For over a year, since the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, we’ve heard the sycophants proudly crow that Obamacare is constitutional, the law of the land, duly upheld by the high court itself. Not to rain on any parades, but I am going to explain why Obamacare, in the current incarnation, is both unconstitutional and illegal, and why the GOP has every constitutional right to demand it not be implemented at this time.

No, I am not going to drag out a bunch of dusty old Federalist Papers and pontificate on my interpretation of what the founding fathers intended, although I clearly feel there is a valid case to be made there. I am simply going to go through the facts and details as they stand, and cite the law and constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court. Ironically, it is the ‘constitutional scholar’ Obama himself, who has rendered Obamacare unconstitutional and illegal, by his own actions.

Indeed, both houses of Congress did pass, by the slimmest of margin and with no bipartisan support, the 2000+ page bill, and send it to the president to be signed into law. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 to uphold the law as constitutional. The law itself states, it “shall” go into effect on January 1, 2014. So Brady, what is your complaint? How can you possibly argue that it’s unconstitutional and illegal? Well, it is because of what has transpired since the Supreme Court ruling, and how the law has been altered.

The president has arbitrarily decided that certain provisions of the law can be postponed or delayed, for whatever reasons. He has also taken it upon himself to begin issuing waivers and exemptions to certain entities, including Congress and staffers. No authority was granted to him in this law to make these changes to it. In short, Obama has been picking and choosing what parts of the law he will implement, including delaying the employer mandate and the caps on out of pocket expenses for policy holders, two key provisions the law stated “shall” be implemented Jan. 1, 2014. The law doesn’t say “may be implemented at the president’s discretion” or “might be changed on the fly.” These are not victimless crimes. They shift billions of dollars in costs from winners (employers and insurers) to losers (taxpayers and seriously ill patients). This was not authorized by the Supreme Court, nor was it approved or considered by either house of Congress, therefore, it is flat out not legal. According to the Congressional Research Service, half the deadlines in the law have been missed so far. The result is a mangled version of what Congress voted on and passed in 2010, and what the Supreme Court ruled on in 2012.

The Constitution is very specific and clear on how laws are enacted, this is found in Article 1 Section 7:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Clearly, none of the myriad of alterations and changes Obama has made to the law were ever sent back to Congress for reconsideration, pursuant to the constitutional requirements. He has completely circumvented the constitution and rendered this law invalid and illegitimate. We cannot allow this to stand, for the sake of mere precedent. What use is a Congress deliberating and debating a law, only to have a president alter and change it as he pleases? Why not just install a dictator or king?

In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. City of New York, “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, amend, or to repeal statutes.” The president is obliged to enforce the law as written. For the Speaker to make the continuing resolution contingent on a one-year delay in Obamacare is righting a constitutional wrong. Republicans should define themselves as the party defending the Constitution. For starters, that would mean telling the president he must implement Obamacare exactly as it was enacted, without the exemptions, waivers and postponements, including the provision that forces Congress and staffers into the exchanges, or delay the entire law for a year.

Boehner could even go further; Obama has unconstitutionally declined to enforce some immigration laws and criminal drug laws, in effect changing the laws without Congressional consent. The continuing resolution could also make funding of the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service conditional on the president’s faithfully executing the law.