Skip to main content

Texas Sen. Ted 'LOL' Cruz on Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Committee (video above):
This President of the United States is the first president we've ever had who thinks he can choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. He announces just about every day one change after another after another in Obamacare. It's utterly lawless. It is inconsistent with our Constitution, and it ought to trouble everyone, Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians.

Let me tell you something: If you have a president picking and choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, you no longer have a president.

So we no longer have a president, eh? I guess that means Obama is a dictator, right? Of course, it's possible he's the world's lamest dictator because what other explanation do you have for the fact that as dictator he would allow an enemy of the state like Ted Cruz to spread his revolutionary rhetoric?

Oh wait, I'm sorry. I forgot about the IRS, which Obama is clearly using to suppress the political opposition, which explains why Mitt Romney had the election stolen to him, because as everyone who unskewed the polls knows, Romney was the people's choice, all 53 percent of them.

But as for this thing about Obama being the first president ever to engage in a tug-of-war with Congress about the extent of his powers and his flexibility in enforcing the law, well, in the spirit of being completely fair and balanced, it's probably worth noting these words from none other than President Ronald Reagan himself:

While I am signing S. 1192, it contains a legislative veto provision which the Attorney General advises is unconstitutional. [...] Accordingly, this language of section 114(e) must be objected to on constitutional grounds. The Secretary of Transportation will not, consistent with this objection, regard himself as legally bound by any such resolution.
So not only is President Barack Obama not the first president to do the sorts of things Cruz accuses him of doing, but Ronald Reagan was among those who did. And of course the logical implication of Cruz's anti-Obama attack is this: Ronald Reagan was not president of the United States.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I guess... (9+ / 0-)

    ...all Obama needs to do now is take off his shirt and mount a horse. He'll be the perfect leader.

    So endith the trick.

    by itsjim on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:28:29 AM PST

  •  Cruz Will Definitely Win The CPAC Poll (6+ / 0-)

    because the ones who bashes President Obama the most wins.  You have to wonder does any of these people listen to what comes out of their own mouths.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:29:42 AM PST

  •  You forget "Raygun" was a GOOD Dictator (GOP) (9+ / 0-)

    So all was forgiven.

  •  Rogue presidents. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They must be reigned in.  

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:30:42 AM PST

  •  Jesus... (11+ / 0-)

    I remember every law passed during the Dubya admin contained a fricken' signing statement for chrissacks.  I'm not condoning the behavior, but a little consistency is apparently too much to ask.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:31:32 AM PST

  •  Our last president confessed to felony wiretapping (6+ / 0-)

    on live television.

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:32:08 AM PST

  •  Did Obama decide (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    not to enforce certain provisions of the ACA because he thinks they are unconstitutional?

    •  if only Congress had the means to rectify this (6+ / 0-)

      I mean, the Constitution must have some provision for what Congress can do if they disagree with the Executive's implementation of the law.

      What could it be?

      It must be something Congress rarely does, and that's why Cruz can't think of it.


      Oh, I know! They can pass legislation.

      If they don't like the way the Executive is interpreting the law, they can pass legislation! It's no wonder Cruz doesn't know, legislating is a function of Congress he's completely unfamiliar with.

      Well, now that we've figured that out, I shall look forward to Cruz authoring legislation to impose a fine on businesses which don't cover their employees.

      •  Backwards (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, lefthandedmomma

        Congress has already passed legislation, and the executive declined to enforce it. Lewison brings up Reagan's signing statement offering a constitutional objection. So I asked whether there are constitutional objections to provisions of the ACA such that Mr. Obama has decided not to enforce. Are there? If not, what are the grounds for refusal to enforce?

        In any case, it seems peculiar that you advise the Congress to pass legislation requiring the executive to enforce the legislation it has already passed. Wasn't that the point of the legislation in the first place?

        I'll be curious to hear what you have to say when President Ryan or Cruz decides that enforcement of various EPA regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act put too many constraints on businesses, so he will suspend enforcement for a couple of years. No problemo, right?

        •  I would say the same thing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dodgerdog1, lefthandedmomma

          If we have a terrible President and a terrible Congress our government would do terrible things. I don't need to stare into my crystal ball to figure that out. But we've already had a terrible President that ignored enforcement of federal law. His name was George W Bush.

          If Congress feels like the President is willfully misunderstanding their intent then it can sue the administration in the Supreme Court.

          Or it can just impeach him. (Or sue then impeach.)

          The Republicans in the House can begin impeachment hearings right now. No one can stop them.

          My personal message to John Boehner: Please, pretty please with a cherry on top, try to impeach the President for delaying the employer mandate to Obamacare. PLEASE!

          •  A fine recipe (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            for government by fiat and judicial threat. The line used to be that ours was a government of laws and not of men. Frankly, that still seems like a really good idea to me—and, "Bush did it first," not much of a principle.

            •  oh dear (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dodgerdog1, lefthandedmomma
              A fine recipe for government by fiat and judicial threat.
              Take it up with Jefferson.
              The line used to be that ours was a government of laws and not of men.
              A government of laws and not men... I think I've seen that movie.
              "Bush did it first," not much of a principle.
              Would it be better if it was "Washington did it first"? Every President did it first because this is how our government is set up.
              •  I think you need to buy yourself (0+ / 0-)

                a copy of the Federalist papers and a history book.

                •  I think you need to buy yourself a Constitution (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  the Federalist Papers are not a legally binding document.

                  •  Did I say the Federalist (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    was a legal document? No, I didn't.

                    I said you need a copy, and you do, in order to understand how the U.S. regime was set up to work. And a history book to know what has actually transpired.

                    It’s hard to know what you mean by reference to Jefferson. Did you think he governed by fiat and judicial threat? All I can think of offhand is the Louisiana Purchase, and the worst thing you could say about that is that he probably exceeded his immediate authority, but then he sent the matter to Congress for authorization and approval—some fiat. Judicial threat? Not so much. Straightforward disregard of legislation—please, enlighten us.

                    If you think the idea of a government of laws is a movie fable, I’ll suggest you’ve seen too many bad movies. In any case, the explicit intention (as you could learn from the Federalist) is that the government, insofar as possible, ought to be so constituted and operated. To the extent that it is not, this is failure, not a guiding principle. That is precisely why people were unhappy to think that the IRS could be used as a tool of political reward and punishment, instead of working strictly according to law.

                    You seem to think that all presidents disregard legislation they don’t like as a matter of course. That history book will come in handy. Then you could tell me what laws Washington simply disregarded, and Jefferson, and both Adams…

                    And then you can also explain why you think this is OK, why we should expect and approve that our presidents simply rule us like kings. Or like dictators, which I think was the original charge. Then we need not bother to argue about justice, or obligation of the rich to the poor, or civil rights, or any of that sentimental crap. We can go immediately to the meat of the matter—the strongest will and the tightest control over government forces. I can see that you and Putin will be great friends.

        •  No (3+ / 0-)

          As I've described elsewhere in the comments, the administration has the authority to delay certain elements of the ACA, including the employer mandate.

          What is crazy about Cruz's objection is that he is essentially saying:

          1.  Obamacare is tyranny!
          2.  And he's not implementing it fast enough!

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:05:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you really arguing (0+ / 0-)

            that the timetables of the act are merely "serving suggestions," so to speak? That within the act, there is authorization that allows Mr. Obama to extend for 2 years the acceptability of plans that had already been announced to be  non-compliant, and to reimburse insurance companies for any losses due to his changing his mind? Could you please point to the relevant language in the law? Thanks.

            •  In some cases (0+ / 0-)

              I have provided a basis for the authority to delay the employer mandate, and why the individual mandate could not be delayed.

              I have no idea what the basis for allowing otherwise non-compliant plans to be continued, but that doesn't mean there isn't a basis.  It's just not my area of expertise.

              Now, I suppose its possible that the administration has acted entirely without any possible legal justification in the non-compliant plan area.

              But I'm not going to take Ted Cruz's word for that.  Nor yours, since you seem to offer no expertise in the area.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:54:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I can only presume (0+ / 0-)

                you will be equally incurious regarding (to use my earlier example) President Cruz's authority to suspend enforcement of various EPA regulations.

                BTW, you might just have noticed that I didn't claim any expertise—I asked for yours. But I might also point out that you are apparently content to take Mr. Obama's authority for granted, since you don't seem to want to say that you're not going to take his word for it. The technical term for this is, "a double standard." I myself would note that even the usually sanguine Kevin Drum evidences misgivings:

                The Obamacare delays, conversely, are pretty clearly being announced for calculated political purposes. What's more, to the best of my knowledge the administration has never provided a definitive legal justification for these actions, which suggests that they don't really have one they aren't embarrassed to defend.
                •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

                  The administration is delaying implementation because it doesn't really want the ACA implemented.  That makes  perfect sense.

                  So you have no expertise, but have no problem with expressing a strong, unqualified opinion:

                  Congress has already passed legislation, and the executive declined to enforce it.
                  You claim I'm "incurious."  I don't know where you get that from.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:40:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Thank heaven we won't have the opportunity (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  to find out whether "President Cruz" has the authority to suspend provisions of the EPA.  It makes perfect sense to me to suspend certain requirements of the ACA if doing so will insure the program's success.  Given the obstructionism coming from Republicans regarding the ACA, the law is our last best hope for the foreseeable future of having anything remotely resembling universal health care.  Is this decision political?  Sure it is, as is almost everything politicians do.  So what?

                  •  If we let good men set bad precedent (0+ / 0-)

                    odds are excellent that we will eventually regret it. As the late Herbert Storing explained many years ago in a class on the U.S. presidency, the Constitution was written with an eye out against eventual bad times and bad men. Of course, were we all blessed with your foresight, knowing there will never be anything like a President Cruz, then these precautions would be unnecessary. Surprisingly, it just might be less than prudent to bet the farm on your prescience.

                •   EPA regulations are already in place. The (0+ / 0-)

                  employer mandate isn't yet. Therefore, it can be delayed in order to make eventual compliance easier. This is not the same as "suspending enforcement" of laws or regulations that are already in force.

                  Giving businesses extra time to come into compliance should be seen by conservatives as a good and business-friendly thing, but obviously anything this President does is automatically wrong.

        •  There won't be a President Ryan . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          . . . because he'll be too busy leading Texas secessionists to run. And there won't be a President Cruz because he's managed to alienate even most of his own party.

          Oh, and there is one other thing Congress can do:  it can try to impeach President Obama. That worked so well against Bill Clinton in the 1990s. . . .

          Seriously, though, if Obama is such a destroyer of the Constitution, Congress has an obligation to impeach him. So why aren't Republicans trying harder? Because they know they don't have a case, period.

  •  Zombie Reagan for Shah! Carnival Cruz Junta Uno! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:36:02 AM PST

  •  It's amazing how short (5+ / 0-)

    some people's memories are.  It's like the previous 8 years never existed- when we had a President declaring that he could legally torture people and detain them indefinitely (in violation of everything that we, as a country, stood for as a country up to that point), not to mention the "signing statements" that he frequently used that essentially declared that he wouldn't follow laws if they interfered with his authority as "Commander-in-Chief".  Oh, and he did some recess appointments too, something that is apparently quite shocking nowadays for a President.  Don't remember the Republicans getting on his case over any of this.  In fact, most of them were quite willing to defend it all.

  •  The ACA law provides within it the executive (9+ / 0-)

    branch's exercise of discretionary procedures to facilitate the act's implementation.  It is part of the law.

    Cruz and his other whiners should stop hinting at impeachment and move on it so all the world can see what fools they are as they jerk upward on their petards.

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:36:45 AM PST

    •  No, they are playing to the ignorance of the base (5+ / 0-)

      Which sees no dichotomy of claiming to love freedom but praising the likes of China, Putin, and Pinochet.  A group that probably has a very low comprehension of topics like the implementation of laws/regulations, signing statements, and executive orders.

      They are also keenly aware of how the "shiny object" motivates their ignorant base.  Just look how good an issue abortion has been, but any GOP "solution" to that "problem" is apparently as hard for them to formulate as a replacement for the PPACA.

      And back a decade or so ago just saying that the President disappointed you elicited howls of "Un-American" from this crowd, but today they hurl obvious racist insults at the president, see nothing un-patriotic about public chiding our OWN President while praising the "President" of Russia, and won't speak too loudly (if at all) against people openly advocating violence against elected officials and citizens that hold a different political opinion.

      •  All sadly true. Which reminds me: I left a church (4+ / 0-)

        I'd attended for 10 years because the pastor, among other things, held Bill "Belial" Clinton personally responsible for all abortions performed during his administration. "Bill Clinton didn't put a gun to anyone's head and march her into the clinic," I said, but somehow neglected to ask just what the Republicans did about abortion when they controlled the whole gummint.

        Also, isn't it charming how so many Republican voters, who care only whether a candidate is against abortion, see nothing wrong with sending 19-yr-olds to death or worse in useless wars?

    •  Cruz didn't actually read the ACA. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9, lefthandedmomma

      He heard it was called Obamacare, so why bother?

      Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfu*king snows on this motherfu*king plain!

      by shoeless on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:19:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've Always Felt That Way (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    unclebucky, shoeless, lefthandedmomma
    Ronald Reagan was not president of the United States.
    And neither was Bush the Lesser.

    "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

    by midnight lurker on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:36:59 AM PST

  •  Two wrongs don't make a right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Cruz might be a hypocrite but that doesn't mean he's wrong. The President either has statutory authority delegated by Congress to do something, or he does not. That's it.

    If the President can't point to either the Constitution or some statute passed by Congress authorizing him to do something, he can't do it, period.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:37:20 AM PST

    •  He has the authority (6+ / 0-)

      The only changes Obama has made to the ACA roll-out are those he's legally able to make - as per the actual law passed by an actual Congress.

      If the good Senator from Alberta has proof that Obama has acted illegally, perhaps he might want to send that over to his buddies in the House. Something tells me they would love to have a basis for impeachment proceedings. Otherwise it's just more blathering from a self-important idiot.

      Cruelty might be very human, and it might be very cultural, but it's not acceptable.- Jodie Foster

      by CPT Doom on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:55:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I looked for the parts of ACA that give authority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        for the administration to delay the employer mandate or to change the law from having two groups of employers (above 50 FTE employees and below) to 3 groups (1 to 50, 51 to 100 and over 100).  I can't find them.

        Which sections of the ACA law give authority for these changes?

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:58:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (0+ / 0-)

          to issue regulations regarding reporting.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:07:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please direct me to the specific section of ACA (0+ / 0-)

            that gives the Sec of Tres authority to make these specific changes.  ACA does not allow any and all changes that may be thought of by Sec of Tres or HHS.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:48:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  IRC §§ 6055 and 6056 (3+ / 0-)

              require that employers and issuers of health coverage provide information regarding offers of coverage and whether coverage meets the affordability and MEC criteria in the manner prescribed by the Secretary.

              The final regulations with respect to IRC §§ 6055 and 6056 were released yesterday.  The forms themselves have not been released.  In exercising its authority to prescribe the manner of reporting, the Secretary essentially waived the requirements of IRC §§ 6055 and 6056 until 2016.

              Since the IRS cannot easitly enforce IRC § 4980H without the reporting under IRC §§ 6055 and 6056, the Secretary has also waived, in the manner he sees fit, certain requirements under IRC § 4980H.  See IRC § 4980H(d)(1), which requires penalties under that section to be assessed by the Secretary.  Since the Secretary could have waived the requirements for all employers, it is within his power to waive them for some.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:42:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So a future President could make the capital (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                gains tax effectively zero, by just holding up updating Schedule D for the next year - changing the tax year shown on the form is harder than one might think!  Some might say this does not fit with faithful execution of the law.

                Hard to believe that after 4 years the IRS could not design the form and update their IT.

                The real answer for the change is willfully failing to faithfully execute the law.

                The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                by nextstep on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:31:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um, no (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dodgerdog1, lefthandedmomma

                  But believe what you want.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:08:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The real answer for the change is willfully failing to faithfully execute the law.
                  After expending his political capital passing the ACA, the President then told Treasury, HHS, and Labor to slow-walk implementation at great political cost.

                  Makes perfect sense, I guess.  But only if you're an idiot.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:10:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So why do you think the forms for the employer (0+ / 0-)

                    Mandate are not ready 4 years after ACA became law?

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:08:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because (0+ / 0-)

                      the final regulations were issued yesterday?

                      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                      by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:29:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You glossed over the fact that it took 4 years! (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        The Empire State Building in NYC was built in less time than that.

                        I really dislike businesses getting a windfall of many tens of billions of dollars in avoiding employee healthcare spending (and made up by employees or employee penalties) and lost penalties from ACA non-compliant companies, because of the failure to implement the ACA employer mandate on schedule. This also puts a greater burden on millions of employees.

                        Even if there were unintentional administrative failures that compel delay in reporting for the employer mandate, the schedule for first reporting by business could be delayed to 2016, but companies could still be held responsible for providing ACA compliant healthcare or pay the penalty for 2014.

                        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                        by nextstep on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:53:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't like it either (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          But that doesn't make it unlawful, and it doesn't make the President a "dictator."

                          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                          by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:26:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Do you also object to businesses getting tax (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          windfalls of other kinds?  I don't see you objecting to things like the carried interest deduction, farm subsidies that go to conglomerate agribusinesses, and a myriad of other windfalls for business at the expense of ordinary tax payers.  

                          I also don't see you remembering what a mess implementation of Medicare Part D was under the Bush administration.  This is complex litigation, and anyone with any intelligence would know that the process of writing and implementing rules and regulations would take quite a while, especially when so many different agencies are involved.  

                          •  It does dot take four years to do this (0+ / 0-)

                            The US won World War II in less time than it takes to implement the employer mandate.  Are you going to tell me implementing the employer mandate is more difficult than WWII?

                            Your comment on my not mentioning other tax windfalls is ridiculous, you must think a comment must address all issues.

                            The tax and healthcare spending windfall in this case is from administrative failure, as this is already law.  

                            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                            by nextstep on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:24:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  hahahaha (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  you are trying REALLY hard, lol.

                  don't worry, millions of people having health care wont' hurt you, mkay.

                  •  You must like the fact that Employers get (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    a windfall from the delay in the ACA employer mandate, and employees pay billions more.

                    Businesses gain many tens of billions of dollars from not paying for otherwise mandated ACA employee health insurance or penalties for non-compliance, while millions of employees will need to make up all or part of the difference out of their own pocket to pay for insurance or pay a penalty from the individual mandate.

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:00:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  The Rule of Law - not a partisan punching bag (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I am with you.  And this is not limited to the ACA.  It's immigration law (where the President does a record number of deportments, but also by executive action implements the Dream Act), it's Libya (Congress has sole authority to declare war), it's a lot of things.

      I don't like it when any President does it.  We have three clearly delineated branches of government when it comes to law making authority.  

      Congress - legislative - make laws.
      President - executive - implement laws.
      Supreme Court - judicial - interpret laws.

      I don't like it when ANY branch starts doing the work of another branch.  If we have a dysfunctional Congress, and nothing is getting done... then we have a dysfunctional Congress, and we have to deal with that.  The Constitution doesn't allow for short cuts.

      •  Well (4+ / 0-)

        1.  Prosecutorial discretion is nearly absolute, as long as it is not discriminatory.  Priortizing prosecutions has always been the province of the executive branch. If the President doesn't want to waste prosecutorial resources on deporting children, he has that power.

        2.  Libya.  Seriously?  We have more than two centuries establishing that the President, as commander in chief and under the authority to conduct foreign affairs, can do a lot with the US military without infringing on Congress's war-making powers.  Get over it.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:11:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  War was never declared in Libya. (0+ / 0-)

        Nor in Grenada or Panama, or even Iraq for that matter.

        There were no U.S. troops committed in Libya.

        The U.S. played a support role - stand-off radar reconnaissance via AWACS, and refueling of NATO aircraft FULFILLING OUR TREATY OBLIGATIONS AS A MEMBER OF NATO. We flew no missions over Libya. For all intents and purposes this was no different for our military than any training and preparedness operation.

        Which part of the immigration question bothers you? The Dream Act, which will allow children brought to this country by their parents to attend college and become contributing members of our society, and eventually attain a path to citizenship?
        Or the fact that this President has deported more undocumented aliens than any Republican? You can't have it both ways.

  •  I'm not listening to Cruz enough to know if he's (5+ / 0-)

    another wingnut that, At the same time he's calling Obama a dictator, is also praising Putin for being a "leader".  If he is, his hypocrisy is not surprising.

  •  a dictator in mom jeans. (7+ / 0-)


    does he wear sweats and issue proclamations?

  •  Please don't post about Cruz before noon PST, I (3+ / 0-)

    can't look at his smug porcine mug this early in morning without getting nauseated... Regarding anything Mr. Cruz has to say: the utterances that escape from his rat maze of a brain out the twisted slash that passes for a mouth on his  pasty crushed potato like visage, should not be given the status of commentary worthy of reply on any reputable blog. Ignore him and his ilk, give him the ignominy he so richly deserves, perhaps he'll actually go back to Canada and run for Mayor of Toronto, he seems a perfect fit for that job if the current office holder is any indicator.  

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:52:48 AM PST

  •  Using Logic To Counter Cruz (4+ / 0-)

    Is a waste of time. Same with anyone who would hang on every word emanating from that imbecile. It's wasted effort. They don't care about the truth or logic or rationality. They just want to hear themselves talk.

    And as the song and dance begins, the children play at home with needles, needles and pins.

    by The Lone Apple on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:57:30 AM PST

  •  To what is Cruz referring? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Most Presidents have objected to Congressional overreach on separation of powers basis, but President Obama's piecemeal implementation and repeal of ACA previsions does seem like a whole new animal.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:01:14 AM PST

  •  Is 'Ted' McCarthy accusing Obama of nullification? (4+ / 0-)

    ...the kind of nullification being talked about in Republican sheriff offices and Republican state legislatures? Is 'Ted' McCarthy accusing this President of not following the Constitution like states such as Texas who are advocating secession?
    Republicans cannot be entrusted with their own petards, it would seem.

    I've reached a point in life where gravity is becoming an issue. It seems to want me more than I do.

    by glb3 on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:05:25 AM PST

  •  I guess Ted Cruz has never heard of George W. Bush (4+ / 0-)
    A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

    In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.

    Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfu*king snows on this motherfu*king plain!

    by shoeless on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:09:30 AM PST

  •  Everything out of CPAC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    No one gets out alive, HCKAD

    is shit stirring no real decisions or statements of what they want to create, just what they want to destroy.

  •  Well, how's that shark yer riding, Ted?? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by unclebucky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:12:34 AM PST

  •  two little words, people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Mom jeans."

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:18:19 AM PST

  •  Ted, your crazy's showing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BelgianBastard, lefthandedmomma

    Way to feed the red meat chum to the masses.
    However, I do believe I see a teleprompter on your podium. Certainly, you would't be using one of those things, right?

  •  cpac (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    No one gets out alive

    the event where the haters get together too hate everyone else.

    save america defeat all republicans and conservatives

  •  Lie Big! Lie often! That's the whole show, folks! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The reality distortion field only works if it is set to full power continuously.

    Ted's doing his part.  Bless his heart!

    The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. -

    by No one gets out alive on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:47:14 AM PST

  •  They must get paid a pretty penny (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BelgianBastard, lefthandedmomma

    to get up there and say every lie a neo confederate wants to hear.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:47:41 AM PST

  •  Well the one thing I would say is that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the left has done a poor job of countering the "lawless" claim and, no offense Jed, your approach isn't my preferred one.  When Republicans say that Obama is "lawless" and exercising dictatorial-like powers, I don't think it is helpful to merely say "well, your boy Ronnie did it too."

    From my perspective this claim is best debunked by going over a basic primer on how laws are actually implemented.  I think most people understand that Congress writes the laws and the executive branch enforces/implements the laws.  So Congress may write a law that has funding to build a bridge this fiscal year as part of a transportation bill.  But, from my understanding, even though the money is appropriated for this fiscal year, there may be environmental studies that weren't yet completed or there was an unforeseen delay, that can cause the project to be pushed back several years.  Congress doesn't get involved.  The president isn't accused of being a dictator.  Because the executive branch has discretion over the timing to implement portions of laws.

    Secondly, isn't there specific language in the ACA that allows the executive branch to determine if conditions are sufficient to implement portions of the law?  If so, what are they and shouldn't a great diary be put together to explain this?

    Anyway, I think to most liberals and moderates the whole "lawless" "dictator" claims by the Ted Cruz's of the world ring hallow.  If he is truly breaking the law, I want it stopped.  (That's part of the reason why I actually supported impeaching Bill Clinton but I digress)  But my gut instinct tells me that delays in implementing portions of laws are quite common and are actually specifically allowed under the ACA.  With that said, I don't know of a DKOS diary that spells it out so that I could kindly show my Republican friends how batty their accusations have become and why they should start listening to other points of view instead of those from Rush, Sean, Drudge and their leadership.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:17:34 AM PST

    •  Absolutely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      But my gut instinct tells me that delays in implementing portions of laws are quite common and are actually specifically allowed under the ACA.
      I've explained the basis for the delays in implementing the employer mandate above. It is very common for a complex statutory scheme to be rolled-out in this manner.

      IRC § 409A, which addressed certain deferred compensation issues in the wake of the Enron scandal was enacted in 2004.  It was about six years before full compliance with the law was required, and even now there are various relief procedures that waive full compliance

      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

      by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:57:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too much ink for this racist McCarthy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Hell, Washington and Adams... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...both were selective with the use of executive authority, for better or worse. But maybe they don't teach that part of civis in Alberta.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 11:47:06 AM PST

  •  I had a former friend tell me... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dodgerdog1, lefthandedmomma

    ...that Obama is a Socialist Totalitarian but is just too lazy to see it through.

    Oh, and Joe McCarthy was an American hero.

  •  A Dictator in Mom Pants (0+ / 0-)

    ObamaCare! Sign-up by phone: 1-800-318-2596

    by mwm341 on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:53:12 PM PST

  •  My neighbor thinks Franco was not a dictator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dodgerdog1, lefthandedmomma

    and Obama is!!  I have this wingnut neighbor and I generally steer clear of politics with her.  But she usually tries to introduce it to the conversation and I ignore because arguing with crazy is crazy.  Anyway one day I was walking the dog and she joined me.  We chatted about our lives in general and it turns out that she'd lived in Spain for some of her childhood and teen years (her father was something or other high up in U.S. Navy Mediterranean fleet).  And she was in Spain when Franco was in power.  She told me "Oh, everyone said he was so bad, he was a dictator - he wasn't a dictator he was a good ruler" et cetera.  Crazy stuff.  Yet this is the world these people live in - a world where Franco, a bona fide dictator who came to power as a result of military action which overthrew an elected government, is a good guy and Obama who came to the presidency as a result of not one but two elections is the dictator!!

  •  Cruz is dangerous (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think he knows what he is doing. He says extreme way over the top things about Obama. We know that riles up his base, but also it drags the center of "opinion about Obama" toward the right, ie toward his point of view. He knows that most middle of the road (especially disinterested/nonpolitical) citizens think that the Truth is somewhere in the middle between the two parties and their representatives. So Cruz is dragging the middling opinion of our President to the right, to the "he's a dictator".

    The press of course is silent as far as I can see. It is shameful.

    Cruz is smart, I think Machiavellian. I don't think he himself actually believes all the extreme stuff he spews about President Obama.  Maybe like Frank Underwood--but god forbid will never climb so high.

  •  We Need A Charlatan Televangelist Politician. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Go Ted Cruz

  •  If Cruz (0+ / 0-)

    believes that Obama is NOT the president, which office, may I ask, is he preparing to run for?   He can't have it  both ways, Obama NOT the president, while he is getting ready to try to run for Obama's office, which supposedly IS that of president.  if Obama is the dictator I keep hearing him called, then a lot of people are already dead and buried, and don't know it.

  •  Cruz (0+ / 0-)

    Does the LOL preceeding Cruz stand for "Land of the Lamebrains"?

  •  And their buddy Dubya (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    routinely nullified duly-enacted laws through his abuse of signing statements. Does that make him "not-a-President," too?

  •  U.S. Senate (0+ / 0-)

    Is this guy the best Texas has to offer?

  •  Obama is a dictator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twocrows1023, enufenuf

    but get this--he's a weak president for failing to stop Putin in Crimea.  I wish they would make up their minds.

  •  First Obama was a commie, community (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    organizing socialist, then he was Hitler AND Stalin, then a patsy unwilling to start a new war, and now he's a dictator?!?!
    Does ANYBODY have a scorecard on this? I'm getting dizzy.

    •  And Obama was a Communist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      right up until they decided to side with Putin and against him.  

      NOW Putin is "decisive" and Obama is a wimp.

      It's no wonder you're dizzy.  Me too.

      The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - - Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must be the change we wish to see in the world - - Mohandas Gandhi

      by twocrows1023 on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:25:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cruz is Merely Todays Self-Appointed McCarthy (0+ / 0-)

    McCarthy used to do this same stuff to ruin the lives of so many as he enjoyed the limelight.

    My question is this:  What the hell are you voters thinking in his district?  Aren't you afraid he'll come after you, too?

    Too bad Cruz has it all wrong.  He should be blasting the Communist Putin and not Obama!

    •  However (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the Republicans are trampling each other in their haste to praise Putin and compare Obama to him unfavorably.

      Yep.  These are the same folks who freak out [or used to, anyway] over the word "Communist."  And they still call Obama a socialist.

      I wish they would get their stories straight.

      Or maybe they have.
      It seems Communism is simply a useful tool for Obama-bashing.  No more and no less.

      The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - - Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must be the change we wish to see in the world - - Mohandas Gandhi

      by twocrows1023 on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:22:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cruz's Bromance with Putin (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    makes him unable to recognize a genuine dictator from his imaginary one.

  •  Dictator (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Obama were a dictator, he would have had all these right wing morons taken out and shot.

  •  What lengths (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this man will go to. No lie too great to tell, no fabrication too thin to stretch, no half-truth too transparent to market! What he needs is for a real dictator to rise up, give him a smack down, and larn' him somethin' about tyranny!

  •  Hardly a dictator (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Because were he a dictator  your ass would already be on the way to Guantanamo

    Character is an oak tree, fame is but a weed

    by konchster on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:52:43 PM PST

  •  Better yet (0+ / 0-)

    "Ronald Reagan was not president of the United States"

    Better yet, George W Bush was not president.

  •  The great dictator (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Cruz should be made to watch Jon Stewart's show where he showed all the FOX heads crying that Obama was weak every time he didn't act fast enough for their liking and called him a dictator every time he was decisive. Jon also had some laughs over them lamenting that Obama rides a bike while Putin rides a horse bare chested.

  •  Ted and his hypocrisy1 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When Ted and his buddies shut down the government, they changed the rules about who could initiate bringing the government back on line. They chose which laws to obey and which to not obey. How was that any different? And a historical footnote here--- in Germany, a while back, men shut down the Germans government. They said the government would not be allowed to come back on line, unless it did so the way they wanted it to. Just like Ted and his buddies... Those men were Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. Ted and his buddies were being Fascist Nazis Pigs when they did that. Being a Fascist Nazis Pig is Unamerican! The Tea Party claims to be All American, but when they act like Fascist Nazis Pigs, THEY ARE THE HYPOCRITES.

  •  Ted Cruz (0+ / 0-)

    Ted Cruz just really doesn't understand just how stupid he really is.  He is always engaging his mouth before he engages his pea brain. I read somewhere that Ted Cruz wants to be the next Rush Limbaugh. I think that's right. He is almost as annoying as Rush Limburger, MAYBE EVEN MORE.......

  •  Executive Order .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twocrows1023, wildotter

    was not Reagan who did it was George Washington. The first President who did it.

    That means subsequently...this Nation never had a president at all. We are not a Nation and still have to bow to the Queen.

    That also means that Mexican Cruz is not a US Citizen but a Mexican thug that we need to deport.

  •  Well, if he were dictator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twocrows1023, enufenuf

    We'd have single payer insurance, no recession and $15 an hour minimum wage, no fracking and Wall St thugs behind bars, because he wouldn't need to suck up to them to save the Democratic party from oblivion.

    However, I think I'd be a better dictator.

  •  And then, of course, there's Kissenger. (0+ / 0-)

    Ok, yes, he wasn't a president.  But he was a top adviser to one who had to resign before he was convicted.  

    And what did this gem of a Republican say?  Just this: "Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, 'The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.' [laughter]  But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that."

    Hmmmm - - and this was a punch-line in a speech.  He was going for a laugh.

    Ha.  Ha.

    The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - - Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must be the change we wish to see in the world - - Mohandas Gandhi

    by twocrows1023 on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:15:04 PM PST

  •  Dictators. (0+ / 0-)

    I am curiousx to know what he considers elected officials who declare war on proffered as facts actual lies. Or, what would he call a chairman who stifles other members of his committee by turning the microphone button off. Now those are what most Americans consider dictators.

  •  respect (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Is this a dictatorship? The President wants to raise minimum wage, extend unemployment benefits, create jobs through a job's bill, support SS and medicare, and make sure that all American's have health insurance. The Tea Party wants to make it more difficult for people to vote and is great at lying just as Paul Ryan did with his story of the child with a paper bag. The extreme is never the best and the brightest. How disgraceful to use tax dollars to read "Green Eggs and Ham" on the Senate floor.!
       This fight is about racism , about a President who is black but he is also white. President Obama is just probably too intelligent to be understood by the extreme right.

  •  CPAC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have never seen so many ill-mannered, mean people in one place.  I lost any respect I had for any of them.  They all have prostituted themselves for a trashy, stupid vote (as only stupid people will vote for them). You will lose every time unless you become decent, respectful people again.

  •  Richard Milhous Nixon (0+ / 0-)

    'I am not a crook.'
    Of course they don't learn history in Texas so good.

  •  CRAZY cruz (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Will someone close to this man PLEASE see that he receives the mental health evaluation and treatment he so obviously, desperately needs?  And for the love of God, get him on some medication!  

    Just on the surface, I would say he is a delusional, megalomaniac.  I seem to remember some terrifying leaders in world history who fit that description who were responsible for some of the darkest periods in human existence.  Yet their followers thought they were 'visionary gods' who would lead them to the greatest heights mankind could achieve.  What is truly scary is not only is he a "legend in his own mind", far too many Americans have bought in to his insanity!  

  •  Educated Fool (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ted Cruz is nothing but an educated fool. His Dad is an idiot and should never have been let into America. Cruz is not an American Citizen regardless to how you try and justify he is. He was born in Canada and the last time I looked at a world map, Canada was not part of the United States of America.

  •  Texas should no longer have a Senator (0+ / 0-)

    Because the deranged idiot they have should be impeached for multiple lies.  And to think he is thinking of running for President.  Well, good luck with that, Teddy Boy (even without taking into account that you are not eligible because you weren't born in the U.S.).

    Cruz may just rank as the worst Senator in the country right now, which is quite a feat.  There is serious competition in that category.

  •  If Dumb-Ass Ted is really a U.S. Senator, (0+ / 0-)

    how come he STILL doesn't know what an executive order is?

    How come he doesn't realize that Obama has been forced to take action in other ways, due to the purposeful inaction and blocking tactics of Ted and his co-bottom-feeders?

    All Obama ever asked for was an up-or-down vote on the issues; all he ever received was obstruction and double-talk.

    How the hell could anyone even BE a republican? How can they even STAND to look at themselves in a mirror?

  •  Cue the laugh track... (0+ / 0-)

    It just wouldn't be a wildly entertaining CPAC meeting without the comic stylings of Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and a conservative cast of thousands of similar right-wing, Obama-hating whack-a-doodles.

  •  Cruz and the mentally challanged (0+ / 0-)

    Ted Cruz is simply put, nuts. Obama has used executive privilege less than any of his predecessors over the past 4 decades. The right wing of the GOP has made the GOP a party that is simply dangerous to America's future.
    Enclosed is one thing we can do to fight back. Put America first, support my cause.

    Subject: Cut military spending and re-invest in America's Infrastructure


    Our elected officials have neglected our infrastructure far to long. Continuing to do nothing will cause future economic disaster. We spend more on defense that the next 8 largest military spending nations combined. We can cut military spending, creating tens of thousands of good paying jobs, helping our economy and preserving our economic future. These jobs can benefit our returning veterans. Stop this corporate welfare, put America first.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site