President Obama, for the 2nd time, has determined that the “words” of a law are less important than the political realities surrounding the upcoming mid-term elections. Apparently, dates that appear in laws are “open to interpretation,” even though they appear to be hard and fast dates. Obviously, the possibilities are endless.
Election Day is just a “Date”
Suppose, for example, that Election Day is seen as inconvenient. Is is, after all, just a date – and the need to protect the population from the inconvenience or pain of elections is obviously a sufficient reason to ignore, or delay, such dates.
The same could be said for Inauguration Day. Put it off a couple of years – what’s the big deal? Statutory dates are now open for interpretation anyway. If Obama wishes to put off the inauguration of the next president until 2027, what’s to stop him? It’s just a date, and we need to protect the Citizenry from the pain and inconvenience of learning the new President’s name anyway.
A Rose by Any Other Name
My only question is – why are “dates” different from other parts of the law? I mean, a penalty is already a tax, and hard fast deadlines are just targets. Why can’t numbers be re-interpreted? Obviously they’re just words on paper. Rights enumerated in the constitution? Well, obviously people can bear arms – just not weapons. The Press only refers to printing presses operated by Responsible Journalists. “Unreasonable Search” is just a phrase designed to protect the guilty, and “Self Incrimination” is just a meaningless phrase.
According to Ancient Scripture, when a King issued a decree, the letter of the law had to be followed (c.f. Esther). If the king said something, the rule was it had to be followed. When the King said that his subjects could kill the Jews, he was unable to rescind that order. His solution was to pass another law allowing the Jews to defend themselves.
Apparently, Obama would have just ignored the rules. He’s more than a King. He is Judge, Jury, and Executioner – taking the role of Legislature and Judiciary all in one!
Some may claim this is to make the law “workable.” They are living in a dream world. The motivations are obvious to all but the most partisan of sycophants. If the Health Care Law, as passed, were being enforced as written, the Democrats wouldn’t stand a chance in the next 2 election cycles. The House, the Senate, and the Presidency would be solidly Republican.
And THAT would be President Obama’s legacy. So apparently, to avoid that disaster, the Constitutional Scholar feels it’s just more convenient to destroy the Rule of Law that forms the basis of the Republic.
“When a [ruler] becomes a tyrant, he thereby breaks the bond binding his subjects to him….” – Thomas Jefferson, 1776 The Musical