WhatFinger

Cites 'separation of powers' to avoid 'separation of powers'

Obama threatens to veto bill which would force him to obey the law

By Robert Laurie ——--March 17, 2014

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

During the 2008 presidential race, one of then Senator Obama's main talking points was a relentless attack on George W. Bush's executive overreach.
According to the soon-to-be President, Bush was a lawless dictator bent on circumventing Congressional controls. Then, of course, Obama was elected and all that went out the window. He's become the poster child for Presidents who unilaterally alter, delay, or refuse to enforce laws based on little more than personal whims.. So, Rep. Trey Gowdy decided to do something about it. He's one of the main sponsors of H.R. 4138. Commonly known as the "Enforce the Law Act," the bill would allow Congress to sue the President in federal court should he arbitrarily refuse to enforce the laws as written. In essence, it seeks to create a mechanism that would allow the legislative branch to enforce the separation of powers. The bill passed the House this week. Obviously, President Obama wants none of it, and the administration immediately threatened a veto:
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.
Got that? In essence, Obama is arguing that any congressional action which would enforce separation of powers represents a violation of separation of powers. Put another way, he thinks separation of powers protects the President from any bill that would hinder his ability to ignore or alter laws - which, of course, is an executive overreach and a violation of separation of powers. Obama seems to understand that he's supposed to "faithfully execute the law," but he's managed to convince himself that he's really the only one who can determine what "faithfully" means. In the case of the ACA, "faithfully" apparently means "as long as it's not politically damaging." This will more than likely die in the Senate, so the President shouldn't have to worry about implementing his own signature law. He can keep delaying or changing it willy-nilly, and - according to his veto threat - he's still "faithfully" enforcing it. The law protects his right to violate the law. Tortured logic 101.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
Subscribe

View Comments
Robert Laurie——

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored