This lawsuit, spearheaded by Speaker of the House John Boehner, is nothing but a show for the voters. Boehner is up for re-election and most conservatives are not thrilled with his performance the last four years. So he's making a stand to impress his base in Ohio. The lawsuit, even if he wins, is a waste of time.
Any decision that might be made against the President will immediately be appealed. So that initial decision will be ignored by President Obama. Depending on which court makes the initial decision, if the court rules against the President, which is doubtful, you can bet that decision will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And should the Republicans prevail and win a Supreme Court decision against the President, and just for the sake of this post let's say it all happens before President Obama leaves office in January of 2017, who is going to force the President to honor the court's decision?
Every President swears the same oath of office. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” One of the duties of the President outlined in Article II of the Constitution is that the President shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." From Wikipedia: "This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called the Take Care Clause, also known as the Faithful Execution Clause or Faithfully Executed Clause. This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President, even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law."
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the President of the United States the authority to change laws, make up his own laws, or ignore laws that are already on the books. He must faithfully execute the law even if he disagrees with the purpose of the law.
The thing is - he doesn't do that. A few months ago the Supreme Court unanimously decided that President Obama's "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional as the President does not have the authority to declare the Senate in recess. Have those appointees been removed from their positions? Has anyone heard that? I researched it yesterday and could find nothing that said they had been removed.
In August of 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot prevent states from creating voter ID laws. The Obama administration promptly sued the state of Texas over it's voter ID laws - ignoring the court ruling.
In June the Supreme Court ruled that colleges and universities should approve the use of race as a factor in admissions only after concluding “that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” The Obama administration told colleges and universities to ignore the ruling and continue using racial quotas in their admissions policies.
“Racially diverse educational environments help to prepare students to succeed in our increasingly diverse nation,” the administration said in a letter to the schools.
My point is - why does anyone believe a lawsuit against the President will force him to change his ways when he has already proven his willingness to ignore Supreme Court rulings against him?
I heard last night that one of the reasons Boehner is doing this is because it brings legal attention to the problem without going as far as impeachment, which it is said would be disastrous for the Republicans. The Democrats, and even President Obama himself, are already spreading impeachment rumors to get their constituents to donate more money to the Democrat National Convention. Apparently they've raised over $7 million just in the last week by lying about impeachment intentions.
Personally, I think Boehner should drop the lawsuit, start campaigning on why the Republicans should hold the House and take control of the Senate in November, and once they have control of both Houses, begin impeachment procedures in January - especially if President Obama unilaterally grants amnesty to millions more illegals, which he is insinuating he will do in September.
Charles Krauthammer said last night if the President does grant amnesty it will be a gross violation of his Constitutional authority and an impeachable offense. Another potentially impeachable offense is the continued funding of terrorists in the Middle East. From the Syrian rebels (who spawned ISIS) to Hamas in the Gaza Strip - President Obama keeps sending money to terrorists. And Hamas is using that money to attack Israel, our strongest Middle Eastern ally! Certainly aiding the enemy of our ally must be illegal. It should be if it's not.
Krauthammer added, however, that impeaching Obama would probably ensure a Democrat presidential win in 2016. I'm not sure that's true. It will depend on what Republicans do between now and then to convince the voters they are the better choice and it will depend on whether or not they once again promote a lame/timid candidate.
The Republicans should be focused on the 2010 and 2016 elections at this point - not on grandstanding over a lawsuit that probably will be thrown out of court anyway. But Boehner has never really been focused on what's best for the country - more on what's best for John Boehner. I'd be OK if Boehner loses his re-election bid as long as we hold the House. House Speaker Trey Gowdy has a great ring to it...
No comments:
Post a Comment