On 03 December televised on C-Span was one of the most scintillating hearings I’ve ever witnessed, held before the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Congressman Goodlatte. The subject: “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.” The panelists were Jonathan Turley and Nicholas Rosenkranz of Georgetown University (Law), Simon Lazarus of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.
The discussion centered on the “Take care” provision of Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: “…he [president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed… .” Three of the four panelists went to some pain to excoriate President Obama, with, if memory serves, at least two of those indicating they voted for Obama. Lazarus tried to make the case that Obama has acted Constitutionally with respect, especially, to the so-called Affordable Care Act.
Subjects such as immigration were discussed but the main consideration concerned the healthcare act that has undergone tremendous criticism, particularly account the fact that the “rollout” on the Internet was and remains a fiasco. The most damning statement, probably made inadvertently, was made by Lazarus, the president’s defender, when he asserted that the legislators did not know what was in the act when they passed it.
It’s common knowledge that this was true of ACA, passed in 2010, and also the wretched cap-and-trade act passed by the democrat house before 2011 but not taken up by the Senate to this day. No republican voted for either act. Then-Speaker Pelosi is still ridiculed for her claim that people would know what was in the ACA only AFTER it was passed. She was right, making Obama/ democrats into a laughingstock.
Lazarus tried to use the “take care” mandate as the president’s prerogative to apply the laws in the fashion he deemed timely if at all, as in the case of Obama’s public refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act long before it was fated by the Supreme Court in a decision that should terrify citizens if Obama gets to appoint more justices.
Rosenkranz remarked the strange position of Obama in threatening to veto a House resolution to delay the ACA employer mandate for a year, then in a Friday blog (not even a directive) pronounced that delay himself, thus nullifying by executive fiat his Constitutional mandate to execute, not delay, the law passed by the Congress, the ruling body. He was merely “taking care” of his party in the November elections, knowing that the employer mandate will affect the citizenry much worse than the current cancellation of millions of policies he promised for years would not happen.
Note was taken of the fact that Obama already has—although he can’t actually do it Constitutionally—exempted over a thousand entities from having to observe the ACA. It’s a cinch that in his next late-on-a-Friday-evening-blog he will exempt the unions, another illegal act. He knows that but assumes impunity.
The damning but appropriate term used by the panel in the hearing was “monarchy,” the antithesis of what the founders constructed, having just gained freedom from the English monarchy and establishing a representative government of, by and for the people. Picking and choosing for enforcement (immigration laws, for instance) or actually changing laws passed by Congress (ACA) is the most easily recognized modus operandi of Obama, acting as a monarch.
There was much discussion of what the Congress or an individual could do with respect to the courts to rein in a monarchical president. Not much, apparently. Finally, Rosenkranz more than once uttered the word one of the congressmen refused to use—impeach.
The fact that Obama has been the most prolific liar in recent presidential history (Fast-and-Furious, Benghazi Massacre, insurance policy non-cancellations, IRS-scandal, Syria) is not the issue. His blatant attempt to usurp the powers of Congress is, as was proven in his war on Libya, the most flagrant violation of his oath.
Without consulting Congress, Obama un-Constitutionally and in violation of the War Powers Act, sent U.S. forces in March 2011 against a sovereign nation that posed no threat to this country militarily or in any other way and waged that war for seven months, leaving Libya in total disarray.
One congressman asked about war-making. If Obama could attack Libya, causing horrendous bloodshed and anarchy, what might he decide to do about anything? MONARCHY—or not?
And so it goes.