Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

This question is closed.
Answers (9)
  • The problem is that in the bill there are many rules that were still to be set by "the secretary", meaning Sebelius. It is no wonder that she still has her job and has not been held accountable for the horrifying roll out of this monstrosity. She is his puppet and will do as she is told. Dems in congress effectively neutered themselves with regard to this law and how it was to be implemented. But instead of owning it like they should they just get pissed at republicans for not wanting to help fix something they were and still are vehemently against.
    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 1:51 PM on Jan. 4, 2014

  • Because he has done it once, and got away with it. Now hes done it again, and got away with it AGAIN. Until someone takes action, he will continue to do it. Does nobody know what the word IMPEACHMENT means?
    Michigan-Mom74

    Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 12:49 AM on Jan. 5, 2014

  • For whatever reason many on the hill are reluctant to actually hold him accountable when he violates the oath he took to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.

    We have an idea of why no one wants to hold him accountable. Anyone who criticizes him is accused of being racist.
    DSamuels

    Answer by DSamuels at 4:25 PM on Jan. 5, 2014

  • He seems to operate by the policy that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, if you have to ask for either.
    Ballad

    Answer by Ballad at 2:03 PM on Jan. 4, 2014

  • Because Harry Reid thinks he does no wrong, after all, he is a Dem. So, regardless of what the House thinks, or the GOP thinks, nothing will get through Congress unless Harry wants it to.
    29again

    Answer by 29again at 2:52 PM on Jan. 4, 2014

  • No, he doesn't just get to make laws. For whatever reason many on the hill are reluctant to actually hold him accountable when he violates the oath he took to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.
    When it comes specifically to laws that were written to negate the need for congressional approval to change a law arbitrarily then you must look to congress and those that approved such a measure.
    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 8:57 PM on Jan. 4, 2014

  • So Obama should just break the law and make his own laws without Congress. Is that what you are saying?

    Well, I'm sure he'd rather not put it quite that way. But if it comes right down to it ...
    Ballad

    Answer by Ballad at 3:02 PM on Jan. 4, 2014

  • The problem is that in the bill there are many rules that were still to be set by "the secretary", meaning Sebelius.

    This exactly. If congress didn't want him making his own rules, they shouldn't have passed a law that was essentially a blank check for him and other cabinet members to do with as they wish.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 8:56 AM on Jan. 5, 2014

  • So Obama should just break the law and make his own laws without Congress. Is that what you are saying?
    Dardenella

    Comment by Dardenella (original poster) at 2:54 PM on Jan. 4, 2014

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN