First, to President Obamas argument:
First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."
Second, to Article II of the Constitution
In theory failure to uphold the oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" could be considered a high crime and lead to articles of impeachment, and impeachment in the Senate as proscribed in Article II of the US Consitution.
But that would require congress to take action on the failure. Even if the Senate wanted to impeach the president over the issue, it requires the House to first present the articles. In this case there is no political will to attempt and likely fail to impeach.
Obama has done something really extraordinary. He is using Supreme Court decisions that reserves the Presidents right not to enforce laws he deems to be "unconstitutional" but we are talking about a law he passed. The rationale is bizarre, especially for such a constitutional scholar?
The President needs to be taken to task on his unilateral decision to delay aspects of ACA. My question is who has the authority to challenge the president and second expedite this case to the SCOTUS. My point is by the time this gets to the high court it will be 2014. I believe the court strikes down the president on this but Obama wins on time. Still, the legislative branch has to advance this case to curb the executive branches powers.
If the President can chose parts of the law not to enforce or enforce then the next President could do the same? If a Scott Walker was President then he could theoretically not enforce ObamaCare? This is a constitutional crisis that the legislative branch is dodging.