- Obama not worried about Ebola at upcoming African summit in D.C.
- Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’ after 9/11
- Obama administration asked whole D.C. Circuit to take on major Obamacare case
- Mark Levin: Topple GOP leadership or country will ‘unravel’
- Massachusetts to let police chief deny gun buys to those deemed unfit
- John Kerry condemns attack on Israeli soldiers, kidnapping
- U.S. starts to evacuate American Ebola patients from West Africa: Report
- Geraldo slammed as ‘dummy’ for backing Clinton’s bin Laden claim
- Israeli spokesman: No need to debate who broke the cease-fire
- 35 Palestinians killed; Israeli officer missing
Kentucky editorial roundup
Question of the Day
Recent editorials from Kentucky newspapers:
The Daily News, Bowling Green, Ky., on Obama’s actions contrary to ACA law being ‘settled’:
As the Republican-controlled U.S. House passed several bills that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act, liberal critics belittled these efforts by contending that Obamacare was “settled law” since it had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But how can we say it is “settled law” when our president’s actions seem to reflect his belief that some of the law’s very specific provisions are what he wants them to be as opposed to their clear meaning?
The most recent case in point was the administration’s decision Monday to delay until 2016 the requirement that employers with 50 to 99 full-time workers either provide health insurance or pay a financial penalty.
This represents the second time this particular requirement has been delayed for a year. In July 2013, the administration delayed this employer mandate until 2015.
Congressional approval is clearly needed to change a very unambiguous provision that the mandate is effective after Dec. 31, 2013.
President Barack Obama’s stated rationale for the extension was to ensure that mid-sized companies had sufficient time to comply with the law.
His explanation raises two interesting questions.
How long do you really need to comply with a law that was enacted in 2010?
Is it fair for the president to be in the business of picking winners and losers? One group of employers has received a two-year delay while everyone subject to the individual mandate got no such reprieve.
Obama’s decision to ignore the clear intent of a law that defines his presidency seems more attuned to political calculation than about providing additional time for compliance.
The Affordable Care Act is expected to be front and center among issues in the 2014 midterm elections, but this does not justify doing an end run around the Constitution.
At one point in his life, our president taught constitutional law. He surely knows better.
TWT Video Picks
By Orrin G. Hatch
Procedural changes impede the chamber's traditional deliberative function
- Border agents cleared of civil rights complaints from illegal immigrant children
- Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
- U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Porn-surfing feds blame boredom, lack of work for misbehavior
- House GOP resurrects border bill, predicts successful Friday vote
- Feds raid S.C. home to seize Land Rover in EPA emission-control crackdown
- Ted Nugent slams 'lying freaks' at liberal media: I'm 'doing God's work'
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Pentagon wants extra $19M to equip, train Ukrainian troops
Top 10 U.S. military helicopters
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors