Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Scott Ott

Bio

July 22, 2014 - 8:58 am

By now you’ve heard that a federal three-judge panel ruled that the Affordable Care Act does not permit federal subsidies to help people buy insurance through HealthCare.gov. This cuts the heart from the redistributive scheme by essentially pricing young, healthy people out of the market.

But scrolling down in The New York Times story, I found the stunning argument that the Obama administration offered in a vain attempt to rescue the president’s sole accomplishment.

Basically, the law says only the states can help people pay for their Obamacare policies. So, here’s how the all the president’s lawyers tried to get around that.

Obama administration officials said that an exchange established by the federal government was, in effect, established by a state because the secretary of health and human services was standing “in the shoes” of states when she established exchanges.

Imagine how Obama and his cronies might apply that principle.

Federal executive branch officers can act on behalf of the legislative branch in each of the states. This is a shocking coup attempt against federalism, republican governance, the separation of powers and the Constitution itself.

No, it’s not the first time he’s tried something like this, but forgive me if I never grow accustomed to the audacity of these would-be transformers.

Burwell ruling

Click the image to read the actual ruling.

Scott Ott co-hosts a news, commentary and humor show called Trifecta on PJTV. He created and hosted the 20-part series on the Constitution titled Freedom's Charter. His satire site, ScrappleFace, spawned three books and praise from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and many others.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
So.....that means that Rick Perry is "standing in the shoes" of the President when he orders National Guard troops to the border? Does that mean that the National Guard can directly deport the illegals?
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, well the Obama government has the Steven Wright theory of Washington's Axe.

Wright said he owned the original axe that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree.

Actually, the wood handle split and he had it replaced. Then the blade corroded and he had that replaced. But the axe he has is taking up the same space as the original.

This is essentially the farcical argument of the Obama cabal. They are taking up the same space where the states once were.

You refuse to set up an exchange? That's ok, we are going to stand in as the state of Texas, Alabama, whatever. Hey, we forced your citizens to buy this thing that was passed in reconciliation in the dead of night, ...you thought there were any rights remaining?

The en banc massacre that will follow...due to Harry Reid's Nuclear Option Magical Judicial Hack Court Stuffing...is sure to have some fantastical twists of words.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (8)
All Comments   (8)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The argument is totally valid, provided you first declare the State to be either in Insurrection or Incompetent.

In fact, declaring the State of Louisiana to be legally Incompetent may have been appropriate immediately after Hurricane Katrina.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why not just declare all the states to be incompetent then?

Don't tell me that isn't what our friends in the nation's capitol literally believe. Just glance at Talking Points Memo or Vox or something.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
As the majority opinion noted, "We reach this decision reluctantly". In other words, the language of the law is so clear, we have no logical alternative.

It will be interesting to watch the Supreme Court Justices distort language, logic, and the law to, in effect, legislate the trouble-causing clause out of existence.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'll be interested to see if any of the exchanges are "state" exchanges. As Scott Walker explained about his decision not to create an exchange in Wisconsin, it was because it was state in name only with very little state control or choice is permitted by the federal government.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Don't these judges know that in the year 2014, the LAW is whatever POTUS and the boss of the Department of (in)Justice say it is, on that day? Get with the program, Judges!
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
So.....that means that Rick Perry is "standing in the shoes" of the President when he orders National Guard troops to the border? Does that mean that the National Guard can directly deport the illegals?
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, well the Obama government has the Steven Wright theory of Washington's Axe.

Wright said he owned the original axe that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree.

Actually, the wood handle split and he had it replaced. Then the blade corroded and he had that replaced. But the axe he has is taking up the same space as the original.

This is essentially the farcical argument of the Obama cabal. They are taking up the same space where the states once were.

You refuse to set up an exchange? That's ok, we are going to stand in as the state of Texas, Alabama, whatever. Hey, we forced your citizens to buy this thing that was passed in reconciliation in the dead of night, ...you thought there were any rights remaining?

The en banc massacre that will follow...due to Harry Reid's Nuclear Option Magical Judicial Hack Court Stuffing...is sure to have some fantastical twists of words.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
I can imagine the look on the judges' faces when that argument was put forward.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “Heart-ectomy for Obamacare: Did Obama’s Lawyers Really Make This Argument?”