Trump Vows To Use His Pen On Health Care

[jimnyc]

Would like to hear the exact intent before stating for sure how I feel about this. In general, I love it! But we know what can happen to EO's down the road. But if both sides, and congress as a whole sucks - blammo!

--

Trump Vows To Use His Pen On Health Care

President Donald Trump declared he would get a repeal to the Affordable Care Act by executive order if he needed early Tuesday morning.

“Since Congress can’t get its act together on HealthCare, I will be using the power of the pen to give great HealthCare to many people – FAST,” the president tweeted, suggesting that an executive order is on the way that will address health care.

https://i.imgur.com/zMrIzmf.png

The House of Representatives passed a measure that would have repealed the bill nationally known as Obamacare over the summer, but the Senate remains unable to pass legislation.

The latest Senate initiative sponsored by Sens. Linsey Graham and Bill Cassidy was universally condemned by Democrats, and Republicans like Sen. John McCain asserted they would never support the measure.

The president reportedly reached out to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer last week in an attempt to work out a deal on health care, but if the president is considering unilateral action on the matter, it’s likely the conversation produced little real movement on the issue.

Rest - http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/10/trump-vows-to-use-his-pen-on-healthcare/

[jimnyc]

An early and odd supporter of the Prez.

--

Rand Endorses Trump’s Pending Obamacare Executive Order

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said Tuesday he believes President Donald Trump’s pending Obamacare executive order is “a great plan & a big deal for millions of Americans.”

“This will be a great plan & a big deal for millions of Americans. I’ve been working with @realDonaldTrump for months on this. Details soon,” Paul tweeted Tuesday morning.

https://i.imgur.com/LvXYLje.png

Trump has hinted that he will sign an executive order allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines.

The president has not elaborated on either the details of the plan or the timeline he has for enacting it.

The order is speculated to expand associated health plans. These plans, which include community groups, trade organizations and other entities, could be sold across state lines and would not have to cover all of Obamacare’s essential health benefits.

Paul was a key holdout in the latest GOP push to repeal and replace Obamacare, and has refused to support a single Republican-led attempt to reform health care in 2017. His preliminary backing of Trump’s potential executive order could be the beginning of a major shift in reform discussions going forward.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/10/rand-endorses-trumps-pending-obamacare-executive-order/

[revelarts]

Just Show me the President's Executive power in the constitution to REPEAL laws and I'll be for it too.
Until then It's absolutely clear that it's ILLEGAL for him to do so.
the same as ANY other president's illegal use of the "executive orders".
And just to be clear the President does have room to issue "executive orders" to those under him in the administrative branches but only WITHIN the existing laws.
Anything more is a crime... an impeachable offense...

but don't get me started.

[pete311]

You can't have it both ways if you (Trump and supporters) want any credibility. You either take back everyone said about Obama using EOs or you live the game playin hypocrite life.

[jimnyc]

You can't have it both ways if you (Trump and supporters) want any credibility. You either take back everyone said about Obama using EOs or you live the game playin hypocrite life.

My complaints were laughing at those who complained about the amount GWB used. EVERY president uses them. There's nothing in the world for me to take back. All that matters is whether or not they are good uses, which of course is where all the disagreement comes in.

[jimnyc]

Just Show me the President's Executive power in the constitution to REPEAL laws and I'll be for it too.
Until then It's absolutely clear that it's ILLEGAL for him to do so.
the same as ANY other president's illegal use of the "executive orders".
And just to be clear the President does have room to issue "executive orders" to those under him in the administrative branches but only WITHIN the existing laws.
Anything more is a crime... an impeachable offense...

but don't get me started.

Let's talk about what IS in the COTUS about repealing laws, and we can start there. Please post that stuff.

Furthermore, we don't know what exactly he is planning on repealing yet. This is the major thing I make of this thus far:

Trump has hinted that he will sign an executive order allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Is that repealing laws?

Hey, I MUCH prefer all goes peacefully through congress, but they SUCK, and we see where that is getting us.

[darin]

The whole thing is bullshit.


Our government failed us with ObamaCare. Failed us big time. Our government failed us with rampant executive orders. Using orders to fix SOME of those executive orders is fine...but effectively legislating through one branch is bullshit.

For the record, when courts ORDER congress to pass laws - that's bullshit too.

[revelarts]

My complaints were laughing at those who complained about the amount GWB used. EVERY president uses them. There's nothing in the world for me to take back. All that matters is whether or not they are good uses, which of course is where all the disagreement comes in.

"good uses" are those the words you want to use or do you mean "LEGAL" and "CONSTITUTIONAL" uses Jim?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, it's an honest question.

[jimnyc]

"good uses" are those the words you want to use or do you mean "LEGAL" and "CONSTITUTIONAL" uses Jim?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, it's an honest question.

Both. Of course we want all legislation and orders to be legal and constitutionally sound. But I also mean they should be "good", as in good for America, sound decisions in general.

[pete311]

But I also mean they should be "good", as in good for America, sound decisions in general.
As if that is easy to agree on :)

[darin]

As if that is easy to agree on :)

Don't agree. The truth...wisdom....liberty...doesn't and shouldn't require consensus.

[pete311]

Don't agree. The truth...wisdom....liberty...doesn't and shouldn't require consensus.

You are flying high in the sky when the actual decisions are made in the mud.

[jimnyc]

As if that is easy to agree on :)

Things should be easier than they are, but of course I realize not every decision is easy - hence issues like this. And if folks listened to their constituents, their jobs would be much easier, and the decisions would be much easier to make.

[jimnyc]

I'm curious and will search now, admittedly I haven't before writing this. :)

Pretty much every candidate that ran for president on the right, they call claimed that on day one in office they will repeal Obamacare. Were they all discussing illegal activity?

And I mean that for real, not sarcastically, as I really don't know the law on repealing laws.

[jimnyc]

Rev - thus far, I'm also seeing that if anything "unconstitutional" were to be used in an exec order, it can then be overturned.

[revelarts]

Both. Of course we want all legislation and orders to be legal and constitutionally sound. But I also mean they should be "good", as in good for America, sound decisions in general.


Rev - thus far, I'm also seeing that if anything "unconstitutional" were to be used in an exec order, it can then be overturned.

By DEFAULT there is ZERO room for any president to REPEAL or MAKE-UP any laws by executive order.
it's unconstitutional.

As far as a president DOING IT ANYWAY and then everyone looking around for Congress or the Courts to "overturn" it.
Well what's happened before?
When Bush did it the right claimed it was "necessary" and that Impeachment or the courts Overturning was obviously a just liberal POLITICAL move that'd leave the country in DANGER. When Obama Did did it and courts or congress moved to overturn it the left claimed the moves were just a STUPID or racist Republican tactics.

individual Federal Judges have overturned and or blocked some executive orders only to have other judge BOW to the tyrannical Presidential mandates for political reasons, simply conceding to the executive branch more power ... deferring to the president... for the good or stability of the country... lets move on...
Can't have judges showing that they have more AUTHORITY than the president can we? And Impeachment?!?! well that's just CRAZY TALK if the left or libertarians proposes it.
ANd it's BACKWARDS and/or RACIST if the proposes it. The DARK motives of those proposing it become the ONLY focus, rather than the clear illegal executive overreach.
Frankly Americans (and everyone really) PREFER KING like powers rather than the division of powers we SAY we respect in the constitution.

If Trump tries this he's Doing EXACTLY what Obama did when he bypassed/created law on immigration and invaded Libya etc, and what Bush did on warrentless spying etc.. By Executive Order going BEYOND their constitutional powers, which is breaking the law. Just becasue we think it's GOOD for the country doesn't make it legal and it's NEVER good if the president assumes dictatorial powers even for "good" reason.

[aboutime]

By DEFAULT there is ZERO room for any president to REPEAL or MAKE-UP any laws by executive order.
it's unconstitutional.

As far as a president DOING IT ANYWAY and then everyone looking around for Congress or the Courts to "overturn" it.
Well what's happened before?
When Bush did it the right claimed it was "necessary" and that Impeachment or the courts Overturning was obviously a just liberal POLITICAL move that'd leave the country in DANGER. When Obama Did did it and courts or congress moved to overturn it the left claimed the moves were just a STUPID or racist Republican tactics.

individual Federal Judges have overturned and or blocked some executive orders only to have other judge BOW to the tyrannical Presidential mandates for political reasons, simply conceding to the executive branch more power ... deferring to the president... for the good or stability of the country... lets move on...
Can't have judges showing that they have more AUTHORITY than the president can we? And Impeachment?!?! well that's just CRAZY TALK if the left or libertarians proposes it.
ANd it's BACKWARDS and/or RACIST if the proposes it. The DARK motives of those proposing it become the ONLY focus, rather than the clear illegal executive overreach.
Frankly Americans (and everyone really) PREFER KING like powers rather than the division of powers we SAY we respect in the constitution.

If Trump tries this he's Doing EXACTLY what Obama did when he bypassed/created law on immigration and invaded Libya etc, and what Bush did on warrentless spying etc.. By Executive Order going BEYOND their constitutional powers, which is breaking the law. Just becasue we think it's GOOD for the country doesn't make it legal and it's NEVER good if the president assumes dictatorial powers even for "good" reason.

rev. You need to study a little more. How can Trump violate the constitution by overturning an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Exec. Order? Trump is NOT creating a law by signing this. Obama didn't create a law either. Only Congress can Create Laws, which Obama ignored in the first place. Trump is protecting the American People. Obama did not!

[Kathianne]

Just repeal the damn thing and call it a day.

EO's are not a good substitute for legislation.

[LongTermGuy]

Just repeal the damn thing and call it a day.



Agree...Kat....good to see you dear...I missed you........

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/gallery/sarah-palin-meets-impersonator/suspense-man-in-the-shadows.jpg

[aboutime]

Just repeal the damn thing and call it a day.

EO's are not a good substitute for legislation.
. Kathianne. That's what TRUMP wants to do, but without Congress (the Senate) doing what they need to do; TRUMP has to do it piecemeal, one step at at time with EO's.

Since the RINO's have gathered in the SENATE against Trump....what else can he do?

Trump can't change or write the law that REPEALS Obamacare. As most would and have said...That would be Unconstitutional.

[jimnyc]

I don't think Trump has stated anything about repealing laws to begin with, so folks should slow down until decision are actually made, or exact plans come out. He said he wanted to give people good healthcare, not that he's repealing laws. I'm sure there are a shitload of things that can be eliminated without repealing laws, and also things that can be added, which aren't creating law. Perhaps changes to fix the obamanation of a healthcare bill, since no one else seems capable.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Would like to hear the exact intent before stating for sure how I feel about this. In general, I love it! But we know what can happen to EO's down the road. But if both sides, and congress as a whole sucks - blammo!

--

Trump Vows To Use His Pen On Health Care

President Donald Trump declared he would get a repeal to the Affordable Care Act by executive order if he needed early Tuesday morning.

“Since Congress can’t get its act together on HealthCare, I will be using the power of the pen to give great HealthCare to many people – FAST,” the president tweeted, suggesting that an executive order is on the way that will address health care.

https://i.imgur.com/zMrIzmf.png

The House of Representatives passed a measure that would have repealed the bill nationally known as Obamacare over the summer, but the Senate remains unable to pass legislation.

The latest Senate initiative sponsored by Sens. Linsey Graham and Bill Cassidy was universally condemned by Democrats, and Republicans like Sen. John McCain asserted they would never support the measure.

The president reportedly reached out to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer last week in an attempt to work out a deal on health care, but if the president is considering unilateral action on the matter, it’s likely the conversation produced little real movement on the issue.

Rest - http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/10/trump-vows-to-use-his-pen-on-healthcare/
He's on fox news right now talking about it.

Making it possible for ins companies to compete across state lines is probably the single best thing to happen to health ins EVER.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

EO's are not a good substitute for legislation.
They are when you have a congress and senate that's an absolute do nothing joke that is fighting you every inch of the way.

[revelarts]

ObamaCare is Unconstitutional and congress should have never written it. they should be fired.
the Supreme court should have over thrown it on several grounds. They didn't do their jobs.

And now it seems to me that the only ones who have legal authority to defeat it are:
Congress, by repeal.
The state's admins and legislators by nullification.
State judges could rule against it within states.
Federal judges could rule against it and the Supreme Court revisit it to overthrow it.

finally, the people, with doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, lawyers, and the courts etc just IGNORE IT en mass.
Technically that would be illegal too but what are they going to do arrest half the country?

But the president can't LEGALLY do anything but APPLY the law. He could Ignore it and have all administrative bodies that report to him simply not act on it, but still he'd be breaking his oath to administer the laws made by congress. And would be potentially open for valid criminal charges and impeachment.
Just like a soldier that disobeys or refuses to act upon an order.
the soldier may in fact be doing the right thing, the constitutional thing, for a "good" cause but he or she is still open to court-martial and removal from service if the higher up's don't buy the excuse.

[jimnyc]

But the president can't LEGALLY do anything but APPLY the law. He could Ignore it and have all administrative bodies that report to him simply not act on it, but still he'd be breaking his oath to administer the laws made by congress. And would be potentially open for valid criminal charges and impeachment.
Just like a soldier that disobeys or refuses to act upon an order.
the soldier may in fact be doing the right thing, the constitutional thing, for a "good" cause but he or she is still open to court-martial and removal from service if the higher up's don't buy the excuse.

And he CAN legally make all kinds of changes and implementations without repealing laws.

[jimnyc]

This was written years back in reference to actions potentially by Romney, but things stand the same. While an entire repeal isn't legal - look at what IS legal and can be done. There are many other legal options in addition to what is stated in this article.

--

Constitution Check: Does a president have the power to repeal a federal law?

The statement at issue:
"If our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over a trillion dollars more than we take in every year. So to do that, I'm going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare…”

– Republican president candidate Mitt Romney, in a speech July 11 to the convention of the NAACP in Houston, as reported in various news accounts.

We checked the Constitution, and…
The President of the United States has awesome power, but the Constitution does not give the occupant of that office the authority to “eliminate” a law that has been passed by Congress, whatever the voters may think of that law. It is a fairly common rhetorical flourish for presidential candidates to say something like “when elected, I will repeal” a law. But they can’t.

The process for repealing a law has to begin in Congress. Last week, the House of Representatives made a start on eliminating the new Affordable Care Act, from end to end. By a roll-call vote of 244 to 185, the House passed H.R. 6079, to wipe out the law as of March 23, 2010, the day it was signed by President Obama. In the words of the bill, the law would be eliminated “as if such Act had not been enacted.”

.....

Would a President Romney be able to do anything to keep the law from going into full effect at the beginning of 2014, as it is presently scheduled to do? He would have a number of options, and each would presumably be constitutional.

He could order the Internal Revenue Service to stop enforcing the penalty that the ACA will impose on those who fail to obtain health insurance policies by 2014. That insurance-purchase mandate is the heart of the ACA, and the entire law might be in some jeopardy if that provision were to become a virtual dead letter. The Supreme Court last Monday ruled that the penalty is, in legal terms, a tax, and the President would be in a position to direct IRS not to use the few tools of enforcement that are available in the ACA.

Because the penalty is now designated as a tax, Congress could simply repeal it using a somewhat complex procedure known as “reconciliation.” Under that procedure, a bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate, so it would require only a majority vote to pass that chamber. As a matter of fact, Congress used this procedure – after the initial passage of the ACA – to make some changes in it without encountering a filibuster.

Moreover, the White House could order the federal Health & Human Services Department to slow down, or perhaps abandon, the massive project of writing new regulations to implement the health care law.

...

Rest - https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-does-a-president-have-the-power-to-repeal-a-federal-law

[Gunny]

And he CAN legally make all kinds of changes and implementations without repealing laws.Constitutionally, there is not. "Changing" law is "making" law; which, is Congress' job. SO's are in fact Unconstitutional. They aren't okay just because your flavor has the pen.

The reality of it is: it's accepted practice. I can't think of a single Article in the Bill of Rights and/or Amendments thereto the US Government does NOT wipe its ass with. Looks good on paper, but you have only the Rights the government allows you; which, are usually those Rights the Whining Minority convince career politicians will get them reelected.

There is no free speech. Look at the last couple of months, or years. Anything that says or depicts "God" removed from public property. More recently, anything Confederate. Let's erase history with a pen and pretend it never happened.

You have the Right to keep and bear arms only if you pass Big Brother's smell test.

Innocent until proven guilty. What a joke. The whole act of putting you in jail to begin with presumes just the opposite. Our whole judicial system is based on the presumption of guilt. You have to prove your innocence to get out. And you WILL be flat-ass broke when you do if you do. Justice is blind? THAT's the truth. The DA gets points for a conviction, not the truth.

10th Amendment? Not worth the ink.

It's all a side show and we care about what we are told to never mind the "elephant" (US Constitution) in the room.

You have the Right to remain silent but if you do you will be presumed guilty. If you speak, your words are twisted in something you never said.

[jimnyc]

Constitutionally, there is not. "Changing" law is "making" law; which, is Congress' job. SO's are in fact Unconstitutional. They aren't okay just because your flavor has the pen.

Did you read the post just above yours before replying? Yeah, but without actually touching the POS, he can use the pen and devour it anyway - and rightfully so.

[jimnyc]

Executive Orders are presidential directives issued by United States Presidents and are generally directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders may have the force of law, if based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)

It's legal and CAN be making law (not in this instance).

[aboutime]

One of the first “orders” of business for President Donald Trump was signing an executive order to weaken Obamacare, while Republicans figure out how to replace it. So what powers do executive orders have?

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

[aboutime]

And he CAN legally make all kinds of changes and implementations without repealing laws.



rev. In case you missed it intentionally. You might want to check what your statement really was. HERE:https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

[Gunny]

Did you read the post just above yours before replying? Yeah, but without actually touching the POS, he can use the pen and devour it anyway - and rightfully so.I disagree on the "rightfully so". I read your post. You think it's okay because you agree with it. Understand completely. Doesn't make it Constitutionally correct.

Obamacare itself is Unconstitutional but look at the leftwingnut trap the Dems have laid out for Republicans and the're taking the bait. Dissatisfied with a law that is Unconstitutional, the Republicans are going to "fix" something Unconstitutional rather than overturn it completely. There is no Constitutional Right to health care. But the left has its toe in the door because doing the Constitutionally correct thing is unpopular. The crowd wants its freebies now. Same tactic they use EVERY time and the Republicans bite EVERY time.

I didn't agree with Bush using SO's and I don't agree with Trump using them. I sure as sh*t didn't agree with anything Obama signed up to and including his autograph. He was probably lying about THAT too.

I disagree with the tactic because it is not permanent. Next bozo comes along can just tear it up like it was never there. I also thing the GOP should censure those Senators that won't go along or pressure them out. They'll sure as Hell do it if the Dems accuse them of anything. It needs to be law, and within the Constitution. That means dumped completely.

[hjmick]

Didn't like Executive Orders then, don't like them now. Feels too much like an end run around the system, and that's not right.


You want to declare October 13th National Frozen fucking Yogurt Day? I'm good with your Executive Order. You want to change a law, create a loophole? Not so much. if you can't get your change the right way, tough. Might be time to examine your ability to lead, or consider that maybe your ideas aren't quite ready for prime time.


I seem to recall a bit of pissing and moaning when Obama use the power of the Executive Order, what's different?

[aboutime]

Didn't like Executive Orders then, don't like them now. Feels too much like an end run around the system, and that's not right.


You want to declare October 13th National Frozen fucking Yogurt Day? I'm good with your Executive Order. You want to change a law, create a loophole? Not so much. if you can't get your change the right way, tough. Might be time to examine your ability to lead, or consider that maybe your ideas aren't quite ready for prime time.


I seem to recall a bit of pissing and moaning when Obama use the power of the Executive Order, what's different?

hjmick. Most of what Obama did was intentionally against the Constitution, and was illegal. But he ignored both, and tried to create his own laws with E.O.'s. Trump isn't doing any of that. And, every President has used them.

[jimnyc]

Didn't like Executive Orders then, don't like them now. Feels too much like an end run around the system, and that's not right.


You want to declare October 13th National Frozen fucking Yogurt Day? I'm good with your Executive Order. You want to change a law, create a loophole? Not so much. if you can't get your change the right way, tough. Might be time to examine your ability to lead, or consider that maybe your ideas aren't quite ready for prime time.


I seem to recall a bit of pissing and moaning when Obama use the power of the Executive Order, what's different?

I don't know who pissed and moaned, but that's their business.

If congress had an actual clue, and could actually resolve major legislation, that's where obviously everything belongs. This issue HAS been in front of them endlessly, and all these idiots still can't get it right. It does have to do with leadership - the leadership in congress, and it's been a huge problem for a few decades at the very least.

Trump and Rand Paul, on this particular issue, are taking steps to make things better, with what they are able to do. Congress is still more than welcome, if they are capable, of putting forth an actual plan that is liked and will pass with the necessary votes. But in the mean time, the changes that will be implemented, are hugely necessary for our healthcare in our nation, and these steps cost nothing. Repealing the entire bill would be doing an end around. Signing an EO to make a few changes, changes that congress has shown time and time again they can't seem to figure out, is well with his duties and also a wise and sound decision.

The ideas that apparently were ready for "prime time" got congress where? Absolutely nowhere. After quite a few attempts and 7 years of planning.

Things are getting done. Folks don't like him, so getting things done is a negative.

It started with some with the constitutionality of any such order, depending on what is in it. If it's to be shown that it falls within the realm of his powers and constitutional, then the goal posts will keep moving, and another reason will be found as to why he shouldn't have made such a decision.

I think it's worth repeating again, since the things mentioned could be directed towards such agencies or similar.

Executive Orders are presidential directives issued by United States Presidents and are generally directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders may have the force of law, if based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)

[Black Diamond]

I don't know who pissed and moaned, but that's their business.

If congress had an actual clue, and could actually resolve major legislation, that's where obviously everything belongs. This issue HAS been in front of them endlessly, and all these idiots still can't get it right. It does have to do with leadership - the leadership in congress, and it's been a huge problem for a few decades at the very least.

Trump and Rand Paul, on this particular issue, are taking steps to make things better, with what they are able to do. Congress is still more than welcome, if they are capable, of putting forth an actual plan that is liked and will pass with the necessary votes. But in the mean time, the changes that will be implemented, are hugely necessary for our healthcare in our nation, and these steps cost nothing. Repealing the entire bill would be doing an end around. Signing an EO to make a few changes, changes that congress has shown time and time again they can't seem to figure out, is well with his duties and also a wise and sound decision.

The ideas that apparently were ready for "prime time" got congress where? Absolutely nowhere. After quite a few attempts and 7 years of planning.

Things are getting done. Folks don't like him, so getting things done is a negative.

It started with some with the constitutionality of any such order, depending on what is in it. If it's to be shown that it falls within the realm of his powers and constitutional, then the goal posts will keep moving, and another reason will be found as to why he shouldn't have made such a decision.

I think it's worth repeating again, since the things mentioned could be directed towards such agencies or similar.

Executive Orders are presidential directives issued by United States Presidents and are generally directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders may have the force of law, if based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)
Did republicans in congress really plan? Or were they planning on Hillary ?

[jimnyc]

I disagree on the "rightfully so". I read your post. You think it's okay because you agree with it. Understand completely. Doesn't make it Constitutionally correct.

Obamacare itself is Unconstitutional but look at the leftwingnut trap the Dems have laid out for Republicans and the're taking the bait. Dissatisfied with a law that is Unconstitutional, the Republicans are going to "fix" something Unconstitutional rather than overturn it completely. There is no Constitutional Right to health care. But the left has its toe in the door because doing the Constitutionally correct thing is unpopular. The crowd wants its freebies now. Same tactic they use EVERY time and the Republicans bite EVERY time.

I didn't agree with Bush using SO's and I don't agree with Trump using them. I sure as sh*t didn't agree with anything Obama signed up to and including his autograph. He was probably lying about THAT too.

I disagree with the tactic because it is not permanent. Next bozo comes along can just tear it up like it was never there. I also thing the GOP should censure those Senators that won't go along or pressure them out. They'll sure as Hell do it if the Dems accuse them of anything. It needs to be law, and within the Constitution. That means dumped completely.

The other thread, discussed by Rand Paul explaining what the EO will be doing. Please explain, one of you, how that order will be unconstitutional? As per Rand Paul himself - "Existing law allows the President to legalize these new groups and plans."

So thus, other than YOU not liking or agreeing with this, I really don't see where this is unconstitutional. Hell, NO WAY someone like Rand is running with this if it was.

[jimnyc]

Did republicans in congress really plan? Or were they planning on Hillary ?

I think they would have found ways, while maybe not so quickly - and I think there would be less fuss about it. But they would still be screwed - as Hillary would have vetoed anyway - and congress would have sucked anyway! :laugh:

[Black Diamond]

I think they would have found ways, while maybe not so quickly - and I think there would be less fuss about it. But they would still be screwed - as Hillary would have vetoed anyway - and congress would have sucked anyway! :laugh:
See that's what happened with Obama. He kept vetoing. Ryan was preparing everyone for Hillary. So their repeal attempts were all ruses imo.

[revelarts]

And he CAN legally make all kinds of changes and implementations without repealing laws.
He can't constitutionally make any changes and stay within his constitutional presidential role.
He can implement the law slowly or with more emphasis on some parts than others. as long as he "executes the laws".
Whatever desecration the law gives the President is the ONLY place that he can constitutionally move.


This was written years back in reference to actions potentially by Romney, but things stand the same. While an entire repeal isn't legal - look at what IS legal and can be done. There are many other legal options in addition to what is stated in this article.

--

Constitution Check: Does a president have the power to repeal a federal law?
The statement at issue:
"If our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over a trillion dollars more than we take in every year. So to do that, I'm going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare…”
– Republican president candidate Mitt Romney, in a speech July 11 to the convention of the NAACP in Houston, as reported in various news accounts.

We checked the Constitution, and…...

Seems Romney was ready to ignore the constitution as well. I said as much while he was running.
It's my understanding He can't just "eliminate" laws without congress. He could have eliminated various agencies that had no real function or whose legislative mandate/jobs was or could be covered elsewhere.



He could order the Internal Revenue Service to stop enforcing the penalty that the ACA will impose on those who fail to obtain health insurance policies by 2014. That insurance-purchase mandate is the heart of the ACA, and the entire law might be in some jeopardy if that provision were to become a virtual dead letter. The Supreme Court last Monday ruled that the penalty is, in legal terms, a tax, and the President would be in a position to direct IRS not to use the few tools of enforcement that are available in the ACA.
telling the IRS to STOP outright puts Him unconstitutional territory.
If the LAW SAYS xyz then the president is constitutionally OBLIGATED to enforce it.




Moreover, the White House could order the federal Health & Human Services Department to slow down, or perhaps abandon, the massive project of writing new regulations to implement the health care law.
Rest - https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-does-a-president-have-the-power-to-repeal-a-federal-law

yes, going SLOW is within his power, Abandoning no.


It doesn't matter WHICH president DOESit/DIDit or for WHAT reason ANY E.O that directly adds to or changes even portions of laws from congress is unconstitutional.
ANd leave the president subject to legal consequences .
the constitution simply leaves no room for President to do that.

If we want to go by the constitution that is. If we want to go by "what Other people did" well OK fine. Let's just stop pretending that we really CARE about the constitution then.

[Black Diamond]

I disagree on the "rightfully so". I read your post. You think it's okay because you agree with it. Understand completely. Doesn't make it Constitutionally correct.

Obamacare itself is Unconstitutional but look at the leftwingnut trap the Dems have laid out for Republicans and the're taking the bait. Dissatisfied with a law that is Unconstitutional, the Republicans are going to "fix" something Unconstitutional rather than overturn it completely. There is no Constitutional Right to health care. But the left has its toe in the door because doing the Constitutionally correct thing is unpopular. The crowd wants its freebies now. Same tactic they use EVERY time and the Republicans bite EVERY time.

I didn't agree with Bush using SO's and I don't agree with Trump using them. I sure as sh*t didn't agree with anything Obama signed up to and including his autograph. He was probably lying about THAT too.

I disagree with the tactic because it is not permanent. Next bozo comes along can just tear it up like it was never there. I also thing the GOP should censure those Senators that won't go along or pressure them out. They'll sure as Hell do it if the Dems accuse them of anything. It needs to be law, and within the Constitution. That means dumped completely.
Unconstitutional to undo something unconstitutional. Thanks Roberts and. Thanks McCain. If trump gets away with this which is about 50/50, it will either lower prices or slow the growth of prices. If it slows the increase, people will still bitch or blame trump for making things more expensive

[jimnyc]

It doesn't matter WHICH president DOESit/DIDit or for WHAT reason ANY E.O that directly adds to or changes even portions of laws from congress is unconstitutional.
ANd leave the president subject to legal consequences .
the constitution simply leaves no room for President to do that.

If we want to go by the constitution that is. If we want to go by "what Other people did" well OK fine. Let's just stop pretending that we really CARE about the constitution then.

I've read articles from judges today, Rand Paul in various takes and of course political pundits. None are saying it's unconstitutional, certainly not Rand!! If it did, as I said from the get go, then I would have an issue. Fact is, it's 100% legal. I can't prove it, as legal is legal, but you guys are free to prove that they are all wrong, WH lawyers are wrong and show how it's illegal aka unconstitutional. It's not "law changes" as you seem to think.

[jimnyc]

Another angle:

Paul: Trump executive order on Obamacare is simply ‘legalizing’ a First Amendment right

Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday that President Trump’s executive order is simply “legalizing” an existing “freedom.”

“The difference is President Obama created programs by executive actions. This is just legalizing a freedom that’s in the First Amendment,” Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican, said on Fox News.

Mr. Paul praised the president’s actions in allowing people to form assemblies and purchasing health care plans across state lines. Mr. Trump’s executive order will encourage people to take such actions and buy plans across state lines saying it will further lower health coverage costs. Officials say that the order will hopefully roll out in the next six months.

“It’s been available for previous presidents, Republicans and Democrats, to legalize this. The law of the 1970s is actually loosely worded and doesn’t appear to prevent people joining together in associations across state lines to get their insurance, and to use that leverage to get cheaper prices. And no administration has been bold enough in the past to actually look at the original law and say, hey guys I don’t think they meant to stop us from allowing association plans,” he said.

Mr. Paul pushed back against claims that this allowance would provide a lower quality coverage arguing that it’s the same plan many corporations in America currently have for their employees. He also said that if this is part of a future Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare he would likely support it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/12/rand-paul-says-trumps-executive-order-legalizing-e/

[revelarts]

@jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1)
from your Ron Paul articles,

...Existing law allows the President to legalize these new groups and plans. Where previous administrations have been weak, President Trump is bold to allow this reform...



I'm not sure what "existing law" Paul is talking about I wish he were more specific.
But if the LAW has to do with interstate commerce regs I'm not sure how the president would have that discretionary authority there. unless it's specifically written Into the law. which would be weird. OR if a previous president already ASSUMED that authority in the past under the dept of Labor or something and Trump is now going to exploit the previous unconstitutional power grab.

Without seeing the details all we have to go on are Trump's and Paul's assurances that "it's legal" trust us.

But Overall I like the Idea, CONGRESS should have open up interstate medical insurance options and groups LONG AGO.
this idea is not NEW, I could be wrong but I want to say people have been asking for that for decades.. literally since Reagan.

[jimnyc]

Another angle yet: apparently it doesn't even touch obamacare, so no law change

Rand Paul defends Trump's use of executive order: He's not creating new law

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) defended President Trump's use of an executive order on Thursday, after Republicans previously criticized former President Obama for overusing the tool to bypass Congress.

"We're creating something that is freedom. He's not creating a new government program," Paul told CNN's Jake Tapper.

"We've read the original law and we believe what the president did today is basically an interpretation of the original law, and doesn't create new territory," he continued.

Trump earlier in the day directed government agencies to begin to roll back parts of ObamaCare, after Republicans in Congress failed to pass legislation to repeal and replace Obama's signature health-care law.

Trump’s order will allow agencies to expand the ability of small businesses and other groups to band together to buy health insurance through what are known as association health plans.

Paul said Trump was "legalizing the ability for individuals to join a group to get better purchasing power."

"There's no government expense to this, and under the First Amendment there is a clause that says we have the right to peaceably assemble. That has been taken over time to be the right of free association, and it's also been said by the Supreme Court to actually say that we can join together for economic purposes. So all we're doing is legalizing the ability for individuals to join a group to get better purchasing power. I think it's sort of a fundamentally American what we're advocating," he said.

While the executive order does not make changes to ObamaCare itself, it directs agencies to roll out new regulations and guidance.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/355220-rand-paul-defends-trumps-use-of-executive-order-hes-reinterpreting-original

[revelarts]

Another angle yet: apparently it doesn't even touch obamacare, so no law change
Rand Paul defends Trump's use of executive order: He's not creating new law
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) defended President Trump's use of an executive order on Thursday, after Republicans previously criticized former President Obama for overusing the tool to bypass Congress.
"We're creating something that is freedom. He's not creating a new government program," Paul told CNN's Jake Tapper.
"We've read the original law and we believe what the president did today is basically an interpretation of the original law, and doesn't create new territory," he continued.
Trump earlier in the day directed government agencies to begin to roll back parts of ObamaCare, after Republicans in Congress failed to pass legislation to repeal and replace Obama's signature health-care law.
Trump’s order will allow agencies to expand the ability of small businesses and other groups to band together to buy health insurance through what are known as association health plans.
Paul said Trump was "legalizing the ability for individuals to join a group to get better purchasing power."
"There's no government expense to this, and under the First Amendment there is a clause that says we have the right to peaceably assemble. That has been taken over time to be the right of free association, and it's also been said by the Supreme Court to actually say that we can join together for economic purposes. So all we're doing is legalizing the ability for individuals to join a group to get better purchasing power. I think it's sort of a fundamentally American what we're advocating," he said.
While the executive order does not make changes to ObamaCare itself, it directs agencies to roll out new regulations and guidance.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/355220-rand-paul-defends-trumps-use-of-executive-order-hes-reinterpreting-original


"...While the executive order does not make changes to ObamaCare itself, it directs agencies to roll out new regulations and guidance..."

OK I'm cool with the 1st part.
but where's the authority come for the 2nd? Any clue ? Or are we just trusting the politicians to do what's right here becasue they have R's beside their names?

As i said I think the CHANGE is a great idea, LONG overdue, but does TRUMP have the legal authority to do it?
It's not a HARD question to answer. All he or Paul or someone has to do is SITE the LAW that allows him to tell the agencies to ROLL OUT NEW REGULATIONS/LAWS.

Obama did the same with Immigration. He didn't "change any laws", he just directed agencies, changed and created a NEW "regulations".

Problem with the the left is they don't really CARE about the constitution.
Problem with the Right is they like to SAY they care about the constitution but are somehow always in denial of (or approving of) unconstitutional activity that they LIKE.

[Black Diamond]

See if he gets away with it. And if rates continue to climb, even if at a decreasing rate, the media and the left will blame trump.

[revelarts]

See if he gets away with it. And if rates continue to climb, even if at a decreasing rate, the media and the left will blame trump.

Umm Newsflash, the Media will NEVER like Trump.

[Black Diamond]

Umm Newsflash, the Media will NEVER like Trump.
When did I say they would ? And they sure liked the ratings they got when they essentially gave him free commercials.

[Gunny]

I don't know who pissed and moaned, but that's their business.

If congress had an actual clue, and could actually resolve major legislation, that's where obviously everything belongs. This issue HAS been in front of them endlessly, and all these idiots still can't get it right. It does have to do with leadership - the leadership in congress, and it's been a huge problem for a few decades at the very least.

Trump and Rand Paul, on this particular issue, are taking steps to make things better, with what they are able to do. Congress is still more than welcome, if they are capable, of putting forth an actual plan that is liked and will pass with the necessary votes. But in the mean time, the changes that will be implemented, are hugely necessary for our healthcare in our nation, and these steps cost nothing. Repealing the entire bill would be doing an end around. Signing an EO to make a few changes, changes that congress has shown time and time again they can't seem to figure out, is well with his duties and also a wise and sound decision.

The ideas that apparently were ready for "prime time" got congress where? Absolutely nowhere. After quite a few attempts and 7 years of planning.

Things are getting done. Folks don't like him, so getting things done is a negative.

It started with some with the constitutionality of any such order, depending on what is in it. If it's to be shown that it falls within the realm of his powers and constitutional, then the goal posts will keep moving, and another reason will be found as to why he shouldn't have made such a decision.

I think it's worth repeating again, since the things mentioned could be directed towards such agencies or similar.

Executive Orders are presidential directives issued by United States Presidents and are generally directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders may have the force of law, if based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)
Repealing the entire Bill would be Constitutional. The authority to write/rewrite law by the Executive Branch alone cannot be derived from the Constitution as it usurps the Legislative Branch's authority. THERE is your end around. An end around the legislative branch by the executive branch.

The legislature does not have the Constitutional authority to delegate its authority to another equal branch of government. It defeats the division of powers which is whole purpose for 3 branches of government to exist in the first place.

And just because so-n-so did it won't get you out of even a trip to jail if it's wrong.

You are mixing your desires with what is the correct thing to do. And I personally don't see the benefit to turning health care -- which is not a Constitutional Right to begin with -- into class action medicine for the so-called "poor". How about instead, we don't drop the tax percentage for the wealthy and middle class while raising the taxes on the lowest income earners 2%? That's basically saying "fuck retirees" because they are the ones who are trapped in that income bracket with no one that I've seen going to bat for them.

You want Trump to just whip it out on a piece aof paper and the next guy can just tear it up and say "nope". That's NOT doing what you can the right way. It's putting lipstick on a pig.

[Black Diamond]

Repealing the entire Bill would be Constitutional. The authority to write/rewrite law by the Executive Branch alone cannot be derived from the Constitution as it usurps the Legislative Branch's authority. THERE is your end around. An end around the legislative branch by the executive branch.

The legislature does not have the Constitutional authority to delegate its authority to another equal branch of government. It defeats the division of powers which is whole purpose for 3 branches of government to exist in the first place.

And just because so-n-so did it won't get you out of even a trip to jail if it's wrong.

You are mixing your desires with what is the correct thing to do. And I personally don't see the benefit to turning health care -- which is not a Constitutional Right to begin with -- into class action medicine for the so-called "poor". How about instead, we don't drop the tax percentage for the wealthy and middle class while raising the taxes on the lowest income earners 2%? That's basically saying "fuck retirees" because they are the ones who are trapped in that income bracket with no one that I've seen going to bat for them.

You want Trump to just whip it out on a piece aof paper and the next guy can just tear it up and say "nope". That's NOT doing what you can the right way. It's putting lipstick on a pig.
plus trump will be blamed when costs don't go down. instead of obama/congress.

[jimnyc]

Repealing the entire Bill would be Constitutional. The authority to write/rewrite law by the Executive Branch alone cannot be derived from the Constitution as it usurps the Legislative Branch's authority. THERE is your end around. An end around the legislative branch by the executive branch.

The legislature does not have the Constitutional authority to delegate its authority to another equal branch of government. It defeats the division of powers which is whole purpose for 3 branches of government to exist in the first place.

And just because so-n-so did it won't get you out of even a trip to jail if it's wrong.

You are mixing your desires with what is the correct thing to do. And I personally don't see the benefit to turning health care -- which is not a Constitutional Right to begin with -- into class action medicine for the so-called "poor". How about instead, we don't drop the tax percentage for the wealthy and middle class while raising the taxes on the lowest income earners 2%? That's basically saying "fuck retirees" because they are the ones who are trapped in that income bracket with no one that I've seen going to bat for them.

You want Trump to just whip it out on a piece aof paper and the next guy can just tear it up and say "nope". That's NOT doing what you can the right way. It's putting lipstick on a pig.

No, repealing the entire thing would NOT be constitutional, he doesn't have the authority to repeal law. You keep saying I am mixing desires, I'm not. You are the one getting the LAW wrong. Stop guessing, about both.

[Black Diamond]

No, repealing the entire thing would NOT be constitutional, he doesn't have the authority to repeal law. You keep saying I am mixing desires, I'm not. You are the one getting the LAW wrong. Stop guessing, about both.
i can't imagine the order won't be challenged. I keep thinking of the 9th district.

[Gunny]

No, repealing the entire thing would NOT be constitutional, he doesn't have the authority to repeal law. You keep saying I am mixing desires, I'm not. You are the one getting the LAW wrong. Stop guessing, about both.Read up a couple of posts. I mean repeal the law correctly. I know he can't because of idiots like whatever you called McLame, or even Rand Paul. Votes "no" on legislation then a big "yes" on Trump being on the hook alone.

I'm not arguing the fairness of anything. My sole point is it's Unconstitutional. I'm sure popularity will win over the law though, it always does. Colorado set record sales of marijuana last year. Some record. What's it been? 1 year? There's a federal law prohibiting the sale and/or consumption. Then we can do sanctuary cities. That's covered by federal law as well. States devising ways around the Second Amendment? In IL, you don't have to register your firearms. Just yourself. List goes on.

What I think is right is irrelevant. What the law actually says, it says.

[Black Diamond]

Read up a couple of posts. I mean repeal the law correctly. I know he can't because of idiots like whatever you called McLame, or even Rand Paul. Votes "no" on legislation then a big "yes" on Trump being on the hook alone.

I'm not arguing the fairness of anything. My sole point is it's Unconstitutional. I'm sure popularity will win over the law though, it always does. Colorado set record sales of marijuana last year. Some record. What's it been? 1 year? There's a federal law prohibiting the sale and/or consumption. Then we can do sanctuary cities. That's covered by federal law as well. States devising ways around the Second Amendment? In IL, you don't have to register your firearms. Just yourself. List goes on.

What I think is right is irrelevant. What the law actually says, it says.
Presidents are going to write executive orders. Precedent has been set and they will dare the other branches to stop them.

[Gunny]

Presidents are going to write executive orders. Precedent has been set and they will dare the other branches to stop them.I made that point. I quite understand that Presidents are going to write signing orders. That STILL does not make them Constitutional if they create or change law.

AND the President can be stopped by Congress. Trump's just lucky Republicans have no balls. They cut Andrew Johnson off at the nuts. He couldn't sign a personal check when they got done with him.

Speaking of no balls ... these Congress critters that wouldn't back Trump's Bill but are suddenly cheerleading his SO make me sick. Can you say "reelection?" They're worried about their asses when campaign time rolls around. Worthless, gutless perfect examples of the bureaucracy in government.

[Black Diamond]

I made that point. I quite understand that Presidents are going to write signing orders. That STILL does not make them Constitutional if they create or change law.

AND the President can be stopped by Congress. Trump's just lucky Republicans have no balls. They cut Andrew Johnson off at the nuts. He couldn't sign a personal check when they got done with him.

Speaking of no balls ... these Congress critters that wouldn't back Trump's Bill but are suddenly cheerleading his SO make me sick. Can you say "reelection?" They're worried about their asses when campaign time rolls around. Worthless, gutless perfect examples of the bureaucracy in government.
I am not convinced trump won't be challenged. Ninth district.

[Gunny]

I am not convinced trump won't be challenged. Ninth district.What could they challenge him on? IIRC, isn't part of Obamacare ALSO SO's? I recall Congress not passing some of his sh*t and he went end-around. Now, putting aside the Constitutional issue of Trump using SO's ... wouldn't they have to be unconstitutional before a court could challenge them?

[Black Diamond]

What could they challenge him on? IIRC, isn't part of Obamacare ALSO SO's? I recall Congress not passing some of his sh*t and he went end-around. Now, putting aside the Constitutional issue of Trump using SO's ... wouldn't they have to be unconstitutional before a court could challenge them?
Trump gets stood up to much quicker than the porch monkey.

[Gunny]

Trump gets stood up to much quicker than the porch monkey.Has Obamacare itself been through the Supreme Court? I don't remember. If it hasn't, challenging an unconstitutional SO of an unconstitutional law might be opening a can of worms lefties don't want to touch.

[Black Diamond]

Has Obamacare itself been through the Supreme Court? I don't remember. If it hasn't, challenging an unconstitutional SO of an unconstitutional law might be opening a can of worms lefties don't want to touch.
Yes it was. That's why I call it Roberts care. And in your model of congress can stand up to him , how many votes would be necessary? If all the dems, Collins, the Alaskan senator and mctumor vote against him , is that enough to get rid of his EO?

[Gunny]

Yes it was. That's why I call it Roberts care. And in your model of congress can stand up to him , how many votes would be necessary? If all the dems, Collins, the Alaskan senator and mctumor vote against him , is that enough to get rid of his EO?If the Dems and the RINOs/anti-Trumpies in Congress ALL stand up to him, they have enough actually to impeach him but certainly enough to stop anything he does. all they would have to do is enact a laws that counter anything he does.

[Black Diamond]

If the Dems and the RINOs/anti-Trumpies in Congress ALL stand up to him, they have enough actually to impeach him but certainly enough to stop anything he does. all they would have to do is enact a laws that counter anything he does.
How would they enact laws he can veto ? Or would they have enough to override veto?

[Gunny]

How would they enact laws he can veto ? Or would they have enough to override veto?It takes 2/3's to override a veto. The Dems PLUS the RINOs.anti-Trumpies could do it.

Don't see that happening though. The NEOCONs/anti-Trumpies don't have enough collective balls to do it. And it would take all of the above.

[Black Diamond]

It takes 2/3's to override a veto. The Dems PLUS the RINOs.anti-Trumpies could do it.

Don't see that happening though. The NEOCONs/anti-Trumpies don't have enough collective balls to do it. And it would take all of the above.
Ok. 2/3 probably won't happen. But I can see McCain murkowski and Collins getting on board.


No worries about 9th district ?

[Gunny]

Ok. 2/3 probably won't happen. But I can see McCain murkowski and Collins getting on board.


No worries about 9th district ?The thing is, the court (9th District) cannot challenge law. The judiciary's REAL function is to interpret law. It's a perfect example of what I meant earlier about the Constitution -- legislation from the bench is also unconstitutional.

Anyway, WHO is going to challenge the law? Someone has to challenge it on legal grounds before the court can hear it. Then it has to wind its way through the mill. I'm not familiar enough with the law because it doesn't impact me at the paying level. I have insurance. It affects me at the user level by overcrowding medical services. The 9th District though cannot just decide to act on a law not presented to it.

[Black Diamond]

The thing is, the court (9th District) cannot challenge law. The judiciary's REAL function is to interpret law. It's a perfect example of what I meant earlier about the Constitution -- legislation from the bench is also unconstitutional.

Anyway, WHO is going to challenge the law? Someone has to challenge it on legal grounds before the court can hear it. Then it has to wind its way through the mill. I'm not familiar enough with the law because it doesn't impact me at the paying level. I have insurance. It affects me at the user level by overcrowding medical services. The 9th District though cannot just decide to act on a law not presented to it.
I am feeling extra cynical today. But every time trump
accomplshes something or is on the cusp of accomplishing something it seems like some MFer screws it up.

[Gunny]

I am feeling extra cynical today. But every time trump
accomplshes something or is on the cusp of accomplishing something it seems like some MFer screws it up.Someone within 9th District would have to file suit against the Signing Order itself. Then, a 9th District Court would have to disagree with the lawsuit for it to reach the 9th District Court of Appeals.

If a 9th District Judge agrees with the lawsuit and rules in favor of the plaintiff, then Trump has the Right to appeal. If the 9th District Court of Appeals upholds the ruling, I believe Trump still can appeal to the next higher court (Supreme Court?)

OR .... going Trump's route, he could just reword it and produce another Signing Order that says essentially the same thing.

[aboutime]

But Trump is smarter than all of his adversaries who hate him so much.

He knows how to DISTRACT attention...using his tweets, while paying much more attention to the valuable, important stuff the MSM, and Liberals hate so much.

It's almost like a game for Trump. Make everybody be confused, wondering, and making FAKE NEWS, while he enjoys pulling their strings enough to make them run around like chickens with their EMPTY heads off.

Nobody wants to give him any credit for anything. So he just quietly laughs at them, and gets stuff done behind their LYING backs.

Remember how the libs accused Bush of doing all kinds of terrible things...while at the same time...insisting he wasn't smart enough to actually do those terrible things?

Trump is a master of delusion with the FAKE news crowd. And he has fun doing it.

[Gunny]

Black Diamond You called it. Several states have filed suit in CA to get an injunction against payments be halted.