It may turn out that there are more unconstitutional provisions within Obamacare than just the individual mandate
Are health care waivers unconstitutional?
The constitutional dispute over the health-care law has thus far centered on the lawfulness of the statute itself — most dramatically when, last week in Florida, a federal judge held the act to be void. Waiting in the wings, however, is another constitutional question, one concerning not the statute, but waivers from it.
The Department of Health and Human Services has granted 733 waivers from one of the statute’s key requirements. The recipients of the waivers include insurers such as Oxford Health Insurance, labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, and employers such as PepsiCo. This is disturbing for many reasons. At the very least, it suggests the impracticability of the health-care law; HHS gave the waivers because it fears the law will cost many Americans their jobs and insurance.
Congress can pass statutes that apply to some businesses and not others, but once a law has passed — and therefore is binding — how can the executive branch relieve some Americans of their obligation to obey it?
It can’t. Anyone who tells you otherwise needs to take a civics class. Yes, Senator Schumer, I’m looking at you.
Not defending Obama or ObamaCare, both of which are evil entities, but I think that what you say is prohibited by the Constitution, can be done legally. If the actual Act was written so that it granted a delegation of powers to the Executive, I think it would fly, constitutionally. If I’m not mistaken, tariffs on foreign trade work this way: not every little tariff change has to go through Congress, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Tariff Commission, enacts/retracts tariffs.
As far as the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis goes, I think that the Supremes could easily declare every Act passed by that troika to be Unconstitutional, due to the various “rules” in the Houses of Congress which were used and which were designed (and worked as designed) to prevent debate and consideration of the Acts.
ignoring the problem of the changes to the rules in the house problem. How is this not a violation of the equal protection clause?