NightTrain
10-20-2017, 11:32 AM
Another great article from NR today... good to see that there's at least a little recognition, even if the MSM won't cover it.
To make one-size-fits-all laws like Obamacare work, Democrats have had to circumvent the Constitution, paving the way for easy challenges by Trump and congressional Republicans.
Donald Trump is criticized, often justly, for misstatements of facts and failure to understand the details of public policy. But in two of his most recent controversial actions, he has taken stands upholding the rule of law and undoing the lawless behavior of his most recent predecessor.
The question now is whether the author of The Art of the Deal — and congressional Republicans and Democrats — can maneuver and compromise on these issues in ways that produce sensible public policy.
The first action in question was Trump’s September 5 announcement that he would withdraw Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which gave immigrants brought to the United States illegally when they were children protection from deportation.
Obama acted despite his initial explanation that the president only has the authority to faithfully execute laws, not to make them. So DACA was dressed up with a fig-leaf argument that he was only exercising the kind of discretion prosecutors employ when they choose to bring one case and not another.
A nearly identical argument was rejected by federal courts considering the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program — which extended protection to undocumented immigrants with kids who are U.S. citizens — decisions left in place by the Supreme Court last year. So both DAPA and DACA looked like dead ducks legally anyway.
The second of Trump’s actions was his October 12 statement that he would suspend cost-sharing-reduction (CSR) payments to health-insurance companies. The Obama administration had been making CSR payments since 2014 even though Obamacare’s Section 1401 does not appropriate the money for the payments authorized in Section 1402.
This was blatantly unconstitutional. “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” states Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. The House of Representatives sued, and in May 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the billions paid in subsidies were illegal.
Administration lawyers made complex, sophisticated arguments that Obama’s clearly illegal actions were actually legal. I’m a graduate of Yale Law School; I know how this is done. Many Americans suspect that condescending elite law-school graduates are contemptuous of them and their naïve belief that words mean what they say. My experience is that those suspicions are well-founded.
More : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452917/daca-health-care-actions-uphold-constitution-frustrate-democrats
To make one-size-fits-all laws like Obamacare work, Democrats have had to circumvent the Constitution, paving the way for easy challenges by Trump and congressional Republicans.
Donald Trump is criticized, often justly, for misstatements of facts and failure to understand the details of public policy. But in two of his most recent controversial actions, he has taken stands upholding the rule of law and undoing the lawless behavior of his most recent predecessor.
The question now is whether the author of The Art of the Deal — and congressional Republicans and Democrats — can maneuver and compromise on these issues in ways that produce sensible public policy.
The first action in question was Trump’s September 5 announcement that he would withdraw Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which gave immigrants brought to the United States illegally when they were children protection from deportation.
Obama acted despite his initial explanation that the president only has the authority to faithfully execute laws, not to make them. So DACA was dressed up with a fig-leaf argument that he was only exercising the kind of discretion prosecutors employ when they choose to bring one case and not another.
A nearly identical argument was rejected by federal courts considering the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program — which extended protection to undocumented immigrants with kids who are U.S. citizens — decisions left in place by the Supreme Court last year. So both DAPA and DACA looked like dead ducks legally anyway.
The second of Trump’s actions was his October 12 statement that he would suspend cost-sharing-reduction (CSR) payments to health-insurance companies. The Obama administration had been making CSR payments since 2014 even though Obamacare’s Section 1401 does not appropriate the money for the payments authorized in Section 1402.
This was blatantly unconstitutional. “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” states Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. The House of Representatives sued, and in May 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the billions paid in subsidies were illegal.
Administration lawyers made complex, sophisticated arguments that Obama’s clearly illegal actions were actually legal. I’m a graduate of Yale Law School; I know how this is done. Many Americans suspect that condescending elite law-school graduates are contemptuous of them and their naïve belief that words mean what they say. My experience is that those suspicions are well-founded.
More : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452917/daca-health-care-actions-uphold-constitution-frustrate-democrats