Government by Blog Post

J. Blackman
{"title":"Government by Blog Post","authors":"J. Blackman","doi":"10.25148/LAWREV.11.2.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama repeatedly turned to this all-too-familiar pattern of executive action. First, the impact of the Affordable Care Act made certain groups worse off. Second, as a result, Congress was pressured to modify the law to alleviate these negative externalities from the law. However, Democrats feared that Republicans would seize the opportunity to unravel other portions of the law. This halted any possible bipartisan support for legislative amendments. Third, in the face of this gridlock, President Obama turned to executive action to alter the ACA’s onerous mandates. Specifically, he delayed and suspended the individual and employer mandates, as well as modified provisions affecting benefits for Congressional employees and coverage in the U.S. territories.Each of these executive actions — implemented through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking or informal social-media blogging — came as a complete surprise. Each change posed risks to the long-term sustainability of the law. Each change relied on tenuous readings of the statute, and dubious assertions of executive authority to accomplish ends entirely at odds with what Congress designed. Each action was contested in court by states and private parties. However, because the executive actions had the effect of lifting burdens, rather than imposing any injuries, the government vigorously contested that no one had standing to bring suit. As a result, the ultimate legality of these moves was decided not by the courts, but by the President, who desperately acted alone to salvage his signature law.One of the more disconcerting aspects of the law’s implementation, beyond the numerous delays and waivers, has been the cavalier approach by which the government announced these changes. It soon became a painful pastime of ferreting through these massive document dumps and attempting to find the actual basis for the rule previously announced in the blog post. And invariably, the policy, as stated in the blog post, doesn’t quite match up what is in the rule. This was no longer a government of law, but a government by blog post.This article was part of a symposium on the separation of powers hosted by the Florida International University Law Review.","PeriodicalId":300333,"journal":{"name":"FIU Law Review","volume":"251 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FIU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25148/LAWREV.11.2.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama repeatedly turned to this all-too-familiar pattern of executive action. First, the impact of the Affordable Care Act made certain groups worse off. Second, as a result, Congress was pressured to modify the law to alleviate these negative externalities from the law. However, Democrats feared that Republicans would seize the opportunity to unravel other portions of the law. This halted any possible bipartisan support for legislative amendments. Third, in the face of this gridlock, President Obama turned to executive action to alter the ACA’s onerous mandates. Specifically, he delayed and suspended the individual and employer mandates, as well as modified provisions affecting benefits for Congressional employees and coverage in the U.S. territories.Each of these executive actions — implemented through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking or informal social-media blogging — came as a complete surprise. Each change posed risks to the long-term sustainability of the law. Each change relied on tenuous readings of the statute, and dubious assertions of executive authority to accomplish ends entirely at odds with what Congress designed. Each action was contested in court by states and private parties. However, because the executive actions had the effect of lifting burdens, rather than imposing any injuries, the government vigorously contested that no one had standing to bring suit. As a result, the ultimate legality of these moves was decided not by the courts, but by the President, who desperately acted alone to salvage his signature law.One of the more disconcerting aspects of the law’s implementation, beyond the numerous delays and waivers, has been the cavalier approach by which the government announced these changes. It soon became a painful pastime of ferreting through these massive document dumps and attempting to find the actual basis for the rule previously announced in the blog post. And invariably, the policy, as stated in the blog post, doesn’t quite match up what is in the rule. This was no longer a government of law, but a government by blog post.This article was part of a symposium on the separation of powers hosted by the Florida International University Law Review.
政府博客文章
在实施《合理医疗费用法案》(Affordable Care Act)期间,奥巴马总统一再转向这种再熟悉不过的行政行动模式。首先,《平价医疗法案》(Affordable Care Act)的影响使某些群体的处境变得更糟。其次,国会迫于压力修改法律,以减轻法律的这些负面外部性。然而,民主党人担心共和党人会抓住机会,破坏该法案的其他部分。这阻止了任何可能的两党对立法修正案的支持。第三,面对这种僵局,奥巴马总统转而采取行政措施来改变《平价医疗法案》繁重的规定。具体来说,他推迟并暂停了对个人和雇主的强制要求,并修改了影响国会雇员福利和美国领土范围的条款。这些行政措施——通过正式的通知和评论规则制定或非正式的社交媒体博客来实施——都是完全出人意料的。每一次变化都对法律的长期可持续性构成风险。每一次改变都依赖于对法规的模糊解读,以及对行政权力的可疑主张,以实现与国会设计完全相悖的目标。每一项行动都在法庭上受到各州和私人团体的质疑。然而,由于行政行动的效果是减轻负担,而不是造成任何伤害,政府积极争辩说,没有人有资格提起诉讼。因此,这些行动的最终合法性不是由法院决定的,而是由总统决定的,他孤注一掷地挽救了他的标志性法律。除了众多的延迟和豁免之外,该法律的实施更令人不安的一个方面是,政府宣布这些变化时采取了漫不经心的方式。搜索这些大量的文档转储,试图找到之前在博客文章中宣布的规则的实际依据,很快就变成了一种痛苦的消遣。而且,正如博客文章中所述,这一政策总是与规则中的内容不太相符。这不再是一个法治政府,而是一个博客政府。这篇文章是《佛罗里达国际大学法律评论》主办的三权分立研讨会的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信