There is growing talk now about the lawlessness of President Obama. Our President is superseding the authority of the Executive branch. Obama is changing the ObamaCare law waiving for one year the “employer mandate” that requires employer-plan insurance coverage to comply with ObamaCare. By law, albeit unconstitutional, employers were supposed to comply with ObamaCare on January 1st this year. If employers did not, they would be forced to terminate their insurance plans, face debilitating fines, or terminate employees.
Our Constitution clearly states only Congress the “legislative branch” has the authority to make and change federal laws, not the President the “executive branch.” ObamaCare is the federal law because Congress wrote it and authorized it. Of course, ObamaCare is un-Constitutional. However, it is the law of the land until Congress revokes it, or the Supreme Court rules it un-Constitutional. The President cannot willy-nilly change the laws authorized by Congress. The President’s job is to execute the laws of the land whether he likes them or not.
The fact here is that President Obama doesn’t even like his own law, ObamaCare. Well, let me rephrase that: Obama loves ObamaCare, the American voters hate ObamaCare, and there is an election coming this fall.
Here is the larger issue of lawlessness. The law of the land states employers must offer to employees the same coverage ObamaCare mandates. Now the President is saying employers don’t have to follow the letter of the law for one year—until after the election. Uh?
Employers don’t know what to do. Do they follow the letter of the ObamaCare law? Or, can they legally wait a full year before adhering to the ObamaCare law? They don’t know. Employers hate the ObamaCare law, but they want to follow the law of the land.
The law says one thing, and yet the President is delaying its implementation. This is problematic legally for employers and insurance companies. Employers want to comply with the law so they have legal standing in court, but since January 1st they don’t know where they stand legally. This is a very dangerous climate across the nation. We are crossing the line from a nation of laws to a nation of laws of men.
Our Founding Fathers established our country as a “nation of laws.” In a nation of laws, everyone knows exactly who makes the laws and what the laws clearly are. Thus, everyone knows the law. The laws apply to everyone across the country; this is what we mean by “blind justice”—everyone is equally subject to the law and equally punished for breaking the law.
When we say a nation of “laws of men” we mean laws are being created or changed willy-nilly by a person or body of persons. These persons may or may not have the authority to make or change laws. New laws may contradict present laws, creating confusion. No one knows exactly what the law is anymore. And worse, as a consequence of the confusion, the laws are applied and punished unequally to the people.
A king or dictator is a good example of a nation of “laws of men.” The king or dictator can change the law of the land with a stroke of a pen or a phone call. He or she may apply the law to some people, and waive it for others. Punishments may be unequally harsher for some folks, for example political enemies of the king, trouble makers, non-conformist, rebels. The law may also be enforced unequally by sex, race, or religious affiliation, etc.
No one knows what the ObamaCare law is today—it has been changed according to the “laws of men.” Imagine what that feels like personally, and where we are headed collectively. Our Founders knew exactly what that felt like because they suffered it under the king of England.
Today in America we are so accustomed to being a “nation of laws” we take it for granted. So, to imagine what it’s like to live in a nation of “laws of men” let’s take an example. Imagine all of a sudden traffic light laws changed, and the new law is unclear—no one knows when the new law starts, what the new law states, and unclear what the punishment is for breaking the law. Imagine not knowing if legally you have to stop at a red light, or if you have to stop at the yellow light, or if you have to show caution at the green light. Citizens are confused, businesses are confused, police officers are confused, and judges are confused.
Now we have a big mess at intersections don’t we. It gets worse. Much worse.
Police officers are doing the best they can enforcing a confusing law. This puts police officers in the impossible situation of having to interpret the laws themselves on the street. They are writing traffic tickets because that’s their job. They have families to feed too.
Citizens are getting ticketed and punished when they in fact thought they were following the new law. This breeds public animosity toward police officers. Police officers feel threatened by the growing animosity and bulk up on larger weapons and armored vehicles.
The new law is creating traffic jams and accidents. More police officers are needed to control intersections. Lots more police officers. Ultimately, in a nation of “laws of men” the need for additional police officers reaches a point of becoming a police state.
Judges don’t know what to do either. The court system and judges’ case loads are overwhelming. If they don’t know what the law is, they can’t make consistent judgments. The cases they do judge become legal precedence that further compounds the confusion.
People become afraid when they don’t know the law. Driving would be a nightmare. And certainly businesses are reluctant to take risks expanding their businesses if they fear breaking laws inadvertently.
That’s why our Founders created a nation of laws. That’s why we Constitutionalists warn about the “laws of men” creeping back into our country. When the law of the land is created by the whim of a king or dictator the consequences are far reaching. This is a very dangerous development we Constitutionalists see coming from the Left. It’s how the Left throughout history gets things done—they create a nation of “laws of men.” After all, the ends justify the means? It’s how you breed fear in a populace in order to control them. It’s how dictators control a population to establish their idea of utopia. Does anyone care to bet this was going on in Germany in the 1930s?