To change without congress. It’s in the 3rd or 4th paragraphs. This nauseates me.

Most legal observers believe the administration has the necessary authority to interpret the law and substantially weaken enforcement of the tax penalty levied on most Americans who fail to obtain coverage. The downside is that unraveling the mandate might ultimately make it harder for Republicans to follow through on their long-standing promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Did you have similar objections to DACA?

I'm not picking on you for this, but I'm always curious about how people on both sides of the political aisle deal with the inconsistencies that taking a party position force people into.

For example, Republicans are big on "Right to Work" laws, which actually insert new governmental regulation into the relationship that an employer can have with a provider of employees (a union). If Republicans actually opposed government regulation, they would also oppose the government from interfering when a company wants to enter into an exclusive provider agreement with a union.

President Obama had a mandate to act from 2 50%+ popular vote victories when he had a congress who was clearly obstructing him for only racist and political reasons. DACA also benefited people and did not result in 13,000,000 deaths as an IM repeal will.

Edit: Apologies - I attributed to you in my response that you argue "ACA is law...........Congress has to change law......can not be done with EO"

Our immigration laws are the law. Congress has to change the law. You cannot change the law with an EO.

But DACA did exactly that. For absolutely noble and laudable reasons, but it still feels like a stretch of executive power. Are you arguing that presidents who are elected with enough votes should have more powerful EO abilities than unpopular presidents? I may have missed that portion of our constitution

The counter story that I try to tell is this:

Imagine that after a horrific school shooting in 2016 Congress passed and Obama signed an assault weapon ban that required owners to turn in assault weapons by June of 2017. Trump is elected, and in February 2017 signs an executive order that tells the ATF to set up a registration program, and to allow anyone who owned an assault weapon prior to 2017 to sign up, pay a $500 fee, and be permanently deferred from having to turn in their gun.

Would this be an overreach of an Executive Order?

If so, how is that different from DACA?

For the most part I love Unions

it was basically prosecutorial discretion.

We can look at each EO separately. We don't have to approve all or them or disapprove of all of them.

Imagine that after a horrific school shooting in 2016 Congress passed and Obama signed an assault weapon ban that required owners to turn in assault weapons by June of 2017. Trump is elected, and in February 2017 signs an executive order that tells the ATF to set up a registration program, and to allow anyone who owned an assault weapon prior to 2017 to sign up, pay a $500 fee, and be permanently deferred from having to turn in their gun.

Still prosecutorial discretion?

Congress and signed into law by Obama, then it would be the law. The Orange Executive Order proposed would contradict that law. Letting people pay to not have to comply with the law would not be prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion could be prioritizing enforcement of other laws and not bothering with making many arrests and pursuing many cases of anyone who violated the law by retaining the assault weapon. Or focusing first on certain areas thought to be more endangered by someone using them, like cities, or focusing on people with criminal records already or arrested for something else but had an assault weapon, too.

In fact with immigration, the ICE is so inundated with potential cases, that they have always focused on criminals, even though noncriminals not legally here are deportable too.

Congress and signed into law by Obama, then it would be the law. The Orange Executive Order proposed would contradict that law. Letting people pay to not have to comply with the law would not be prosecutorial discretion.

DACA specifically allowed people to pay to not comply with the law. You fill out a form, send in a $500 check, and you are not only not subject to prosecution, but also allowed to work legally in the US.

Prosecutorial discretion could be prioritizing enforcement of other laws and not bothering with making many arrests and pursuing many cases of anyone who violated the law by retaining the assault weapon. Or focusing first on certain areas thought to be more endangered by someone using them, like cities, or focusing on people with criminal records already or arrested for something else but had an assault weapon, too.

Again, how is this different from our immigration policies? Go after criminals first. Go after employers who are big violators. Don't break up families. Given that level of discretion that was already in place, why have a special program (DACA) that requires registration and payment? In fact, it goes further than simply "not enforcing the law", but also grants applicants the right to work legally. To use my example, it would be like Trump's executive order allowing registration of assault weapons to also allow people to buy suppressors.

In fact with immigration, the ICE is so inundated with potential cases, that they have always focused on criminals, even though noncriminals not legally here are deportable too.

Absolutely true, and applicable to our federal court system as a whole. If, for example, you order some sleep medication from overseas, you've probably committed a federal crime. If your package is seized by customs, you are subject to prosecution, but because there just isn't the bandwidth to make a federal case out of a couple dozen sleeping pills, you just get a nasty letter that says "don't do that again".

What we don't do is set up a program whereby you register with Customs, pay $500, and then get allowed to order whatever meds you want from overseas.

is provided for under "deferred action" which is provided for in the regulations. The president can decide not to deport people for now, but to defer action (perhaps in favor of prosecuting someone else) and when one is in that state, one can apply for a work permit. It's not paying not to comply, but to process the application saying I'm here, I'm one of the people you want to defer action on.

EOs can't make a new law or change a law, they can only determine how the Executive Branch will enforce the law. So saying file this form to do this or that is and having filing fees for the forms is not paying not to have to comply. It's just paying the process the form.

Donald of Orange could defer action on anyone he choose to, also, like foreign models who aren't legal and ask them to pay a filing fee for the application to make to determine whether they are a 10 or not.

Because we cannot really have any idea what the next occupant of the WH will do with that power.
Same with States Rights. Cons love them states rights, until it comes to things like state MJ legislation, approval and legalisation, and then twats like Sessions remember (all of a sudden) how much they just LOVES them some Federal Power.

Your assessment of Union-Management relationships is an excellent example of the same point...if they really thought it was a private matter, they wouldnt really care one way or another; but they very much DO care. Their problem isnt with the Federal Government, its that the rest of us dont like it much when they attempt to weaponize that government to their own ends.

I think allowing the Executive the power to suspend Habeus Corpus in the Patriot Act was a Bad Idea. I think this, despite the fact that Obama mostly took that responsibility seriously, and didnt abuse that power. But it still shouldnt be there in the first place, because who thinks Trump wont do bad things with it if he could. Who thinks a President's Pence, or god forbid, Cruz, wouldnt find ways to do WORSE.

And I think both parties are guilty of this (making power grabs to the executive because it's faster than legislation), but as you point out, it's an incredibly slippery slope since it basically FORCES you to make inconsistent arguments about executive power when the other side does it.

I actually find the inconsistencies fascinating, because neither party wants to hammer the other on the inconsistencies, because everyone is sitting in their own glass houses.

and doubly again for the people who WANT TO occypy it from the campaign trail).

The problem is political liability, and I think for at least the last half-century at least, Congress has had no real interest in upholding its own Constitutional Responsibilities. Its politically just easier to kick it over to the executive branch, and let THAT guy take the heat for it. Its become a kind of institutional laziness, and I think no one really remembers what it looks like when Congress (as a political body) actually takes itself seriously, including Congress. McConnell wants Power like nobodies business, but he doesnt realize that as long he's Trumps Senate CoffeeBoy, it wont happen. IMPEACH that orange oompla-loompa, and he would have institutional power beyond imagining lol. It only takes ONE Congress to remember what its actually supposed to do for and by our government, and this nations trajectory and governmental dynamic would be changed for about the next 70 years.

and that Trump isn't king.

health care. Republicans, proceed at your own political peril.

Republicans and their greedy ways will be their own demise.

But I recently read that IRS has continued enforcing mandate by charging penalties.