For John, BLUF: Nut 'n Honey. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, former US Court of Appeals Judge Michael W McConnell, now a professor at Stanford, says that President Obama has a Constitutional duty to enforce the laws passed by Congress, but most lack the standing to bring a case against the Administration in a court of law. Here is his opening:
President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.While the President being selective in which laws he enforces may be illegal, it gets back to a question of if the members of the US Congress, Niki, Ed and Elizabeth, for example, have the respect for their Office, their Institution, and the self-respect, to force the President to enforce the laws they have passed on our behalf. I am betting no.Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.
This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II's use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that "the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal."
But, you ask, how would they do it? By the power of the purse.
Incidentally, somewhere in the article the author uses the term "barefaced". You might think it is baldfaced.
Regards — Cliff
Frankly, I believe that this is all part of the choreography leading to what they wanted all along.....Single Payer.
ReplyDeleteSo, Professor Breathy, from Stanford, has never heard of signing statements?
ReplyDeleteFile this under: It's okay when a white guy does it.
Neal
ReplyDeleteYou are not the only one, but I am more optimistic, have more faith in Government.
Jack
Nice shot. Well played.
However, I am sort of holding back because:
1) I am not convinced there were any signing statements on this at signing.
2) So far it has been all "caucasians", including our current President, who, although he had a "Black" Father, had a caucasian Mother and was raised like he was "White". Please, no one drop rule in this day and age.
3) It makes it about race and I like the line "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Here.
Regards — Cliff
In re: "have more faith in government." That is difficult to do. Government exists, in the final analysis, to perpetuate itself at least, and grow itself at best. As an aside, the more ideal term would be "administer" as opposed to "govern." The latter implies and encourages a "ruling class." Government is merely the means to the politician's ends. That the populace benefits is a result of politicians giving just enough to keep themselves in office and to stave off an outright revolution by their constituents.
ReplyDeleteI find the use of the term "character" sadly ironic as it applies to the vast majority of "government professionals." Yeah....they ARE a bunch of characters alright......