Obamacare and Obama Who Doesn't

The president of the United States pledges an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land. The president has passed a law, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as most people know it, and the law, in toto, was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014. The midterm elections are also going to be held in 2014 and Obama would like the Democratic party to win more seats in the Senate and the House. People generally don't like Obamacare, and companies like it even less than individuals because they will have to pay for their full-time employees in companies that have fifty plus workers.


So Obama has disregarded the fact that Obamacare is the law--a law that is his signature achievement, but now wants to exempt companies from the mandate until the year after the midterm elections. In all probability, he wants companies to keep their full-time employees working full time, and keep the controversy of the suckworthiness of Obamacare off the table. In spite of this, individuals will remain mandated to pay for their Obamacare and this will likely be a hardship on the poorest of individuals.

But the question is whether or not it is constitutional for the president to change a law. The answer is simple: NO. He does not have the authority to change a law unlawfully, and to do so would be dictatorial. However, he may not be opposed because his law is like a Dyson vacuum.

If say, Mitt Romney won in 2012, and Obamacare was signed into law but he did the same as Obama is trying to do now, there would be hell for him to pay and Chris Matthews would call for his impeachment.

Finally, if Obamacare is so wonderful, why did Obama 

Tweet