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.
Freegards
LEX
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 don’t— till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’
‘But “(faithful)” doesn’t 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 mean—neither 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— that’s 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 don’t 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?
Well said!
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?
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.