The checks are bouncing and the balances are broken
Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the President granted the power to pick and choose which laws are to be enforced, or when they will take effect. A president cannot delay a bill passed by Congress from becoming law as long as Congress is in session. He or she has ten days to sign the bill or it will become law without that signature.
What might have happened if in late 1964, then President Lyndon B. Johnson would have announced that he was delaying implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a year or two? That's the portion of that landmark legislation that says employers of 15 or more from engaging in discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Chaos? Uproar? Calls for impeachment?
It's a simple proposition. Congress passes laws. The President signs them and them must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," something President Obama has not done. He's not alone in this, without exception his predecessors have also violated this clause of the Constitution. However it must be noted that President Obama is going further afield in ignoring this limitation on his power than any other president has gone.
Congress passes immigration laws. Where is the Presidential authority to create his own version of the "Dream Act" for a group of people who are in the country illegally for what is considered no fault of their own? It doesn't exist. Doesn't mean that the concept is bad, it just means that it isn't within his authority or purview.
The issue of the legality of abortion wasn't decided by the Congress as it should have been, but by the Judiciary through Roe v Wade. A woman's right to choose should be inviolate as long as the fetus is not viable. However it was up to Congress to pass that into law. Constitutionally it's a bad decision, even though it is the right one.
Therein lies the rub. A large segment of the population thinks that these instances where President Obama is choosing to ignore his responsibilities under the Constitution are in the best interests of the people. I don't want to see federal laws about marijuana being enforced. But that is up to the Congress, to decide if it is or isn't legal. Is it possible that if the federal laws on that subject were being enforced, the people would rise up and let Congress know that this is a law that needs to be changed?
I think Obamacare has flaws but it is definitely a step in the right direction. That doesn't mean that the man whose name is on this law has the right to delay its implementation, in part or in whole.
What might have happened if in late 1964, then President Lyndon B. Johnson would have announced that he was delaying implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a year or two? That's the portion of that landmark legislation that says employers of 15 or more from engaging in discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Chaos? Uproar? Calls for impeachment?
It's a simple proposition. Congress passes laws. The President signs them and them must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," something President Obama has not done. He's not alone in this, without exception his predecessors have also violated this clause of the Constitution. However it must be noted that President Obama is going further afield in ignoring this limitation on his power than any other president has gone.
Congress passes immigration laws. Where is the Presidential authority to create his own version of the "Dream Act" for a group of people who are in the country illegally for what is considered no fault of their own? It doesn't exist. Doesn't mean that the concept is bad, it just means that it isn't within his authority or purview.
The issue of the legality of abortion wasn't decided by the Congress as it should have been, but by the Judiciary through Roe v Wade. A woman's right to choose should be inviolate as long as the fetus is not viable. However it was up to Congress to pass that into law. Constitutionally it's a bad decision, even though it is the right one.
Therein lies the rub. A large segment of the population thinks that these instances where President Obama is choosing to ignore his responsibilities under the Constitution are in the best interests of the people. I don't want to see federal laws about marijuana being enforced. But that is up to the Congress, to decide if it is or isn't legal. Is it possible that if the federal laws on that subject were being enforced, the people would rise up and let Congress know that this is a law that needs to be changed?
I think Obamacare has flaws but it is definitely a step in the right direction. That doesn't mean that the man whose name is on this law has the right to delay its implementation, in part or in whole.
posted by me at 7:23 AM
<< Home