That it intends to continue finetuning those regulations and working with the people affected by them until you become finally effective. And i should emphasize just after the administration took this action, president george w. Bush secretary concord the Obama Administration to delay the mandate was wise. That was based on his experience in phasing in the Medicare Part d. Prescription drug benefit. I have to say hyperventilating about an extraordinary and unprecedented constitutional these delays are is just that. Its contrary to the obvious historical fact. Nor is the delay of the employer mandate on the front of the constitution. The framers could have prescribed to m believe that the president execute so why do they have faithfully and take care and i would have to disagree with professor rosenkranz and turley about their explanation of this in the original meaning of the clause. They were taking pains to clarify the president s duty is to implement the law in good faith and to exercise reasonable care with the word take care in doing so. The fact is that scholars on both left and right can concors broadly worded phase to handle with fidelity to all including indeed the constitution. As a legal and practical matter, the president s phase in of the employer mandate and other provisions as well with the Job Description so is the program for the childhood arrivals. Im not going to go into that now but the congressman explained why thats true and in my written statement, we do so also. I have to say one quick word about what i know my good friend and frequent partner michael cannon is going to focus on, and that is his theory and he gets a lot of credit for picking it up and marketing it. His theory that the tax credits and subsidies must be available, that they are on the available to americans who have been living in states that have set up their own exchanges. I cant go into detail on this. In the questioning perhaps i will be able to do that, but if there is a few phrases in this enormous statute that have to be construed in a way that would stiff millions of people who are the intended beneficiaries of the act m. I. Over . The fact is that its not the correct construction and we will be able to talk about that further. Thank you mr. Lazarus. Mr. Cannon, welcomed. Welcome. [inaudible] open microphone level closer. I want to start off by saying that the concerns sharing with you today are not partisanship and its no secret that ive worked for public and. I myself am not a republican. I am acutely aware of the last publican president s failure to execute the law faithfully. In 20080 i. Supported Neither Party candidate i actually preferred barack obama to his opponent in part because he promised to curb such abuse is by the executive grade i praised him for doing more than any libertarians to celebrate equality and the freedom on the nations for africanamericans and gays and lesbians. It commends the President Shall take care that the law be faithfully executed. Guilty to this duty as it is essential for maintaining the system of governance and public order. The law is a reciprocal between the government. The public order acquires the government to remain faithful to the wall as much as it requires the citizenry to do so because of the actions of the government officials leading the citizens to conclude that those officials are no longer meaningfully bound by the law and the citizens will rightly conclude that neither are they. Since he signed the Patient ProtectionAffordable Care act into the law, president obama has failed to execute but faithfully. The president has unilaterally taken the taxpayers dollars and made them available in favor to them from the authorized purposes towards the purposes for which no congress has ever appropriated funds. He has repeatedly written the statute to spend taxpayer dollars that no law authorizes him to spend and they expressly forbid him. Hes unilaterally issued blanket waivers and requirements that doesnt authorize him to wave intand at the same time declineo collect taxes that they order him to collect and hes unilaterally rewritten the statute to impose williams in texas that the ppca and billions of dollars in debt that the statute forbids him to incur. Hes unilaterally rewritten to allow Health Insurance products the statute expressly for bids and he has encouraged the consumers, insurers and state officials to violate the law that he himself and acted and hes taking the steps for the purpose of stalling the action by the peoples representatives in congress. President obama blank unfaithfulness is no longer accurate to say that the statute is the law of the land. With respect to health care at least of the law of the land is whatever one man says it is or what the divided congress to let him get away with saying. What he says may contradict federal statute and comfort the benefits on favored groups or taxed the favorite groups without favorite representation. It may undermine the planning done by millions of individuals. It may change from day to day. This method has more in common with monarchy than with democracy or the constitutional republic. The president s failure or any president failure to honor his constitutional duty to execute the law faithfully isnt a partisan issue. The fact that they violate the duty is caused not for solace but cause for greater alarm because the guarantees the president for both parties will replicate and even surpass the abuses of their predecessors as payback. The result is democracy and freedom will suffer no matter who occupies the oval office. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. I will begin the questioning under the fiveminute rule. Often times the legislative process of negotiation and about give and take between the competing interest in compromise. How does the president creating amendment suspending and ignoring acts of congress that will do will affect the voters latest process. That is a great question mr. Tremaine. The short term effect is an aggrandizement of the president but predictable longterm effect is legislative gridlock. There is every reason to believe congress will not be able to reach the compromises if they know that these compromises can be unilaterally returned the white house. So every reason to believe congress will grind to a halt under the threat that president obama will rewrite it anywhere. Could you argue that its happening right now as you try to work out differences between the various perspectives on a piece of legislation those that may be asked to get something they think the president agrees with them on mike say why should i give up on that because they n get a change done unilaterally by the executive branch. You could imagine such a negotiation about the Effective Date of obamacare. After the statute is passed via decide what the congress wants. Gridlock is almost quite a predictable result. Professor turley, the constitution of the breed of power isnt simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. Its about protecting the liberty of american of concentrated government power. How does the modification of act of congress affect the balance of power between the political branches into the liberty interest of the American People . The danger is quite severe. The problem with the president is doing is that he spoke simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. Hes becoming the very danger that the constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch. This orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is defined to prevent this type of concentration. There are two trends going on that should be of equal concern. One is that we have had a radical expansion of president ial powers under both president bush and president obama. We have with many calling imperial presidency model of largely Unchecked Authority and in that we also have a continued rise of the Fourth Branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations the Supreme Court said recently they could define their own or interpret their own jurisdicti jurisdiction. Mr. Cannon come you argue to the president is going to spend millions of dollars congress did not authorized to provide a premium assistance tax credits and subsidies on federally run healthcare exchanges. Could you please quickly walk me through by the president s plan to provide premium assistance on the poorly run exchanges is indeed illegal . Gimmick we call those tax credits that in fact they are governed to subsidies and Government Spending at the statute is quite clear it was purposeful when it said that those premium assistance tax credits would be available only to people who purchasing Health Insurance through an exchange established by the state under section 13 of them. That isnt just one mention of the phrase. Its mentioned several times explicitly through crossreferences and the statute is very tightly worded and it makes it clear those tax credits are available only if the state establishes an exchange itself and if the federal government established a federal fallback exchange those are not available because the exchange was under section 1321 and as the Obama Administration has acknowledged in the regulation. Professor rosenkranz comes on the fenders have asserted that the actions were an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Are these assertions correct or is there a fundamental difference between the prosecutorial discretion and many of the president s unilateral actions . There are many cases i agree with the professor turley to prosecutorial discretion is one thing but the wholesale suspension of the law is Something Else and that is what happened under obamacare. Likewise on the immigration context of a casebycase prosecutorial discretion is one thing but if they get policy that will apply to 1. 8 Million People, that is quite something different. This is a scale of decisionmaking that isnt in the traditional conception of the prosecutorial discretion. The president has taken it a step further and has actually given legal documents to the people in that circumstance well beyond simply deciding not to leave them there and not prosecute them but actually enable the violation by giving them documents to help them avoid the problems from the country that they are not present. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] the chair now recognizes the ranking member. [inaudible] with the witness to his left and i would like to ask if he could pick up that line of discussion. We are pleased that you are here because there has been so much excitement or excited rhetoric about where president an the prd his administration are going. Ive never heard of this level of hypothesizing where this is all going to take us and i think it is considerably over the top. Im glad you are here today and i would ask you to respond, please. Thank you very much mr. Conyers. Of the theory that the Affordable Care act actually intended to have the very benefits the law was passed to create to create the core constituency of needy people that was the target of the law my friend mr. Cannon came up with is something that no one on either side of the idol had anything about when the law was passed. He and some other clever colleagues came up with a theory at least nine months after it was passed into the factors and they were happy that they have done so and theyve bloated that their theory adopted by the courts would drive the stake through the part of obamacare. Thats their words that it would sink the aca and threaten its survival. In fact however it does not universally acknowledged the purpose of ensuring access to Health Insurance for all the millions of americans who cannot afford it. To the contrary, mr. Cannon and his colleagues have a few isolated words in the context and ignore the rest of this huge statute. But if you look at the entire statute, the whole text not just the isolated phrases mean the purpose of the statute and all americans who are eligible for the benefits to enable them to afford insurance will be able to have them whether or not they reside in the federal exchange or state exchange. One quick thing and that is mr. Cannon and his friends soon realized that the reading of the text didnt make sense so they came up with an even more head scratching claim and that is the sponsors intentionally and purposely designed it to achieve this self immolation and mr. Cannon just referred to that argument. So what this means, it means that the aca sponsors actually intended not only to stiff the very people that they wanted to benefit but it actually means that they intentionally handed over to the allies in the state capitals the state that he talks about and invited them if they chose to do so to drive it through the heart of the aca. For your theory to make sense, one has to imagine senator baucus, senator murray, senator reid, senator schumer getting together in a room off the senate floor and saying i know what we are going to do. We are going to enable the republican governors and state legislatures to decide that it wont work in their states. Unsurprisingly there isnt a single piece of evidence in the record to support this notion and what is really going on is having politically lost in the Supreme Court the opponents in this theory were hoping that the courts would bail them out once again it if it is a big political left. I dont think that the courts are going to do that. I would ask unanimous consent to put in the record this report entitled obamacare blank single most relentless antagonist distinguished witness here tod today. Can i ask one quick question. Is the republic doing reports or articles . Reports or articles . I can tell you. You mean on the one im introducing . Yes, mr. Ranking member. I have newspapers and offense put in the record but i just went and characterized not as a report but as they have a substantive backing. Ive never been asked this question before. Only because im often called president antagonist and im not sure that a report that left me out would be justified as factual. Without objection, the new republican article entitled obamacare blank single most relentless antagonist and im sure both the author of the theory with regard to the federal use of the funds and the gentleman from california would both be proud to have the article in the record therefore without objection we will make it a part of the record. Im sorry to disappoint my friend whose name isnt even mentioned in this article. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. In my judgment, the president has ignored the calls and field to enforce them, undermined them and changed the laws contrary to the constitution. It seems to be the president is trying to meet the clause by the executive decree in the news conferences. But in a 2012 interview the president said that he could not, quote, wave away the wall fothat the congress put in place and about, quote, the president doesnt have the authority to simply ignore congress and say we are not going to enforce the law that you passed, enddoublequote. Yet it seems to me that that is exactly what he has done. I would like to address my first question to the professor and director cannon. I think i know their answer. But the question is do you think the president has acted contrary to the constitution . You voted for him and you see that hes even crossed the constitutional line into the legislative process is not an option in the president has done is dangerous. So, i assume that your answer is yes. The president has acted in contrary. And i would also add this was an issue that the framers considered. 150 years before they drafted on the provision we shouldnt change much in the committee. The framers were very familiar with it and i think that is what gave light to this. I would say some of them are close cases but some are not. The suspension of the law for example is the paradigm case of the violation, yes. What can congress or the American People do about it and how can we restring the president from acting in a way contrary to the constitution that is the most difficult question we face. I have the honor of representing members of both parties of congress in going to the courts that are very hostile towards members and for example when they believe the violation of the constitution has occurred. They would solve many of the problems. The members could go to the accord and raise violations of the constitution that would be it would make them go away but he would know that the administration has made references and i think that there is support on this that they would withstand so we have something the framers would have never but you can have violations of the constitution yet literally no one can raise the issue successfully with courts for review. Professor rosenkranz. Im not sure that i agree with professor turley on the standing question. It is quite true that some of the violations may not be amenable to judicial review. Ultimately though, that check on the constitutional violation is the election so this is the sort of hearing that we ought to be having and that the electorate ought to be paying attention to for the next round. Rector . There is little that congress can do if it is divided over the president s abuse of his authority. But unfortunately comin commandr as the traditional revenues go it is very difficult for them to challenge an action of the president when he relaxes an obligation on a certain party. Its much easier to find those that have standing to challenge the action that imposes the due obligations that the legislature has never approved. That is what has happened in the case of the president issuing tax credits through federal exchanges because those tax credits will trigger tax penalties on employers and individuals in those 34 states that have established the exchange and a number of those employers and individuals including the two states attorneys general in the 15 Indiana School districts and a dozen or more private employers and private citizens have filed suit. One of them will have disasters that here in washington dc said there is a remedy for some of these abuses. Thank you director. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Lazarus, professor rosenkranz has written in the wall street journal oped pieces Abraham Lincoln wouldnt approve of the delay and the employer mandate and can extend the hab