dagblog - Comments for "The Trump administration believes Obamacare’s preexisting conditions protections are now unconstitutional" http://dagblog.com/link/trump-administration-believes-obamacare-s-preexisting-conditions-protections-are-now-25323 Comments for "The Trump administration believes Obamacare’s preexisting conditions protections are now unconstitutional" en Phil Roe: “I’m not going to http://dagblog.com/comment/253525#comment-253525 <a id="comment-253525"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/trump-administration-believes-obamacare-s-preexisting-conditions-protections-are-now-25323">The Trump administration believes Obamacare’s preexisting conditions protections are now unconstitutional</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">Phil Roe: “I’m not going to have to defend anything I don’t agree with”<br /><br /> Susan Collins: It “exacerbates our current challenges”<br /><br /> Tom MacArthur on Obamacare’s preex protections: “I think that’s a pretty essential pact with the American people”<a href="https://t.co/CLoQ84Ng6J">https://t.co/CLoQ84Ng6J</a></p> — Adam Cancryn (@adamcancryn) <a href="https://twitter.com/adamcancryn/status/1005206413143150592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 8, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> </div></div></div> Sat, 09 Jun 2018 05:22:26 +0000 artappraiser comment 253525 at http://dagblog.com Sessions explains to Congress http://dagblog.com/comment/253461#comment-253461 <a id="comment-253461"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/trump-administration-believes-obamacare-s-preexisting-conditions-protections-are-now-25323">The Trump administration believes Obamacare’s preexisting conditions protections are now unconstitutional</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/391305-sessions-sends-letter-to-ryan-defending-rationale-for-not-defending">Sessions explains to Congress rationale for not defending ObamaCare</a></p> <p>By Julia Manchester @ TheHill.com,  06/07/18 09:55 PM EDT</p> <blockquote> <p>Attorney General <a href="http://thehill.com/people/jeff-sessions">Jeff Sessions</a> sent a letter to House Speaker <a href="http://thehill.com/people/paul-ryan">Paul Ryan</a>(R-Wis.) on Thursday defending the Department of Justice's (DOJ) rationale for not defending the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.</p> <p>"As you know, the Executive Branch has a longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," Sessions wrote.</p> <p>"But not every professionally responsible argument is necessarily reasonable in this context," he continued, adding this is "a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense" of the law.</p> <p>The department <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/391292-justice-dept-argues-key-parts-of-obamacare-are-unconstitutional?rnd=1528422961" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">argued in court on Thursday</a> that key components of the Obama-era law are unconstitutional, siding in large part with a challenge to the law from 20 GOP-led states [....]</p> </blockquote> </div></div></div> Fri, 08 Jun 2018 02:53:16 +0000 artappraiser comment 253461 at http://dagblog.com