Alright, several things are in play in Washington DC when it comes to the Federal government operating in full-blown lawlessness. So, words like impeach, treason and high crimes and misdemeanors have flying in corridors. The question is, what is the solution to stop the destruction?
Many pundits are pushing back on any aggressive solution to stop the fraud, collusion and law-breaking of top stakeholders in the Barack Obama regime, none more so than Barack Obama himself, where is has without a doubt abused the power of the office of the Presidency using in fact his pen and phone.
Speaker of the House, John Boehner has announced his intention to sue Barack Obama and on July 16, the early stages of the process begins. While Barack Obama pokes fun at the intent to sue him, Boehner is serious and frankly after 5 1/2 years of proven abuse in all corners of the Obama regime, it is time to take a bold move.
Speaker Boehner has engaged some heavy-hitters that are Constitutional lawyers, none more so than that of Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School who is a supporter of Barack Obama’s policies but fully is opposed to his extra-legal/Constitutional methods to achieve those ends.
Experts Support House’s Action to Defend the Constitution
July 15, 2014|Speaker Boehner’s Press Office
Tomorrow, the House Committee on Rules will conduct a hearing on the House’s lawsuit against President Obama’s executive overreach, specifically, his unilateral rewrites of the health care law’s employer mandate. As Speaker Boehner said, “this isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats; it’s about the Legislative Branch versus the Executive Branch, and above all protecting the Constitution.”
Among those scheduled to testify at the hearing are Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, and Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Law at Florida International University College of Law. Excerpts of their prepared statements to the committee, along with links to their full testimony, are below.
[S]ome of President Obama’s statements come strikingly close to assertions by King James I that he could apply “natural reason” to the alteration, and even the suspension, of federal laws. … There may be good reasons for such changes. However, this is not a question of what to do but how should such changes be made and, more importantly, who should make them? Some of the changes unilaterally ordered by the President were previously sought from Congress. After Congress did not approve such changes, President Obama announced that he would go it alone. He proceeded to order the changes that he felt Congress should have made. He simply resolved the division with Congress by ordering changes on his terms as a majority of one. There is no license in the Madisonian system to “go it alone.” …
Rather than continue this unresolved and worsening controversy over the separation of powers, the House is seeking authority to bring the matter to the courts. That is precisely where such lingering questions should be resolved. …
Some of the changes ordered by President Obama did, in my view, cross the constitutional line in violation of the Separation of Powers. …
The Obama Administration has advanced constitutional arguments on presidential power that can only be described as both extreme and largely devoid of limiting principles that characterize our constitutional system. …
What we are witnessing today is a crisis of faith in our system despite its unparalleled and proven success. People have grown impatient with the constraints of the constitutional system, constraints which can seem quaint or antiquated when compared to pressing problems of health care or immigration or the environment. It is tempting to embrace rule by a single person who offers to govern alone to get things done. However, this is the very Siren’s call that our Founders warned us to resist. We remain a nation of laws and we have a court system designed to resolve such controversies. That is precisely where this authorization would take us and it is where these questions should be answered.
[W]hat Congress wants is what the Constitution entitles it to: faithful execution of the law by the executive branch, so that the American people can make accurate assessments about the law. If the constitutional duty of faithful execution is fulfilled, the law goes into effect as written—both good parts and bad parts—and the American people are fully informed about whether it works, and what may need fixing. …
There is a good reason why the founders granted “all” lawmaking power to Congress, and not the unitary Executive: As history teaches us, it is not wise to entrust the power of lawmaking—and its inherent potential to negatively impact individual liberty—to a single person.
When a law—even a complex and poorly drafted one—is faithfully executed, it enables fully informed consent, and a robust debate in the legislative branch. …
By unilaterally waiving, suspending or delaying the most unworkable, problematic portions of the ACA, the President makes this robust, pluralistic political debate and compromise impossible. Yet it is precisely by having a complex law go into effect as written that the political process—democracy itself—can function, and compromises regarding how to fix its problems can be achieved.
The House of Representatives is working very hard to regain legally and Constitutionally the power granted to them. They are seeking advise, remedies and perhaps even legislation to reassert that which has been dismissed by Cabinet secretaries and the White House. Here is a hearing where Turley speaks truth to power.
One may fault Speaker Boehner for many reasons, however a threshold has been crossed such that he is seeking a remedy. It may be a fool’s errand yet, it does send a shot across the bow of the White House, which is long over-due.
