Obama: Rule of Law, Due Process, Constitutional Fidelity, and Separation of Powers ‘Sets Our Country Back’Posted: June 23, 2016
President Obama said Thursday that the Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision that will block his 2014 executive actions on immigration “sets our country back,” and is “heartbreaking” for the millions of illegal immigrants still in the country.
“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system, and to allow people to come out of the shadows,” he said at the White House.
The 4-4 tie left in place a lower court ruling that found against Obama’s actions. But Obama cast the ruling as one that showed the Supreme Court was “unable to reach a decision,” and argued that it’s more evidence that the Senate needs to consider his nominee for the high court, Merrick Garland, so that the court cannot deadlock again.
“This is part of the consequence of the Republican failure so far to give a hearing to Mr. Merrick Garland,” Obama said.
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
“If the D.C. Court is upheld, Obamacare is over. It won’t survive.”
Charles Krauthammer believes that the language in the Affordable Care Act saying that subsidies are to be provided through state exchanges is unambiguous…He referred to a point made earlier today on NRO by Andrew McCarthy, who argued that even if you accept the government’s defense that it was indeed a drafting error, Congress is the only instrument in the constitutional system that can change the error.
“It is not in the power of the executive to fix what’s written in the legislation.”
In The Washington Post, George F. Will writes: What philosopher Harvey Mansfield calls “taming the prince” — making executive power compatible with democracy’s abhorrence of arbitrary power — has been a perennial problem of modern politics. It is now more urgent in the United States than at any time since the Founders, having rebelled against George III’s unfettered exercise of “royal prerogative,” stipulated that presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
“Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws…Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws.”
Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity and qualitatively different.
Regarding immigration, health care, welfare, education, drug policy and more, Obama has suspended, waived and rewritten laws, including the Affordable Care Act. It required the employer mandate to begin this year. But Obama wrote a new law, giving to companies of a certain size a delay until 2016 and stipulating that other employers must certify they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. Doing so would trigger criminal perjury charges; so he created a new crime, that of adopting a business practice he opposes.
Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must have somelatitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must havesome freedom to act in the absence of law. Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism.
Congress cannot reverse egregious executive aggressions such as Obama’s without robust judicial assistance. It is, however, difficult to satisfy the criteria that the Constitution and case law require for Congress to establish “standing” to seek judicial redress for executive usurpations injurious to the legislative institution .
That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorizes a lawsuit. That the lawsuit concern the president’s “benevolent” suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff. That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law. And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress’s power. Read the rest of this entry »
Bambi is not a dictator, but there is a danger in his aggregation of executive power
Another Op-Ed warning about Executive overreach in the Obama era is not unique. What is unique, is that it’s in the LA Times. Does Obama want to be a ruler, instead of a president? Interestingly, the LA Times included this link in the body of the article: Photos: A peek inside 5 doomed dictators’ opulent lifestyles. Think Obama’s personal luxury is overstated? Kings and Queens are required to manage their affairs more modestly than modern U.S. presidents. As Mark Steyn likes to point out, the operational cost of the White House exceeds operating cost of all the remaining Monarchies on earth, combined.
Jonathan Turley writes:
Recently, a bizarre scene unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shocked the framers of the Constitution. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had decided to go it alone in areas where Congress refused to act to his satisfaction. In a system of shared powers, one would expect an outcry or at least stony silence when a president promised to circumvent the legislative branch. Instead, many senators and representatives erupted in rapturous applause; they seemed delighted at the notion of a president assuming unprecedented and unchecked powers at their expense.
“The United States is at a constitutional tipping point: The rise of an uber presidency unchecked by the other two branches.”
Last week, Obama underlined what this means for our system: The administration unilaterally increased the transition time for individuals to obtain the level of insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. There is no statutory authority for the change — simply the raw assertion of executive power.
Our system is changing in a fundamental way without even a whimper of regret. No one branch in the Madisonian system can go it alone — not Congress, not the courts, and not the president.
This massive shift of authority threatens the stability and functionality of our tripartite system of checks and balances. To be sure, it did not begin with the Obama administration. The trend has existed for decades, and President George W. Bush showed equal contempt for the separation of powers. However, it has accelerated at an alarming rate under Obama. Of perhaps greater concern is the fact that the other two branches appear passive, if not inert, in the face of expanding executive power. Read the rest of this entry »