Radical Obama – Illegally selectively enforces the law

Let’s be clear. I hate Obamacare. I want it repealed. Tomorrow. I think the mandate is unconstitutional – I don’t care how Justice Roberts rewrote the law to call it a tax. You can’t force me to do something in this country. Until now. That said, the President can’t selectively enforce laws for political purpose. We have three branches of Government for a reason. The President can’t legislate from the White House by ignoring laws he doesn’t like. We are quite seriously nearing a Constitutional crisis with the abuse of power being demonstrated by this administration.

Republicans – you are officially on notice. NO AGREEEMENT with this President can trusted so long as he continues to ignore the rule of law. Are you seriously going to trust this man with comprehensive immigration reform? He has already legislated the Dream Act from the White House and now you’re actually debating giving him all he wants while allowing him to ignore what is important to you, even if it becomes law. The power of the purse may be the final line of defense against the tyrant currently in the White House. The sooner the GOP stop fighting themselves and turn their attention to the real enemy of the state we will be better off.

Some observations from Mr. McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578591503509555268.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has suspended the operation of statutes by executive decree, but it is the most barefaced. In June of last year, for example, the administration stopped initiating deportation proceedings against some 800,000 illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16, lived here at least five years, and met a variety of other criteria. This was after Congress refused to enact the Dream Act, which would have allowed these individuals to stay in accordance with these conditions. Earlier in 2012, the president effectively replaced congressional requirements governing state compliance under the No Child Left Behind Act with new ones crafted by his administration.

The president defended his suspension of the immigration laws as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. He defended his amending of No Child Left Behind as an exercise of authority in the statute to waive certain requirements. The administration has yet to offer a legal justification for last week’s suspension of the employer mandate.

Republican opponents of ObamaCare might say that the suspension of the employer mandate is such good policy that there’s no need to worry about constitutionality. But if the president can dispense with laws, and parts of laws, when he disagrees with them, the implications for constitutional government are dire.

Democrats too may acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s action, as they have his other aggressive assertions of executive power. Yet what will they say when a Republican president decides that the tax rate on capital gains is a drag on economic growth and instructs the IRS not to enforce it?

And what of immigration reform? Why bother debating the details of a compromise if future presidents will feel free to disregard those parts of the statute that they don’t like?

The GOP Responds – to the wrong issue, but at least they respond: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/09/boehner-to-obama-we-want-the-individual-mandate-delayed-for-a-year-just-like-the-employer-mandate-was/

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: