Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama threatens to veto bill that would require administration to enforce laws
The Daily Caller ^ | 03/12/14 | Neil Munro

Posted on 03/12/2014 11:42:31 AM PDT by blueyon

President Barack Obama would veto a GOP-drafted bill that would allow legislators to take agency officials to court if they don’t enforce laws, according to a White House statement.

The GOP is pushing the bill through the House because Obama has repeatedly declined to enforce laws he doesn’t like, say GOP legislators.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agenda; corruption; obama; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
So I would think there would be screaming and outrage when a President does not uphold the law, yet all is quiet. Kind of like when gas was hitting $2.00 under Bush, everyone screamed and now it is over $3.00 and not a sound from the masses.............so odd.
1 posted on 03/12/2014 11:42:31 AM PDT by blueyon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Let him veto it. That will look great in an ad against his party.


2 posted on 03/12/2014 11:43:22 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Why would he bother vetoing it? It wouldn’t be enforced anyhow.


3 posted on 03/12/2014 11:44:29 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

“..So I would think there would be screaming and outrage when a President does not uphold the law..”

:::::::::::::

Ignorant masses, dysfunctional selfish Congress.


4 posted on 03/12/2014 11:45:06 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
"Let him veto it. That will look great in an ad against his party."

It would also look good on an Articles of Impeachment.

5 posted on 03/12/2014 11:45:50 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
"Let him veto it. That will look great in an ad against his party."

You bet. Let him go on record vetoing a bill that merely says he's required to the job he took an oath to do.

6 posted on 03/12/2014 11:45:55 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

What if he doesn’t veto it, but refuses to enforce it?


7 posted on 03/12/2014 11:46:33 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

The rule of lawless.


8 posted on 03/12/2014 11:47:05 AM PDT by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

On the other hand, he could just sign the law and proceed to ignore it... (like he does our Constitution and all our other laws)


9 posted on 03/12/2014 11:47:50 AM PDT by faithhopecharity (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

You wold think that someone would point out that this “concept” is not up to the political (i.e., let’s vote on it!) whims of the legislature or the executive branch.

I fail to find any clause in the consititution that provides for selectivity in either branch.

I say that a member of the executive branch that does not execute, uphold or enforce duly executed legislation is in contempt of congress and should be jailed on simple conviction.


10 posted on 03/12/2014 11:49:17 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

I happen to agree with him on this one.

The Constitution requires him to execute the law. The bill is redundant.

The only thing that is missing is impeachment and demanding that the Congress enforce the constitutional requirements.


11 posted on 03/12/2014 11:49:17 AM PDT by EBH (And the head wound was healed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Washington DC should take the name of Crimea.


12 posted on 03/12/2014 11:49:30 AM PDT by FreedomGuru (Time for torches and pitchforks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Hairy Screed, (To quote another freeper) Won’t even let that into the upper house if it even gets out of the House of reps.


13 posted on 03/12/2014 11:49:54 AM PDT by mongo141 (Revolution ver. 2.0, just a matter of when, not a matter of if!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon; All
... that would allow legislators to take agency officials to court ...

Doesn't this indicate current RINOs are scared to use their constitutional power to impeach to impeach Obama?

14 posted on 03/12/2014 11:50:03 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

I have an idea. IMPEACH HIM. Surely repeatedly violating the constitution is a High Crime!!! HURRY UP


15 posted on 03/12/2014 11:50:45 AM PDT by SADMILLIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Liberals never wanted a president who would enforce laws. They wanted someone who would seize as much power as possible to either overturn capitalism or at least prevent conservatives from having any voice at all.


16 posted on 03/12/2014 11:50:50 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Obama already took an oath to DO what this law tries to compel him to do,why does the House waste their time on useless votes,Impeach him for violating the Constitution,Defund Obamacare,they had opportunities to do these things and they wet their pants,tell Boner to take a hike and stop wasting time on useless stunts and do something useful


17 posted on 03/12/2014 11:51:13 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
Article 2
Section 3: Presidential responsibilities
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

So this position must be more of the "fundamental transformation" he promised. So much for foundational law.

18 posted on 03/12/2014 11:51:42 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

“Obama threatens to veto his executive orders”


19 posted on 03/12/2014 11:55:12 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
King Obama's solution for any Congressional member
or American, who dares vote for, or demand
a bill requiring the undocumented KING to adhere to Law.


20 posted on 03/12/2014 11:55:39 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
What if he doesn’t veto it, but refuses to enforce it?

It is not a bill that he enforces. It is a bill to give the legislature "standing" in court to sue the president or the administration and compel them to enforce the law. I would think the next step would be a court order to be followed by impeachment, jail time, etc.

21 posted on 03/12/2014 12:00:44 PM PDT by oldbrowser (Civil service unions are the real government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Trust me, if Bush had taken over the job of Congress you’d be hearing about this... Did you know the press is on the side of Democrats?


22 posted on 03/12/2014 12:01:34 PM PDT by GOPJ (From a bellwether to an "oh-whateverrrr" in less than a single news cycle. -freeper Fightin Whitey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Obama’s veto threats are just a cue to Harry Reid to not even bother with the bill.

They shield each other against the House. Reid says, Obama’s going to veto this bill so we’re not even going to go through the motions. We’re not responsible. And Obama says, hey, the bill never got to me so I’m not responsible.

That’s why they’re desperate to keep the Senate, so the charade can continue.


23 posted on 03/12/2014 12:01:56 PM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Another count for IMPEACHMENT, once the GOP get’s some REAL leadership.


24 posted on 03/12/2014 12:02:53 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Who but a TYRANT shoves down another man's throat what he has exempted himself from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH
"The Constitution requires him to execute the law. The bill is redundant."

Not really. What the bill does is give someone standing to file a lawsuit and get a court order requiring his agents to enforce the law.

25 posted on 03/12/2014 12:04:30 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

I have a sense of “Well, duh” about this.


26 posted on 03/12/2014 12:04:37 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Where I live, gas is inching back up toward $4.00 (it was $3.75 yesterday). Silence in the media. Do they really think that people don’t notice?


27 posted on 03/12/2014 12:04:54 PM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Something about “Faithfully Execute...”
Which he does not do.
Not that such a violation of his oath will mean anything to folks inclined to vote Democrat. .


28 posted on 03/12/2014 12:05:59 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

I hope he does veto the bill. Would be great fodder for a campaign ads against the anti-constitution, non-law abiding democRATS.


29 posted on 03/12/2014 12:08:10 PM PDT by ThomasMore (Islam is the Whore of Babylon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

It was and is not the masses. It’s the media.


30 posted on 03/12/2014 12:08:25 PM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

The bill is superfluous. Congress is the one that needs to do their job.


31 posted on 03/12/2014 12:08:38 PM PDT by EBH (And the head wound was healed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: blueyon; All

Why does there need to be a law that says people can be prosecuted for breaking a law?


32 posted on 03/12/2014 12:10:57 PM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

There is already a process to deal with a rogue administration that selectively enforces laws while awarding lawbreakers.

Impeachment.


33 posted on 03/12/2014 12:14:52 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mongo141
"Hairy Screed"

Ooooooo… I like that!!! (shouldn't it be Harry Screed?)

34 posted on 03/12/2014 12:18:32 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Bill Clinton, America's 1st Black PresidentÂ… Obama, IS the LAST!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EBH
"Congress is the one that needs to do their job."

But they cain't! Doncha unnerstan that that's raycist???

35 posted on 03/12/2014 12:21:47 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Bill Clinton, America's 1st Black PresidentÂ… Obama, IS the LAST!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
This won't make it to Obama's desk, but it could be useful to bludgeon the Democrats as a lawless party in the run-up to the midterms. Of course, that would actually require some strategerizing on the part of the GOP, which is never a sure thing.
36 posted on 03/12/2014 12:29:58 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason ("Journalism is dead. All news is suspect." - Noamie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

IM - MOTHER-FOKKING - PEACHMENT!!!

Sheesh! Friggin’ pubbies are worthless and spineless!


37 posted on 03/12/2014 12:31:54 PM PDT by Two Kids' Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

An astute post.


38 posted on 03/12/2014 12:42:06 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
So I would think there would be screaming and outrage when a President does not uphold the law, yet all is quiet

Barack Obama twice now has put his hand on a Bible and taken the following oath: “I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And within that Constitution which President Obama has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend, is the following requirement of a President: “He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” -
Then he went on a Blah Blah Blah TOTUS speech in which these words fell off TOTUS

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction. And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.
39 posted on 03/12/2014 12:42:26 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

This might or might not work. In effect, it is a “writ of mandamus”, which are usually reserved to the judiciary.

“In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.”


40 posted on 03/12/2014 12:49:56 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Impeach Soetoro-Obama in 2014, PERIOD.


41 posted on 03/12/2014 12:57:34 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SADMILLIE

Impeachment is doomed to failure, and not just because of the distribution of Republicans and Democrats in the congress.

An ultraleftist young lawyer explained that Obama is simply acting like any enforcement agency which does not treat all situations exactly the same before the law(s). All executives exercise discretion in the enforcement of laws.

This is an argument that no member of the House or Senate would be willing or able to refute adequately in the realms of public opinion and propaganda.


42 posted on 03/12/2014 12:57:37 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Not to mention that the Presidential Oath declares that he will faithfully execute the Laws of the Land.


43 posted on 03/12/2014 1:25:19 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for RINOs is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

More proof that this country is going insane - that we need a law to try to get our leaders to enforce the laws they pass...


44 posted on 03/12/2014 1:27:14 PM PDT by Zack Attack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
It is a bill to give the legislature "standing" in court to sue the president

I seem to recall the democrats taking Nixon into court for not spending money they had appropriated. Nixon lost.

Why did they have standing to do that, yet no one seems to have standing anymore. Did we amend the Constitution when no one was watching?

45 posted on 03/12/2014 1:30:27 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for RINOs is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
The courts already boot these cases, unless the legislators have standing. Sometimes the courts boot tyhe cases becuase the issue is a political question, and the legislators have other tools, like legislate the agency out of existence, dry up the money, or impeach and remove a government officer.

The courts would keep booting these cases - legislators can't legislate "political questions" into some other sort of issue. I see this as just more of Congress abdicating its own responsiblity.

46 posted on 03/12/2014 1:30:58 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fhayek
Do they really think that people don’t notice?

And you think that they do? Why are there no protests? Why is his approval above 15%?

47 posted on 03/12/2014 1:32:56 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for RINOs is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Major Matt Mason
could be useful to bludgeon the Democrats as a lawless party

The democrats want him to be lawless. To be fair I doubt you would hear any complaints on this forum, if we had a Republican President that refused to enforce EPA directives or any number of other Climate Change Cr@p, laws.

48 posted on 03/12/2014 1:38:04 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for RINOs is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

The fact that the administration refuses to enforce existing laws is reason enough for impeachment. Why is he not impeached and removed from office?


49 posted on 03/12/2014 3:13:03 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Why did they have standing to do that, yet no one seems to have standing anymore. Did we amend the Constitution when no one was watching?

I agree that no one seems to have standing against the government anymore. Even though Of, By, and for the people was supposed to be the foundation of our government.

I don't recall the dems prevailing against Nixon when he was not spending the entire federal budget.

50 posted on 03/12/2014 5:22:29 PM PDT by oldbrowser (Civil service unions are the real government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson