire for utopia - which, of course, has never worked, but - in their minds - only because previous attempts were made by people not as smart as they themselves are.

It's telling that Valerie Jarrett, the communist driving mind behind Obama from the beginning, stated after the 2008 campaign and prior to Obama's inauguration that he had to be "ready to rule on Day 1". She also famously said, before the 2012 election, "After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go."

These people are full-on communists. I truly don't think most conservatives have any idea where we are right now, which is actually near the end of a decades-long communist takeover of America.

Honestly, my biggest fear these days is that this country no longer has a sufficient number citizens of sufficient caliber to be able to remain free. As I look around me, I see masses of dumbed down, selfish, spoiled and entitled idiots who wouldn't know the Constitution or the rule of law from a hole in the ground.

I really hope I'm wrong.

<looks around>. Hmmph. I thought i heard something.

Oh well, back to the distillery....

Meet you there...

[color=#C0392B]R.O.C.K. in the USSA[/color] wrote:Meet you there...

Me too!
.
.

Most equal graphic, Comrade

R.O.C.K. in the USSA wrote:In some ways I would agree, because with total anarchy - no rules - on the far right (not the far left, Comrade Treatment Center) and with total government control on the far left, you miss the fact that total government control, one way or another, always eventually slips into anarchy.

No. Dictatorship is a form of anarchy. The Right does not believe in 'no rules.' It believes that the laws must be informed by the discoverable Law derived from an understanding of the nature of Man and Man's condition. As in: the United States founded on certain Enlightenment principles of the nature of Man and Man's condition. That is the fundamental Law. Totalitarianism doesn't "slip" into anarchy, it is a manifestation of anarchy - the state of lawlessness - the state unmoored from considerations of guiding fundamental Law. The laws themselves come out of an anarchy, a lawless jungle, of motivations.

Yes. Anarchy is rule by man, not Law. Unless you consider "law of the jungle" to be Law.

Captain Craptek wrote:Yes. Anarchy is rule by man, not Law. Unless you consider "law of the jungle" to be Law.

Obama seems to.

Dear Leader (PBUH) was a law professor .

(or did he just play one on TV?)

dictionary.com

On the other hand, I hate to argue with fellow progs :)

*gets out fine toothed comb*

I'd say that a Constitutional Republic is rule by law, and that full governmental control, or dictatorship, is rule by man - particularly because "laws" mean nothing under full governmental control, since they change at the dictator's whim.

We may be thinking the same thing in different ways, which is why it's always so hard to accurately "chart" the political spectrum in any meaningful way.

This is well and good KMTC. I understand completely where you are coming from philosophically speaking.

In contemporary conversation anarchy, the idea of a lawlessness, is the polar opposite of the dystopian autocratic, centrally managed and oppressive state. As Comrade Rock noted anarchy is understood as the absolute liberty of the individual moving along a scale to the authoritarian state. Given the current state of the nation relative to its intention at founding it is understandable that this is how the word is understood in discourse. Not many would observe the conditions of feudal Europe or a caliphate a of the Middle East and declare them anarchy. Per this description they would be. In fact most of the regimes and governments the world has known would be classified as anarchy per this understanding.

R.O.C.K. in the USSA wrote:

The attachment anarchy.jpg is no longer available

dictionary.com

On the other hand, I hate to argue with fellow progs :)

*gets out fine toothed comb*

I'd say that a Constitutional Republic is rule by law, and that full governmental control, or dictatorship, is rule by man - particularly because "laws" mean nothing under full governmental control, since they change at the dictator's whim.

We may be thinking the same thing in different ways, which is why it's always so hard to accurately "chart" the political spectrum in any meaningful way.

From dictionary.com list, #1; "a state of society without government or law." But what definition of "law" is assumed here? Do they mean formal, legislated "rules" agreed upon by the citizens of a society, or, arbitrary, changing mandates imposed by a dictator? If those were the only two possible meanings of "law", then their #1 definition would be correct. But are those the only two options?

What about a "self governing" society where the rules of social interaction are neither arbitrary nor imposed by structured government authority? Is there such a society? Is one even possible? If so, it would be without formal government, without mandated or arbitrary law, and yet, not in a state of anarchy.

This discussion is getting entirely too un-progish. My head hurts.

INGSOC wrote:This is well and good KMTC. I understand completely where you are coming from philosophically speaking.

In contemporary conversation anarchy, the idea of a lawlessness, is the polar opposite of the dystopian autocratic, centrally managed and oppressive state. As Comrade Rock noted anarchy is understood as the absolute liberty of the individual moving along a scale to the authoritarian state. Given the current state of the nation relative to its intention at founding it is understandable that this is how the word is understood in discourse. Not many would observe the conditions of feudal Europe or a caliphate a of the Middle East and declare them anarchy. Per this description they would be. In fact most of the regimes and governments the world has known would be classified as anarchy per this understanding.

Yes. You're absolutely correct.

"Anarchy: a state of society without government or law." Government, in the general sense. Law, in the general sense. Not any State. Not simply "laws."

In your personal life you govern (use personal government of your life) by certain principles i.e. 'law.' Not to do so is to live a life in personal anarchy. So too, in a State. Without the fundamental "law" governing the decisions, "laws," of your personal life your life is in anarchy. So too, in a State.

***
Sat, Nov 23 2013 - Thinking out-loud:

A formal government body can institute anarchy by denying and blocking the society from the fundamental government and law. The extent it blocks and denies is the degree of anarchy and chaos within society. To the extent the society can enjoy the fundamental governance and law that is founded on real discovered Right based on Man's nature and condition, society enjoys the opposite of anarchy and chaos: stability, order, and civilization.