Patterico's Pontifications

3/12/2014

ENFORCE – Obama Vows To Veto Law Requiring Him To Enforce The Law

Filed under: General — JD @ 8:02 pm

[guest post by JD]

It seems the House passed a Bill to give their co-equal branch of government standing to sue when the President does not faithfully execute the laws that they have sworn to uphold.

Predictably, the Obama Admin issued their veto threat, standing in firm opposition to faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress.

In a great floor speech, Rep Trey Gowdy excoriated Obama and the Dems, using 2006 and 2008 Obama as a stark contrast to President Obama.

“We all swore an allegiance to the same document that the president swears allegiance to, to faithfully execute the law,” Gowdy continued. “If a president does not faithfully execute the law… what are our remedies?”

He then argued that Congress should do exactly what then-Sen. Obama suggested before he was president of the United States: “To go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say once and for all: ‘We don’t pass suggestions in this body. … We don’t pass ideas — we pass laws. And we expect them to be faithfully executed.”

—JD

35 Responses to “ENFORCE – Obama Vows To Veto Law Requiring Him To Enforce The Law”

  1. I blame Bush. And Cruz. But not Palin.

    JD (eea907)

  2. Sheesh, I’m tired of the House pretending its would really really do something …

    Either refuse to pass any more budget bills for real. Or impeach.

    Everything else is BS.

    SPQR (768505)

  3. The House has ample grounds to impeach him. It creates its own standing and it is not subject to anyone in the Judiciary.

    Pathetic, they are.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  4. it takes a spine to stand up and act…

    politicians don’t generally have spines.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  5. and say you actually do go to the Supremes: what do you do when they rule against you, as the current collection of idiots there very well might?

    then what, your simpletons?

    my cats are smarter than all of Congress put together.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  6. Process matters

    JD (eea907)

  7. JD! Thanks for the post. How have you been?

    This seems like a great bill, btw — especially given Congress’s unwillingness to use purse string powers to rein in the executive.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  8. I am doing well, adjusting to a new normal. Sorry I have not been able to help out much. Recently, all I have wanted to post were strings of curse words.

    JD (eea907)

  9. Urgent moral authority will suddenly return after the 2014 and 2016 elections.

    The popular press is nothing anymore but a propaganda arm of the left. The sad part of that is it really does have a role, but it has decided collectively to give that role away.

    I promise you, after the mid-terms, when the House and Senate are returned to the GOP, we will have to listen to ceaseless pronunciations that the only reason for the resurgence of the right is racism.

    Then, unemployment will matter again. Overseas troops dying will matter again. Homelessness will matter again. Al Gore will matter again. Infrastructure and the problem with Kansas will matter again. Heck, I bet Cindy Sheehan will vote Republican just to have the chance to matter again, bless her heart.

    This is all so predictable and oh so boring.

    The left hasn’t had a new idea since Marx died, but by God, they are progressive about 19th Century ideas.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  10. I think everyone should write their Senator and Congressman and demand that budgets for the White House, IRS, DOJ and HHS be zeroed out. Until Obama complies with law and complies with all subpoenas / oversight.

    Hit Obama where it hurts. Kill the budget for his golf greens fees.

    SPQR (768505)

  11. The House has ample grounds to impeach him. It creates its own standing and it is not subject to anyone in the Judiciary.

    They could censure him without regard to anyone; each house has that power independently. It has no real effect, but it does serve notice that the actions being censured are not acceptable and should not be repeated by future presidents.

    The danger of impeachment is that if there is no conviction, someone might think it was now OK.

    Kevin M (131754)

  12. Now, the problem with this bill is that Obama will ignore it if it passes.

    Kevin M (131754)

  13. SPQR, you forgot the EPA.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  14. SPQR, they will never zero out the budget for the IRS. They need the tax man. But they could cancel their medical and tell them to get Obamacare.

    Kevin M (131754)

  15. The danger of impeachment is that if there is no conviction, someone might think it was now OK.

    You mean, like today?

    Impeachment is the only thing that will wake up the republic. The Senate fails to convict? One more knot to add to the noose already around the majority there.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  16. Kevin M., seriously you can zero out their travel and entertainment budget as an example. Zero out their office supplies too.

    Its a crime to spend money that is not appropriated. It works.

    SPQR (768505)

  17. our supreme court is perverted and weird anymore

    berobed whores what despise liberty and adore the smell of fascism in the morning

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  18. Cheer up, people!
    “Death has this much to be said for it
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you… free”

    Colonel Haiku (cb438a)

  19. Recently, all I have wanted to post were strings of curse words.

    i’d be fine with occasional poasts like that.

    8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  20. I don’t know Latin or lawyerese,
    but if it was not an issue of political “realities”, isn’t this more or less not only a reason to impeach, but a primae facia reason to find him guilty?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  21. I just saw a large white rabbit with a pocket watch.

    narciso (3fec35)

  22. Did you hear Grace Slick singing?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  23. I agree with everyone who says the bill is meaningless. A court might enjoin the executive from committing a patently illegal act; it might mandate it to perform a purely administrative act (such as issuing a marriage license); but it will never mandate the performance of a discretionary act (such as bombing the Russian positions in the Crimea). I will let you guess why.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. nk, what about public policy to not defend a law passed by Congress and signed by a previous president, like DOMA, or blatantly refusing to enforce immigration law?

    In my mind, if you don’t uphold the laws of the US, why make an oath? Why have a government?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  25. I would impeach Holder on both DOMA and immigration. Tolerating pot legalization too. The standard for impeachment is entirely different than for a court injunction. (Can you see a court ordering the justice department to seize the assets of a Colorado head shop and of the bank in which it deposits its loot, in accordance with the drug trafficking laws?) I agree with the commenters who say that impeachment is the correct procedure.

    nk (dbc370)

  26. Maybe I’m not understanding things. I sort of thought the main idea behind the law was to make it easier to impeach as they could point to a very explicit illegal act.
    And I think if we impeach Holder why shouldn’t we impeach Holder’s boss? After all, Holder can break the law only as long as his boss lets him do it instead of firing him.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  27. Spring of Discontent
    when truth is found to be lies
    joy within you dies

    Colonel Haiku (c1bfa3)

  28. Congress can impeach any way it wants. No impeachment has been challenged successfully in court. Without looking it up, the first one may have been a judge whose “high crime and misdemeanor” was drinking and cussing on the bench.

    This bill is, ostensibly, to give Congress standing to sue the President in court on how to do his job. Well, why on Earth, would any President consent to that? Since Obama’s threatened veto is the subject.

    You guys have been giving Issa grief but, in my opinion, Trey Gowdy is the grandstanding jackleg on that committee.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. Sorry. Executive is “high crimes and misdemeanors” — judicial is “not good behavior”.

    nk (dbc370)

  30. To the folks here calling for impeachment, please hold off. The President would be found Not Guilty by the Dems in the Senate, as was exactly happened with Billy Clinton.

    Let’s elect a Republican majority Senate, who could then respomd to a House impeachment with a fair trial in the Senate based on evidence. There is a wealth of evidence.

    Fred Beloit (2e7f95)

  31. Hey, if we’re looking for dark horse candidates for the 2016 GOP nominee, how about Trey Gowdy? He is smart, unwavering, and can cut through BS like the former prosecutor that he is. He’s a lot more likeable than Ted Cruz, a lot more willing to take a few (political) swings than Rubio, does well on TV and gets better coverage than the current crop of GOP Governors. What does he not have that he needs?

    NeoCon_1 (5a5908)

  32. Dear America,

    I have a pen, a phone, the IRS, and a set of golf clubs. And I intend to use them all !

    Love,
    Signed,

    Barack

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  33. “What does he not have that he needs?”

    a decent haircut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (c1bfa3)

  34. Maybe I’m not understanding things. I sort of thought the main idea behind the law was to make it easier to impeach as they could point to a very explicit illegal act.
    And I think if we impeach Holder why shouldn’t we impeach Holder’s boss? After all, Holder can break the law only as long as his boss lets him do it instead of firing him.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/13/2014 @ 6:44 am

    Baby steps and fear. Impeaching Holder is easier than impeaching the POTUS.

    Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e)

  35. Let me go on record as saying that I fully support our president, and the wonderful precedent he is setting. I look forward to the next president “waiving enforcement” of all EPA, OSHA, NLRB, EEOC, and [name agency here] regulations. And to his or her publicly laughing at the explosion of outrage from the Dems and the press (but I repeat myself).

    Milhouse (b95258)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2015 secs.