Skip to comments.Itís come to this: Obama threatens to veto Republican bills that Ö require him to follow the law
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?
Because he's an egotistical narcissist. He can't stop himself.
They need to get him to veto that bill to expose his contempt for law.
There is a constitutional crisis ongoing in the US. However, nobody seems to notice.
We truly have become the nation of the LAWLESS. As a Republic we stand at a critical juncture of history. If nobody stands up and yells ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT or does something else to stop him, there wont be much of the democratic republic by the time he leaves office and at this point I am not sure he will even voluntarily leave ofice.
I think those of us here notice.
The only way to end Obama, is to get 67 votes against him in the senate and IMPEACH... that’s it folks, and sadly, even if the republicans were to sweep all the Senate elections (and even the most optimistic view doesn’t believe that will happen) Republican’s would only hold 66 seats in the Senate.
Since Democrats have for 5 years shown they do not care whether the president obeys the constitution or not, they are only going to break with the party and vote to impeach if pressure is beyond what they can bare.
Odds of enough Dems in the Senate willing to do the right thing happening are insanely low even if Republicans sweep in November. Maybe they will to save themselves be able to get a vote or two, but I doubt it. The law doesn’t matter because our politicians have put party over the law, period
Those of us here constitute the smallest of minorities.
RE: There is a constitutional crisis ongoing in the US. However, nobody seems to notice.
There really is only one constitutional remedy for this — IMPEACHMENT.
It will be impossible a t this time... and we’ll have to wait and see what happens end of this year.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you dont till I tell you. I meant theres a nice knock-down argument for you!
But (faithful) doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all.
It’s PAST TIME to invoke The I-WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
RE: 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 dont like.
Something like this can cut both ways...
Let me give you a theoretical example.
Let’s say we now have a very conservative, pro-life President sitting in the Oval Office.
Before he was elected, however, a previous Democratic legislature and President signed a law that REQUIRED the President to provide funding, support and building of clinics for abortions up to and including partial birth abortions.
Should the conservative President follow this law?
A law requiring obedience to law? These Republicans are really something else. Enough theater.
No surprise here.
Just waiting for the next abomination to happen and the next grabbing of the ankles by congress critters.
Furthermore, many do not consider this president to be president. Heard he doesn’t even e-verify.
RE: A law requiring obedience to law?
Pretty soon this will be an endless loop... A law will be drafted requiring obedience to a law that requires obedience to the law... :)
It would have to pass the Senate first and Reid would never allow it up for a vote.
You are not quite right in your scenario as it is Congress who doles out the funds and determines where they are to be spent, but I get your drift. Should the president be required to enforce a law that he believes to be morally wrong?
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!
Washingtons 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 dont like.
“Irish Referendum” I believe it is called.........
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:
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.
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.
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!
Do Republicans need 40 or 41 Senators to introduce it?
Harry Reid won’t want to pick which Senators to vote no.
I don’t understand why Henry Cuellar and Pete Gallego voted for this. The dreamers will be angry.
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.