A
Ana_v
Guest
Two subjects:
1
I remember that in one of the GOP debates earlier this year, Mitt Romney said that if he is elected into office, on the first day of his presidency he would issue an executive order to repeal the contraception mandate.
While I appreciate a candidate’s intention to undo Obama’s threat to religious liberty, I don’t approve of the means (executive order). Furthermore, to pass an executive order that claims to repeal the HHS mandate gives credence to the perception that the HHS mandate was binding on Americans in the first place.
The President does not have the constitutional authority to make law – and for all intents and purposes, the HHS mandate is a law, not an enforcement of one. It is therefore invalid. The fact that the mandate was an insertion into the Affordable Care Act (the latter of which was legislated by Congress and now, upheld my the Supreme Court), does not change its invalid status. The fact remains that the Obama Administration bypassed Congress in issuing this mandate.
However, many of the American people, especially those born into generations in which the Constitution is commonly violated, and the separations of powers breached, believe the HHS mandate to be valid, and therefore will abide by it. They perceive it to have authority, simply because it is handed down to us by the executive power.
So, to the degree that it is practically (not logically) necessary in order to stop American insurers/employers from following the mandate due to a sense of legal obligation, I suppose that going through a repeal process is warranted.
The alternative to repealing it, is to simply ignore it. By that I don’t mean to put an end to the campaign for religious freedom – we should certainly be publically stating why the HHS mandate is objectionable. By “ignore it” I mean, to not do what is says insurers/employers must do (a resistance which some Catholic institutions have already committed to). But this should also entail refusing to cooperate with any payment of “fines” that may be imposed upon the entities refusing to submit to the mandate.
Then again, repealing and ignoring, are not mutually exclusive. If you have a preference, which approach do you consider to be better?
2
I’ve been reading Henry David Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience (mid 19th century, in response to the Mexican-American War and slavery ). I would like to share with you some of the more provocative passages therein. Tell me they don’t resonate given the current crisis Catholics face:
1
I remember that in one of the GOP debates earlier this year, Mitt Romney said that if he is elected into office, on the first day of his presidency he would issue an executive order to repeal the contraception mandate.
While I appreciate a candidate’s intention to undo Obama’s threat to religious liberty, I don’t approve of the means (executive order). Furthermore, to pass an executive order that claims to repeal the HHS mandate gives credence to the perception that the HHS mandate was binding on Americans in the first place.
The President does not have the constitutional authority to make law – and for all intents and purposes, the HHS mandate is a law, not an enforcement of one. It is therefore invalid. The fact that the mandate was an insertion into the Affordable Care Act (the latter of which was legislated by Congress and now, upheld my the Supreme Court), does not change its invalid status. The fact remains that the Obama Administration bypassed Congress in issuing this mandate.
However, many of the American people, especially those born into generations in which the Constitution is commonly violated, and the separations of powers breached, believe the HHS mandate to be valid, and therefore will abide by it. They perceive it to have authority, simply because it is handed down to us by the executive power.
So, to the degree that it is practically (not logically) necessary in order to stop American insurers/employers from following the mandate due to a sense of legal obligation, I suppose that going through a repeal process is warranted.
The alternative to repealing it, is to simply ignore it. By that I don’t mean to put an end to the campaign for religious freedom – we should certainly be publically stating why the HHS mandate is objectionable. By “ignore it” I mean, to not do what is says insurers/employers must do (a resistance which some Catholic institutions have already committed to). But this should also entail refusing to cooperate with any payment of “fines” that may be imposed upon the entities refusing to submit to the mandate.
Then again, repealing and ignoring, are not mutually exclusive. If you have a preference, which approach do you consider to be better?
2
I’ve been reading Henry David Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience (mid 19th century, in response to the Mexican-American War and slavery ). I would like to share with you some of the more provocative passages therein. Tell me they don’t resonate given the current crisis Catholics face:
I guess what I am trying to say is: I think the time for concerted civil disobedience has come NOW. I’m serious.