So here is the scene: The House of Representatives is suing the president of
United States. They are suing him for doing what they themselves wanted to
do. Remember the election of 2012 when Mitt Romney, the Republican Party's
nominee for President of the United States was campaigning against the
Obamacare requirements? The campaign was centered around the desire to
appeal the Affordable Care Act because of the unfavorable effect it was
having on the citizens who were being forced into buying the government's
insurance policies. Of course the Democrat Party was dead set against any
such notion, claiming it was good for the country and would eventually
provide insurance coverage, hence healthcare, for at least 30 million
uninsured people and millions more with "pre-existing" conditions.
All the promises the President and his top officials made regarding people
being able to keep their existing insurance if they liked it; keeping their
physician if they liked, all turned out to be untrue and millions of people
lost their existing policy and were forced to go with the government's
version. There were mandates built into the Obamacare law that required
employers and employees to do certain things that eventually caused many to
lose their full-time jobs since a 30-hour work-week prevented the employer
from having to provide the insurance to their employees. Everyone now knows
"the rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey used to say.
Consequently, the republicans launched an all-out assault on the Obamacare
plan to destroy it since it was taking over at least one-sixth of the
nation's economy. However, after the election, even before in many cases,
the President began changing the law and postponing the implementation of
certain provisions until after the elections because it became so toxic to
democrats who had been the only party responsible for voting it in without a
single republican vote. So toxic, in fact, the President has changed some
provisions of the law at least thirty-five times, some of which will not be
taking effect until after the 2016 Presidential election.
Now, one would think this would have been a win for the republicans. After
all, the President began changing the law in the exact same way the
republicans were demanding it to be repealed. Not so, however, since the
President received some heat from the democrats who needed to run for
re-election, he began stringing out the law in parcels that seemed to quell
the ire of the citizens knowing the can had been kicked down the road and
they simply didn't have to deal with it until "later."
So here we are at the point where it seems an irony; the President actually
did to the law on a temporary basis what the republicans wanted to do on a
permanent basis. The President circumvented Congress to make changes in a
law he was suppose to implement; instead he made changes without taking it
back to Congress so the "lawmakers" could make the adjustments in a
bi-partisan way and follow the Constitution. So the House of Representatives
has now brought a lawsuit against the President of the United States for
doing what they wanted done in the first place.
[to top of second column] |
It reminds me of the fictional character brought to life by Joel
Chandler Harris, a literary comedian, who wrote the tales of Uncle
Remus whose stories about Brer Rabbit are legendary. Brer Rabbit had
been caught by Brer Fox and was about to be eaten for his
misadventures; but he kept telling Brer Fox "please don't throw me
into the briar patch" because presumably the poor rabbit would be
cut to pieces by the thorns in the briar patch. Of course we all
know it was a ruse, a form of "reverse psychology" of asking for one
thing that might be punishment when in reality it is a reward. The
President makes the changes goading the republicans into doing
something. In this case they have initiated a lawsuit against him
for overextending his Constitutional authority by circumventing the
Congress and changing laws.
The question is why would the House of Representatives want to sue
the President when such action is virtually unprecedented? If the
President was goading the Congress to take such action against him,
was he being Brer Rabbit telling Congress, "Please don't throw me on
the courts for them to decide about my behavior," when he really
wanted it to happen so he could turn it around and use it like he
did the impeachment issue; simply a method to gin up his base to
enhance fundraising. Really, the reason a person takes another
person to court is for the court to make a decision about how the
aggrieved party is going to be "made whole." So if the President is
found guilty of overreaching his authority and decided the President
must undo what he has done by changing the laws, wouldn't that be a
win for the President and a loss for the Congress? Not exactly.
I think that instead of it being ironic the republicans would want
his actions reversed, taking away from them what they seemingly
wanted in the first place, it would be a win for the republicans if
the law had to be implemented now as it was written then.
Think of it, having to implement the Obamacare now with all the
elements that the President intended in the beginning would create
so much havoc with the American people it would almost guarantee a
democrat presidential loss in 2016. If the republicans can get the
court to resolve the issue through the lawsuit and make the
president enforce the law as the democrats passed it, the American
people will see how disastrous the law is. This will give the
Republicans the advantage in the 2016 presidential election. That,
in turn, will give the republicans to accomplish what they wanted to
do in the first place, repeal the Obamacare law after the 2016
election without much push-back from anyone.
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article. |