Okay, simply put, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER.
The only reason Obama wants to do this? Because there are elections in 2014, and if the implementation of Obamacare is not delayed, Democrats are going to lose hard in 2014.
Like it or not, Obamacare is the law of the land: it was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. As the executive, Obama's constitutional duty is to enforce that law. He's not allowed to change it by executive fiat, not outside of a (traditionally) very narrow range of circumstances; any changes to the law must originate in Congress, be passed by both houses, and be signed by the President. Any other change is extra-constitutional.
Ace then goes on to ask the obvious question. Can a conservative President refuse to enforce Obamacare if a liberal President can choose to delay its implementation?
I'd argue "yes", even absent this latest power grab by Obama, because our government already chooses not to enforce the black-letter laws that are on the books. Example: immigration laws. Example: gun laws (in certain cases, such as important newsmen, or career felons.) It's already a given that the executive can choose not to enforce laws, so why couldn't a conservative executive say, "Yeah, we're not going to enforce that shit?"
I suppose that means that Obama's delay of implementation is simply a convoluted decision not to enforce right now, which is probably the only way you can make it constitutionally "okay" to do. That being the case, then, Obama can use that as a political weapon: the executive branch can selectively punish people for non-compliance with Obamacare.
Nooo, Obama would never do that. (That whole IRS story is a mirage, nothing to see here....)