Posted on 03/12/2014 1:18:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
If he had a sense of humor, he’d sign the bills and then ignore them. Just like he did with ObamaCare.
Forcing him to threaten a veto was, of course, the whole point of these bills in the first place.
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 4138 – Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law (ENFORCE the Law) Act of 2014
(Rep. Gowdy, R-South Carolina, and 11 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4138 because it violates the separation of powers by purporting to permit the Congress to challenge in court the exercise by the President of one of his core constitutional functions – taking care that Federal laws are faithfully executed.
Congress ordinarily has the power to define the bounds of the Executive Branch’s enforcement authority under particular statutes, and persons who claim to be harmed by the Executive Branch’s actions may challenge them as inconsistent with the governing statute. But the power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations. Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.
If the President were presented with H.R. 4138, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Translation: Congress is violating the separation of powers by trying to make Obama stop violating the separation of powers. The executive can summarily re-write key provisions of a momentous health-care law that was written and passed by the legislature (while offering no legal justification for doing so), but if the legislature tries to get judges involved to hold him back, well, that’s a constitutional bridge too far. Essentially, he’s arguing that because Article II leaves it to the president to faithfully execute the law, only O gets to decide whether he’s “faithfully executing the law” by selectively ignoring portions of it that benefit him politically. Remember, this is the guy who ran in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.
But let me ask you this: Would any president respond differently? Would any president sign a bill like the one the GOP’s proposing and then, duly chastened, start to comply? The novelty of O’s power grabs isn’t that he’d go to the mat constitutionally to defend them; presidents are forever claiming that attempts by Congress to rein them in violate Article II. (The War Powers Act is a perennial flashpoint.) You could, in fact, argue that this is all part of the checks-and-balances process: As different branches compete for power, they naturally seek to vindicate their supremacy in court. What’s novel about O is that, transparently, he’s refused to enforce parts of a major law (a law that’ll define his presidential legacy, by the way) not because of any constitutional problem but because they’re inconvenient to him politically. He needs to suspend the employer mandate for a few years, not because some unforeseen complication in enforcing it has arisen but because his party’s royally screwed at the polls as this boondoggle pisses off more and more voters and he’s frantic to minimize the damage. If he can define “faithful execution of the laws” to encompass an excuse as weak as that, then Jonathan Turley’s even more right than we thought. But, having made the leap to nonenforcement for reasons of pure political expedience, it’s no surprise that he’d now threaten a court battle over his constitutional powers. Presidents always do.
Still, good optics by the GOP to squeeze this threat out of him. The only thing I don’t get is why he’d play along. The bills will die in the Senate. Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?
It’s absolutely phenomenal the lengths they go to in order to appear to be doing something while avoiding at all costs actually performing their duty.
It is a de facto restatement of obamas sworn oath of office. It means nothing to him, by his own actions.
Impeach the Commie pink fag.
RE: . Should the president be required to enforce a law that he believes to be morally wrong?
You said it best...
As I said, something like this can cut both ways.
Let’s say we impeach Obama and succeed... what’s to stop a future Democratic congress from impeaching a conservative President for refusing to enforce a morally evil law?
Obama, the graduate of Law School from Harvard, takes decisions AGAINST his country laws!
The latest:
Washington’s decision to provide $1 billion financial aid to the Maidan-appointed government of Ukraine violate the US Code §22:
"the provision of foreign assistance is prohibited to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree."
After hearing this I am getting this uncontrollable urge to head out and be lawless in some fasion, what to do?
Forget to enroll in Obamacare, forget to pay the IRS its taxes, go 15mph over the speed limit, so many ways to be lawless.
When president decides that he does not have to enforce laws he does not like, the people have no obligation to obey the laws they don’t like.
-=-=o=-=-
“Irish Referendum” I believe it is called.........
+1
It does NOT say that he shall have the sole power to determine whether he has done that job.
In fact, I think there is an argument that can be made that the phrase "take care" indicates that it is possible that the president can NOT "take care." In which case, rather than using Article II as support for his sole authority in his self-assessment, the reverse would be true, because said Article would be interpreted as declaring it possible for him to FAIL in this task.
Thus it would fall to the other two powers - Judicial and Congressional - to assess his performance in faithfully executing the laws.
In fact, this proposed bill would be somewhat of a repetition of this part of Article II. Which brings up another question - why is this necessary at all? Why not just use Article II itself against him?
Answer - because there are two powers. The original Constitution under common law, and the corporate Constitution under the 14th Amendment.
Sorry, folks, There's no escaping this. If you want to save America, you have to learn how she is being destroyed. There's no other way - you're all shooting in the dark, while your opponants are running around with night-vision goggles.
So here's your set of night-vission goggles. All you have to do is put them on:
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
Our Republic is lost!
When the government enacts, yea-even contemplates, LAWS that define how LAWS are to be carried out, we no longer have a Constitutional Republic.
MOLON LABE
+1
Logically, then, their real purpose IS to NOT perform their duty, and the "lengths they go to in order to appear to be doing something" is to cover that fact up.
That's treason.
Caesarism. Same motive, too.
Not to mention bills to do legislatively what he is doing by executive fiat.
IMPEACH THIS BASTARD!!!
Susan Collins, and Lyndsay Graham will never impeach.
Check my tag line, been that since the last election!
When Cruz or Paul become prez, the first thing they should do is rescind every EO done by W and BO and vow not to rule by EO.
So he vetoes the Bill, then what...McConnell looks sternly into the camera and says this is outrageous, Boehner cries and it’s over!
The DICTATOR has made it official!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.