House Hearing On Obama's Unilateral Action To Cease Enforcing Laws - Live Webcast

ZeroHedge ^ | 12/3/2013 | Tyler Durden

[mojito]

The House Judiciary Committee is about to discuss what it calls “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” focusing on the Obamacare delays, enforcement of immigration laws, and more. As Mediaite notes, the question of whether the president can take unilateral action to cease enforcing laws stretches back at least to last summer, when President Barack Obama said he would stop deporting young undocumented immigrants, an end-run around congressional refusal to pass the DREAM Act.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Love that Trey! Looks you straight in the eye, with that steely stare, and slowly pounds the nail where he wants it..right between the eyes of the left.

---

He should be the next US Attorney General, imho.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks mojito.

[thecodont]

Bring back reading and civics tests to be allowed to vote.
Make a law that accepting any entitlement benefits is cause for giving up your right to vote for ten years.

Remember those video interviews they did of people at the polling place back in '08, asking them why they voted for BO? Remember the responses?

[itsahoot]

The House writes the checks

Well someone must have gave the check book to Obama, since he is spending money left and right, and we don't even have a budget.

[firebrand]

I'm sure now that that is correct. Yesterday I posted something about a New York Times story on abortion "rights" being behind the rule change. I wondered about it at the time: Why would the Times pointing this out? Now it's clear to me: Because it's not about abortion. The Times only wants us to think that. It's about stacking the Second Circuit court so these legal challenges won't make it through. Makes a lot more sense. There are two excellent cases now: origination and the fact that the law expressly forbids the federal exchanges to grant subsidies. As was pointed out in the hearings today. The origination one is more important right now, because if it doesn't win, we effectively have no more origination clause. The other is egregious but just about money (except in how it adds to the many times 0 has ignored the law, and how it adds to the general aura of lawlessness at the top. And of course further redistributes income.

[firebrand]

Some things I realized today besides the above:

One of the reasons the House has become even more obstructive, as a Times editorial put it, is that they see no reason to pass laws when the president ignores them.

All of the president’s flouting of duly passed legislation is establishing precedent, even if not legal precedent.

One of the witnesses pointed out that we should look at whether the president flouted the law knowingly, willingly, and with a pattern, in order to determine if his transgressions are impeachable.

Another (?) pointed out that Congress members should have “member standing” to challenge the president in court. I have often wondered about this too, after hearing someone say the concept of “standing” is not in the Constitution. OK, it is established in case law, but is it correct? Shouldn’t possibly anyone, not only members of Congress, be able to bring suit, simply on the “grounds” that this is their country? Just a thought.

I am tempted to watch the whole thing again but my wireless broadband usage is high. Still may do so. It makes me proud of our Congress. Not everyone is sitting on their hands.

[firebrand]

One last remark that may seem like nitpicking but shows the will to distort: There was much discussion of the actual "Take care" clause from the Constitution, which states that the president shall take care to faithfully execute the laws that are passed by Congress. Lazarus substituted "in good faith" for "faithfully." Two completely different meanings. These are not labor union negotiations. The Sisters of Good Intentions might be fine with it, but not a veteran copyeditor.

[FreedomStar3028]

They needed a black, gay president to be elected. That way they could do ANYTHING with no repercussions.

[onyx]

I watched every minute of the hearing!
Trey Gowdy ROCKED!

[i_robot73]

Unfortunately 10 years is quite moot when you have GENERATIONAL welfare.

As voting is not a Right, how about for the term of accepting welfare (in any fashion, shape, matter or form. This includes the EITC. You didn’t ‘make/earn it’, it’s welfare) until termination PLUS 8 years (2 presidential election cycles)

[i_robot73]

I fail to see what all the hub-bub is about. It’s not as though we have anyone following A1S8 when they the all-encompassing ‘General Welfare’ to pass everything they want /s (big time) *cry*

[itssme]

I agree. I thought I read that he was going to, or decided against running against Lindseed Graham for his position. Either way, he has what it takes to be a fighter and a winner in whatever position he shoots for. Here in Illinois, we could sure use such a man...God, if it weren’t so hot down South, I would have moved there long ago! In another life, I must have been born in the South, ‘cause I've been hearing its call for a long time.

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

Yes. It’s a bit shocking that a hearing where impeachment of King Barry is discussed and the media doesn’t cover it. Fear of consequences for speaking out against the regime is at an all time high right now.

[upchuck]

I look forward to watching Trey rip them a new one!