ShareThis Page

Dangerous precedent

| Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

It's 2014, and the Affordable Care Act is now reality and eventually will affect almost everyone. We were warned by many that the law was a disaster in the making — including by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont,), a key architect of the law who described it as a ”huge train wreck” in April.

We are now witnessing the train wreck: The website's a joke; there are drastic cost increases, deductible increases, restricted access to providers of choice, numerous tax increases and questions about data security.

These issues are now being widely publicized. However, something more insidious and dangerous has occurred that is not being brought to our attention.

The Constitution reserves the power to create, change or repeal law only to the Congress. Once enacted, everyone from the president on down must obey a law until it is changed or repealed by Congress. As the president has reminded critics of the ACA, “It is the law.”

Yet he has unilaterally and selectively issued hundreds of waivers and exemptions and changed deadlines. He's done this while threatening to veto any changes made by Congress — the only lawful way to alter an existing law.

By definition, the president's acts are unlawful.

President Obama's law by dictate sets a dangerous precedent. If something is not done to curtail his disregard for the separation of powers codified in our Constitution, we will live to regret it.

Michael G. Bitterice


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.