Michael McConnell: Obama Suspends the Law
Like King James II, the president decides not to enforce laws he doesn't like. That's an abuse of power.
By MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL, Wall Street Journal
President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.
Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.
Does the law authorize him to do this? I have never heard a yes or a no based on the law and Congress hemorrhages its Constitutional authorities to the executive and independent agencies.
By that logic the dreamers program would be illegal as well.
the burden of proof of that is the responsibility of ones who say he isn't violating the law
Michael McConnell: Obama Suspends the Law - WSJ.com
question liberals would you be silent if a republican president did the same?
Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is ProbedA panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.
The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.
"The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA president Michael S. Greco, a Massachusetts attorney. "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked."
The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws including a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot Act, whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.
Administration officials describe them as a part of routine presidential practice.
"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."
Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed
Were you as concerned when Bush was doing it? By the way, I'm only posting Bush because he was the last Republican president. Quite frankly, I'm not that concerned (Constitutionally speaking) that any President is doing it, as long as it is done in a limited capacity.
??????????????????????
I wasnt concerend because I was of the opinion that when Bush did it, it was meaningless as well. A signing statement can not change the law. They can write them all they want.
there are clear specific implementation dates written into the law. i am unaware if there are exceptions within the law to ignore those dates. the burden of proof of that is the responsibility of ones who say he isn't violating the law
does the dreamer program have a clear specific implementation date written into the law?
Ok....
You robbed a house. Prove that you did not violate the law. That is your burden of proof, using your logic. If you can't actually prove that you have never robbed a house, then you are guilty, apparently.
Michael McConnell: Obama Suspends the Law - WSJ.com
question liberals would you be silent if a republican president did the same?
if i say he is in violation of the law by ignoring the implementation dates written into the law. And you say he is not because there are exceptions to not implement the law on those dates it is your responsibility to show those exceptions
What's going to stop O? Who has legal standing to challenge any of this in court?
I believe that if one accuses another of acting in an illegal nature, it is their obligation to prove their case. Not the defense's.
if you are told by law you have 30 days to register you vehicle and you go past that date with out are you not in violation of the law? if there is an exemtion written in the law that states you are exempt because your where out of state isn't the burden of proof up to you to prove you where out of state?
Presidents can not make laws but thanks to Executive power they can direct their agencies to enforce or nullify part of the law. No need to panic...If president happens to overstep his bounds, then congress (republicans ) can add previsions that would nullify his executive order and of course Supreme court can overrule his executive order (actually that would be an interesting move by Congress or the court)
Now my question to you...Why does this bother you? I thought one aspects of Obama Care that many didn't like was the employer mandate...he is actually listening to you guys and doing what you asked, removing the employer mandate....
That is good for the employers, and employees...This is a good thing...Why are you upset about this?
And to answer your question... If a republican president removed portion of the a law than I didn't like, I actually..wait for it...Wait for it...Be happy that he removed it...Why wouldn't I??
I mean it would mind numbing stupid and massively dishonest and hypocritical of me to bitch and moan about the certain laws and when a President with letter in front of his name other than my party affiliation actually do the exact thing that I wanted, then I go on forums and Bitch about it... but that is just me...
Diving Mullah
How do you know i went past the date?
question liberals would you be silent if a republican president did the same?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?