Skip to comments.Welfare Waivers Unlawful GAO Says
Posted on 09/10/2012 1:02:13 PM PDT by John Semmens
The Obama Administrations decision to waive the work requirement for welfare recipients must be submitted for Congressional approval the Government Accountability Office says. Under existing law, all administrative changes of policy or regulations must be submitted to Congress for their review.
Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, charged that Secretary Sebelius waiver constitutes an illegal end-run around Congressional oversight.
Sebelius defended her actions as necessary given the high probability of obstruction from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Voters elected President Obama in order to effect change in the way we do business. His ability to carry out this mandate cannot be held hostage by an uncooperative legislature.
If Congress thinks he is breaking their law let them impeach him, the Secretary jeered. That is their only Constitutional prerogative. If they cant muster the nerve to exercise that prerogative he will continue to do what he thinks is right.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
Does anybody(other than me)remember what Obama said about The US Constitution in 2008?He said he thought it to be a “Flawed”document because it was too restrictive of government!That’s EXACTLY what it’s meant to be,you IDIOT from Mombasa,Kenya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Laws? He doesn’t have to abide by stinking laws!
The GAO should talk to Traitor Roberts about 0bamacare.
Article 1,Section 1:All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of The United States,which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.!!!!!!!!Earth to Obama and Sebelius;What part of this don’t you get????????????????????????????
MEGA DITTOS TO THAT!Is Roberts turning into George W’s David Souter????????????????????????????????????
The problem in THIS article is Seibelius (whatever).
Think seriously about what she is saying here. IOW she wants us to be ruled by a DICTATOR!!!
As I understand this article those were the words of a member of Obama's cabinet. The President's cabinet members are a result of the advice and consent of Congress.
Presidents take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Well, hell, that went out the window in 2009.
A Representative takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Commissioned military personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Enlisted military personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution with this addition:
"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The subtle distinction between officer oath and enlisted oath is that officers are bound to disobey any order that violates our Constitution, while enlisted personnel are bound to obey only lawful orders.
My question is do cabinet member take their own oath to the Constitution or are they subject to honoring the Presidents oath.
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.