Politico:
The Constitution, many of us learned in grade school, assigns the legislative power to the legislative branch, not the executive. The Constitution also commands that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Unfortunately, President Obama either missed that lesson or considers it inapplicable to his own administration. Thus, his promise-cum-threat, made in the heat of last year’s campaign: “Where Republicans refuse to cooperate on things that I know are good for the American people, I will continue to look for ways to do it administratively and work around Congress.”
Obama has delivered on his promise and worked around Congress with breathtaking audacity. In his signature legislative achievement alone, the Affordable Care Act, the president has unilaterally amended the law multiple times, including delaying the employer mandate and caps on out-of-pocket expenses, waiving the individual mandate for certain people, extending tax credits to individuals who purchase insurance through the federal health insurance exchange and ignoring a statutory requirement that Congress and their staff participate in the exchanges. But the president’s audacity doesn’t stop with Obamacare. He has also suspended immigration law, refusing to deport certain young illegal aliens—a major reform that Congress has refused to enact. Similarly, with the stroke of a magisterial pen, he has gutted large swaths of federal law that enjoy bipartisan support, including the Clinton-era welfare reform work requirement, the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law and the classification of marijuana as an illegal controlled substance.
So much for the separation of powers.
In a desperate attempt to stem the hemorrhaging of legislative power, members of Congress are turning to the courts to enforce their constitutional prerogative. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), for example, filed a lawsuit last week challenging the president’s decision to exempt Congress from the exchanges. And Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) is plotting a broadside attack on executive lawlessness through a resolution, called the Stop This Overreaching Presidency (STOP), that would authorize the House to legally challenge several presidential workarounds. Congressional friend-of-the-court briefs have been popping up in numerous lawsuits challenging Obama administration overreach.
But Congress’s ability to reclaim its powers through litigation faces a substantial roadblock in the form of a presumption against congressional “standing.” Standing is a constitutional prerequisite to maintaining a case in federal court; without it, a case is quickly dismissed. A plaintiff has standing when he or she can demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury, caused by the defendant, which can be remedied by a court. Abstract injuries suffered by society at large do not suffice.
The Supreme Court seemed to shut the door to congressional standing in Raines v. Byrd (1997), a lawsuit brought by six congressmen who challenged the constitutionality of the presidential line-item veto. The court held that the congressmen lacked standing, because the loss of congressional power they lamented was a “wholly abstract and widely dispersed” injury.
I’ve always wondered about this.
1. Congress passes a bill
2. President signs it into law
3. President ignores law, doesn’t enforce law, “modifies” law
4. Congress passes new bill telling President to follow law
5. President vetoes bill
6. Congress can’t override veto
7. Congress doesn’t have “standing”, can’t go to court
8. Not enough in Congress agree with impeachment
9. Law now whatever President says
10. Congress impotent
11. President omnipotent
12. We The People screwed.
As our Founders told us, our government will only work if run by moral men. Once the mischievous take over, our system makes it hard to stop them.
Having themselves failed to sabotage the Affordable Care Act by means of budgetary brinkmanship—which resulted in the furlough of 800,000 federal employees, the necessity of another 1.3 million essential federal employees working without pay, and which ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $24 billion for which they received nothing whatsoever—republicans are now faulting Obama for failure to effectuate some parts of that same law in a timely manner.
What’s the phrase I’m looking for to describe these elected officials? Ah, yes. Worse than useless.
Greg … squirrel.
Your response does nothing to address the original post – what can be done to rein in an Executive that violates their oath of office and publically seeks ways to bypass Congress? Would you accept this behavior if the parties were reversed? I wouldn’t.
Now to chase the squirrel and respond more directly to your post:
Democrats passed the ACA with zero Republican votes. Obama (D) signed it into law. The Executive branch had the responsibility to follow the law and the enhanced power (“as the Secretary (D) may direct”) to implement the law. They ignored large swaths of the law and are still failing at implementing the portions they didn’t ignore.
The budget fight in October occurred AFTER the ACA was supposed to have been fully implemented, per the original law passed and signed by Democrats, therefore the budget fight had nothing to do with the failed rollout and failing implementation.
Harry Reid is in despotic control of the Senate, and he will force through any appointment that Obama wants. Even if the SCOTUS finds Obama’s Labor appointments unconstitutional, Obama will just turn around and reappoint them and dirty Harry will make sure they are reinstated the next day. Until Republicans can take the Senate back, Obama’s stacking the executive branch and bureaucracy with far left thugs will go forward full steam. All the House Republicans can hope to do is continue a legislative stalemate with the Senate, except that their party has plenty of fellow “progressive” establishment lord-lings who are stupid enough to set aside Republican standards, and/or compromise simply to profit their own crony capitalist corrupt political machines.
@Greg:
Well, there you have it, boys and girls. The trouble with government spelled out in one short sentence.
2.1 million federal employees. That works out to one federal employee for every 125 man, woman and child in the U.S. Don’t even bother to count state, county and city employees. At the rate of civilian employment, it takes 77 workers to support the salary of one federal worker.
Anyone see a problem with that?
Never mind that Greggie didn’t bother to mention that all those furloughed government workers who suffered so greatly during the government shut down were all paid back pay for sitting at home watching re-runs of American Idol and eating Cheetos.
What’s the phrase I’m looking for to describe Greggie? Oh, yeah…..useful idiot.
@SouthernRoots, #3:
I disagree with the premise of the original post. A more proper question might be, What should a Chief Executive do to get around roadblocks that a minority faction in Congress keeps throwing up to prevent legislation that Congress itself passed, that the President signed, and that the Supreme Court upheld from going into effect? The job of the Chief Executive took an oath to do to the best of his ability includes effectuating the laws that Congress passes.
There is a legitimate way for Congress to eliminate a law, provided enough support exists to do so. They can repeal it.
@retire05, #5:
You might want to update your figures, and then run a quick check on the soundness of your logic. The 2012 population of the U.S. was 313.9 million. Given 2.7 million federal employees, a quick bit of division reveals that federal employees make up around .86 of 1 percent of the population. That’s not exactly a staggeringly high percentage, to do the central administrative and regulatory work of so large a modern, complex nation.
Some people, or course, assert that so large and complex a nation could function perfectly well without bothersome central administration and regulation; that the free market and unrestricted capitalist activity would sort things out in the best way possible for all concerned. Unfortunately, such people are living in a fantasy land.
By the way, federal employment is presently at a 47-year low.
The GOP should campaign on ignoring the law and the next President should promise to give everyone an exemption to Obamacare.
@Greg, #6: I reject the premise you present. The Constitution sets out separation of powers. Legislation is for Congress, not the Executive or the Judiciary. If Congress, for any reason they choose, does not pass legislation, it is not up to the Executive to implement it anyway through EOs.
The SC upheld the ACA only by calling the mandate a tax. All of the exemptions now become special tax exemptions not passed by Congress, but granted by the Executive.
The House has a similar problem with legislation as Obama – they pass hundreds of bills that are held up by a small faction of one – Harry Reid.
Immigration law – “Dream Act”
NCLB – “Common Core”
Federal Pot laws – “State pot laws”
etc.
He doesn’t seem to think these laws need “his best ability to effectuate”, he just wants to find “end runs”.
There is a legitimate way for the Executive to eliminate (or change) a law, provided enough support exists to do so. They can present the argument to Congress and convince Congress to make the changes. If Congress doesn’t make the change, too bad, so sad, but that is how the Constitution set it up.
@Greg:
EVERY single time the Congress presented a budget since 2009 it has been tabled by the DEMOCRAT harry reid. Every time a bill comes into the senate the DEMOCRAT harry reid has tabled it. No, the house is not polly perfect but the house has been trying to get bills through that will help to curb some of this crap. however EVERY single time DEMOCRAT harry reid has tabled the efforts.
Now before the debacle obamacare what party was trying to tell the people it was a bad thing? What party was that? Was it the democratic party? no. Ah yes I got it, it was the Republican party and YES they were absolutely correct. The people are now opening their eyes and saying, wow we should have listened.