Obama threatens to veto bill that would require administration to enforce laws

The Daily Caller ^ | 03/12/14 | Neil Munro

[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.

[oldbrowser]

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.

[GOPJ]

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?

[cotton1706]

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.

[The Sons of Liberty]

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

[circlecity]

"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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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

[fhayek]

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?

[Little Ray]

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. .

[ThomasMore]

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

[autumnraine]

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

[EBH]

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

[autumnraine]

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

[Blood of Tyrants]

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

Impeachment.

[SierraWasp]

"Hairy Screed"

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

[SierraWasp]

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

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

[Major Matt Mason]

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.

[Two Kids' Dad]

IM - MOTHER-FOKKING - PEACHMENT!!!

Sheesh! Friggin’ pubbies are worthless and spineless!

[BenLurkin]

An astute post.

[Cheerio]

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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.”