Enforce The Law Act - Another Attack on Obama

An acquaintance of mine posted this on facebook. Anyway, here is the video:

[video=youtube;eT8o-s16M_s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT8o-s16M_s[/video]

Two things trouble me about this idea:

1) Presidents ALWAYS have executed their executive order, constitutional right to pardon, and constitutional right to veto. This behavior only suddenly became a problem under Obama... (as usual)

2) The POTUS has an obligation to uphold the constitution. Presidential ability to enforce, or not enforce the law (being indirectly, by pardon, or veto) is a DIRECT check to Congress. Congress can pass unconstitutional laws. If said law is overridden in a Presidential veto, the President has a constitutional authority to not enforce the said law. Constitutional scholars are pretty much in agreement on this one. A majority party could pass through ill-advised laws and this "Enforce The Law" legislation would actually undermine the President's job.

Unconstitutional.

As usual, the right-wing shows its hypocrisy, once again. Then again, this has nothing to do with facts or the constitution. It is all about continuing to tarnish President Obama at every chance.

 

Two things

1. I'm not sure of the availability of performance or injunctive remedies that Congress has in the SCOTUS,but it is worth looking into. I do remember that all the way back to Marbury v Madison was seeking a performance remedy, and the court declined to grant the remedy (while creating judicial review in the process), but I can't recall whether the court decided whether it had the power to force the Executive to deliver the commissions or not. This is a similar issue.

2. A prediction - ACA will be brought into the SCOTUS by the end of 2016 and be found unconstitutionally vague based on the recent delays and changes to it. The people should not be beholden to a sweeping statute that was so poorly drafted and planned out that it has to be implemented piecemeal on the fly. The court has stricken statutes for such vagueness in the past, and if they do their job, they will strike this one. Will come back here and eat crow if I'm wrong.

 

What cases were stricken based on statutory vagueness? I honestly don't see how vagueness can in and of itself, be unconstitutional, since the Constitution itself, is the most vague and broad document ever to form the basic law of a country.

 

What he basically was saying, is that this president shouldn't be granted the same powers as every other president before him, but when a republican becomes president, we go back to business as usual. That is really what he was trying to say. Trey Gowdy is foaming at the mouth with hate. That's all I see from this little spectacle.

 

he was wrong, the people vote them in ever 6 yrs, not every two years, they have 6 year terms, the president has a four year term

- - - Updated - - -

yep, I am all for a bill that doesn't target Obama, but instead targets all future Presidents, lets see a bill doing that and will have my support

.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconstitutionally_vague#Unconstitutional_vagueness

a general discussion

 

Ah. I see we both, in effect, were correct in our assertions since every one of those cases were ruled vague insofar as the vagueness violated a provision of the Constitution, such as the Fifth Amendment's due process protection.

 

What a crybaby goon. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about veto right that's been in effect forever. Sorry, dood,in the video wishing he was Christopher Walken with grey slicked back hair... you're a crybaby.

 

I don't think they will do that. That speech was only directed to one president. And yea, we need a bill if we are going to do that.

 

What I think is going to happen is lots of civil disobedience associated with the law, and then when people are fined or penalized for noncompliance, challenges will begin to move up the judiciary chain. The appellants' arguments will center on why the public shouldn't be beholden to obey a law with such a rocky implementation that no one really knew or knows what they are supposed to do and when. The law abhors uncertain laws that lead to confusion in the governed, and ACA qualifies as a confusing law IMO. Will be interesting to see.

 

Senators are elected every 6 years. He is a House Representative. I think he knows when he is up for re-election.

Wait, what? The proposed bill wouldn't say "the President"? It would say "President Obama"? I find that hard to believe. Especially when the Congressman specifically said "Any president whether your party or mine". Sounds like you just pledged your support. Good; if the Chief Executive doesn't execute the law, then what the hell good is he?

 

The ACA was passed by congress and signed into law by President Obama. But he has refused to enforce several parts of it.

It seems to me that violates his oath of office.

 

The Congressman acknowledges the Constitutionality of these very things you listed (veto, pardon, etc.), and does not seek to change those things. If he did, he would be proposing a Constitutional Amendment, not a simple law. He then states (1:35)"That is a lot of power. What are we to do when that amount of power is not enough?" THAT is what he is talking about. You need to actually watch the video before you start criticizing it.

He says (4:55), "I will never stand and clap when ANY president, no matter whether he's your party or mine, promises to make us a Constitutional anomaly and an afterthought". That's not hypocrisy. That is the opposite of hypocrisy.

 

I don't think the ACA will be struck down because it's complex or confusing. Any law that is designed to be as sweeping as the ACA was, will be by definition, confusing as hell.

I don't like the provision that people are fined for not getting health insurance, especially when, like my mom, they would have been covered by Medicaid, but the governor, in a purely partisan dick move, refused the money from the Federal government to expand the program. I don't buy the fiscal responsibility argument. Governors are responsible for their own states, not for the federal government. If the Federal government is weighed down by excess debt, that's not the governor's business.

 

True, but we all know he's really jawboning here, not advocating any serious policy. It's a political bluff game. Imagine the irony of a case brought in SCOTUS by Republicans seeking mandamus on Obama re ACA. All show IMO upon reflection. I still think there will be challenges by us commoners later though.

 

I disagree, I think the boat has left the dock on that and can't get remoored.Too many extensions, caveats etc. Even partisan justices will be swayed IMO, this could be extremely embarrassing. Contrast the implementation of SS, everyone knew what was going to happen, how it would work, and they had no computers or cheap telecomm then. ACA is the very opposite, and though I don't favor the law, I don't think it's pure evil either. Vague and getting vaguer every day though? Absolutely.

 

The way I see it, the extensions aren't a big deal. The law mandated the exchanges, and if the exchanges were behind schedule or buggy, execution of the law would have been impossible or would have been inequitable.

Social Security was a different system altogether, you can't really compare the ACA with the SSA. Franklin Roosevelt set a precedent by establishing Social Security. Obama did not come close to doing something as sweeping. The ACA does help citizens, but it helps the insurance companies a lot more. That is the core flaw with the ACA, it was written by people in the pocket of the healthcare industry for the benefit of the healthcare industry. Why else would the law allow people to be dropped from their insurance instead of mandating that existing policies cover everything? The healthcare industry, for all their seeming vitriol against the ACA, love the law because it allows them to be even more profitable in the end.

It would take someone unafraid of committing political suicide by taking an axe to the entire healthcare insurance industry to match the precedent set by FDR. Obama isn't that person. You wouldn't see that person until after the two-party paradigm is ended. The funniest thing is, the law that the healthcare industry is counting on to secure their profits can be used to eliminate them and nationalize healthcare.

 

I can and do, the extensions are not the only problems going on, and when people/business owners bow up and say "not gonna happen" it's going to fall on local judges to hand out fines and contempt charges among individuals or business owners who may get ornery and go to jail or even shut down their businesses altogether. I don't see any level of federal judiciary allowing themselves to be turned into police here and the first one to say "void" will start a domino chain. But in any event, I could always be wrong. I have been from time to time and it keeps me humble.

 

That's a new trick from the right. Since all laws have vagueness and ambiguity, I highly doubt the SCOTUS will do anything about partisan agendas.

 

Actually, the explosion of executive political power first started with Ronald Reagan(see how bipartisan I am), it was the Neo-Con who believed in the power of the executive branch over the lower branches of government.(An argument could be made that FDR started it, but that can in hindsight be blamed on the SCOTUS rather than FDR's actual actions).

Clinton expanded it with his illegal bombings of Yugoslavia, WACO, among other military actions.(Clinton was so lucky to inherit the .com bubble. If the economy were anywhere where it is now, Clinton would've gotten the same treatment I give the current president).

And yes, yes Bush JR. did us no favors. And technically, Obama's done it a little bit less(but far more treacherously and in hereto untouched areas such as legislation, or enforcing the lackthereof sometimes from the Senate. Rendering the Senate to a sideshow. Not even Bush went that far.).

So yes, in a history of executive fiat abuse, Obama's the worst. Since he's declared law itself no longer meaningful in any real sense.

 

Don't recall previous presidents arbitrarily and unilaterally violating their Constitutional requirement to enforce enacted laws...MERELY TO PROTECT DEMOCRATS FROM ELECTORAL DISASTER IN THE NOVEMBER MIDTERM ELECTIONS BEFORE.

 

John Roberts was bought off with some kind of dirt the Rodents held on him, and they're still holding it. No USSC decision rejecting MessiahCare will happen in the future. It's up to the people to restore their freedom as best they can, and in the process they need to reform the Courts, something that should have happened withing just a few years of Marbury.

 

He couldn't even SAY the oath of office.

 

What section of MessiahCare authorizes King Obama, or anyone else, to arbitrarily extend and delay implementation of MessiahCare for any reason?

What section of MessiahCare authorizes King Obama, or anyone else, to arbitrarily extend and delay implementation of MessiahCare because the DemocRATs are going to get their asses handed to them in November?

There isn't any.

Hence all those extensions, delays, and rewrites by King Obama, always for purely political purposes, are 100% unconstitutional and each such event is an impeachable offense under the Constitution. You should call up Andrew Johnson and ask him what he got impeached for.

 

And when did he say that? Link the quote where he declared law itself no longer meaningful.

Isn't it interesting after 30 years, all of a sudden this is an issue? Imagine that!