Posted on 07/06/2013 8:12:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
During the presidency of Barack Obama, we’ve learned something about our Constitution that we did not know: The president can simply refuse to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like. Not as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, mind you, but in general, as to whole categories of people.
First it was DOMA, in a sop to the gay lobby. Then it was the immigration laws, which the president has decided not to enforce against young illegal immigrants. Now it’s the crucial employer-insurance mandate in Obamacare, which is “suspended” for a year, because the president feels like it. I say “crucial” because, absent the employer mandate, the official estimate of how much Obamacare is going to cost, and how it’s going to affect the number of uninsured, is no longer valid.
Employers shouldn’t have to provide health insurance at all. But without it, more people will go on the state insurance exchanges, where their health insurance is subsidized. That subsidy is the single-payer essence of Obamacare. Hence, suspending the employer mandate just brings us one step closer to the single-payer system that liberals wanted all along.
Others are busy fleshing out the vast implications for the nation’s health-care market. But let’s focus on the constitutional implications for a moment.
The Constitution states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Not “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed if he feels like it,” which is how the Obama administration apparently reads the provision.....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Bookmark
“It’s probably not a “crime or misdemeanor” for him to fail to enforce a law, so he probably can’t be impeached for it.”
“Probably”? That’s wishy-washy. It is or it isn’t, and I lean to the side that it is at least a misdemeanor.
If we don’t have “rule of law” then we have “rule of man”, followed by chaos, followed by open dictatorship to cure the chaos.
Followed by rebellion, followed by a change in rulers. The problem by rule of men is once it begins, where does it stop? The only way out of this is to follow the Constitution, impeach and convict Obama, then move on from there.
I could go on to post the many similarities between 0dungh0 and Adolph, but it would be unfair to Adolph.
Sadly.
That ship sailed Jan 20, 2009.
Some wise observations from Thomas Sowell.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution prescribes "equal protection of the laws" to all Americans. But what does that mean, if the President of the United States can arbitrarily grant waivers, so that A, B and C have to obey the laws but X, Y and Z do not — as with both ObamaCare and the immigration laws?
No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained — not just the ones he happens to agree with.
If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.
When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.
As much as I would like to “credit” Obama with this, he wasn’t the first to refuse to encorce laws.
GWB also pulled this little stunt, but we didn’t hold his feet to the fire. Now we realize how harmful the tactic is.
“That ship sailed Jan 20, 2009.”
I wish that ship WAS sailing. Sailing implies that someone is at the helm, and the course can be changed. The ship of state has been set adrift and the sea cocks have been left open.
That means that Obama’s opportunity to execute the laws faithfully passed with his inauguration. The observations of Thomas Sowell were included to reinforce my observation.
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.