Trump administration tells court it won't defend Obamacare

[Captdon]

No. Nor did the courts overturn it.

Slavery was the others and was Constitutional. The Constitution refers to free people, Indians and others. Who do you think the others were. The authors knew knew it was slaves and you don't know more than they did.

[MisterVeritis]

Slavery was the others and was Constitutional. The Constitution refers to free people, Indians and others. Who do you think the others were. The authors knew knew it was slaves and you don't know more than they did.

You are confused, of course. There were no Constitutional provisions I am aware of that addressed slavery. The one provision that indirectly addressed it involved the census. Counting slaves/others as 3/5ths of a person limited Southern political power.

Do you know something different? I know far more than they did because of the luxury of time and distance. I can read not only what they wrote and said but what others wrote and said in response. I can do it in my spare time over long periods of time, reflecting and researching.

You are simply wrong.

[Crepitus]

Trump administration tells court it won't defend Obamacare against lawsuit seeking to cripple it

The Trump administration told a federal court Thursday it won’t defend Obamacare against a lawsuit that’s trying to strike down most of the law.
It’s a notable stance that means it will be up to Obamacare fans such as Democratic governors to step in and defend the Affordable Care Act against on onslaught from GOP attorneys general, who say after Congress nixed the individual mandate at the heart of the law, the rest of it should follow.


In court papers, the Justice Department said it doesn’t want to stop the law in its tracks, but said they agreed with the plaintiffs who say the most famous parts of the law are now illegal.



The crux of the argument goes back to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s 2012 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate as a valid use of Congress’s taxing power. The court held that Congress was able to offer people a choice: get insurance, or pay a tax.



If there is no tax penalty for not buying insurance now, then no taxation is taking place, so the other parts of the law tied to the individual mandate must go, the 20 GOP attorneys general argue.


The Justice Department concurred.
“The Supreme Court’s saving construction of the individual mandate as a tax is no longer available,” government lawyers wrote.
The White House and congressional Republicans had said they would like to have a replacement in hand before Obamacare is scrapped, but if the lawsuit prevails, that may not be the possible.
Republicans tried to repeal and replace the law last year, but those efforts stalled and GOP leaders haven’t expressed any desire to wage a health care fight in a mid-term year.

Justice attorneys said they don’t think it’s lawful to freeze Obamacare now, since repeal of the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2019.



But they suggested the court consider ordering that as of Jan. 1 two parts of the law will be invalid: that people with preexisting conditions must receive coverage, and that they cannot be charged more than healthier consumers.



“This court should hold that the ACA’s individual mandate will be unconstitutional as of January 1, 2019, and that the ACA’s guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions are inseverable from the mandate,” they wrote.



Those protections had been considered sacrosanct by most members of Congress, with GOP lawmakers fretting during their efforts last year over how to unwind Obamacare while still preserving those parts of the law.



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...acare-against/

Abdication of it's duties. It is the law of the land and it's their job to defend it until it's changed.

Yet another impeachable offense in my book.

[DGUtley]

Abdication of it's duties. It is the law of the land and it's their job to defend it until it's changed. Yet another impeachable offense in my book.

It is not an impeachable offense but I am pleased that we agree. I presume you called for Obama’s impeachment over his failure to defend The Defense Of Marriage Act? I chided him for his unconstitutional conduct but failed to call for his impeachment.

[Crepitus]

It is not an impeachable offense but I am pleased that we agree. I presume you called for Obama’s impeachment over his failure to defend The Defense Of Marriage Act? I chided him for his unconstitutional conduct but failed to call for his impeachment.

If he did (I didn't realize that was how it went down) then it was.

[Captdon]

No. Nor did the courts overturn it.

Slaves were the others. The Founding Fathers knew it. You don't but that doesn't mean a thing. Slavery was acceptable until 1865.

You shouldn't argue historical facts. The words are right there.

Now you can resort to insults but you will be wrong no matter.

[Peter1469]

Abdication of it's duties. It is the law of the land and it's their job to defend it until it's changed.

Yet another impeachable offense in my book.

Good thing that you are a loon that nobody takes seriously.

[DGUtley]

If he did (I didn't realize that was how it went down) then it was.

He absolutely most definitely did.

[MisterVeritis]

Slaves were the others. The Founding Fathers knew it. You don't but that doesn't mean a thing. Slavery was acceptable until 1865.
You shouldn't argue historical facts. The words are right there.
Now you can resort to insults but you will be wrong no matter.

It would help to read what I wrote. If you can.

[MisterVeritis]

Abdication of it's duties. It is the law of the land and it's their job to defend it until it's changed.

Yet another impeachable offense in my book.

We can disagree. The Executive branch is under no Constitutional obligation to defend laws in court. The branch is obligated to impartially enforce the law so long as it exists.

My opinion stands in opposition to yours and DJUtley's.