THIS WAS IN THE NEWS PRESS TODAY AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT OR DON’T TAKE THE PAPER, I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY GOOD ARTICLE.—SUMMARIZED
Monday Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all US attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang related drug defendants with crimes that while fitting the offense carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge –withhold evidence is one way of doing it.
In other words evade the law by deceiving the court if necessary—“If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases,” did that former AG Terwiliger said “they could be charged with a felony.” The very next day it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patients annual out of pocket expenses—a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Dept regulation. Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressman and their personal staffs—under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off. Lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare, the employers mandate.
Which followed hundreds of obamacare waivers granted by HHS’s, Sebelius to selected businesses, unions and other well-lobbied very special interests.
In 2012 the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against your illegal immigrants brought here as children. Obama had said that the constitution forbade him form enacting it without congress, but with the fast approach of an election, Obama did exactly that Unilaterally.
The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health care premiums for $175,000 a year members of congress. Whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients—an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996.
The point is whether a president may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional. But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reason of mere policy—the reason for every Obama violation listed above.
It mocks the separation of powers. It introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law? Consider immigration reform. The essence of any deal would be legalization in return for strict border enforcement. What confidence can anyone have in it—if the president can unilaterally alter what he signs?
Is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign style tours: I am going to do X—and I’m not going to wait for congress.
Thai’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of congress first. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.