"It’s unlikely many Democrats will challenge the president’s unconstitutional actions, but Republicans should define themselves as the party defending the Constitution. For starters, that would mean telling the president he must implement the Obama health law as it was enacted or delay the entire law for a year.
Obama has been picking and choosing what parts of the law he will implement, including delaying the employer mandate and the caps on out of pocket expenses for policy holders, two key provisions the law stated “shall” be implemented Jan. 1, 2014.
According to the Congressional Research Service, half the deadlines in the law have been missed so far. The result is a mangled version of what Congress enacted in 2010.
The Supreme Court has ruled, “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, amend, or to repeal statutes” (Clinton v. City of New York, 1998). The president is obliged to enforce the law as written. For the Speaker to make the continuing resolution contingent on a one-year delay in ObamaCare is righting a constitutional wrong." --- BETSY MCCAUGHEY, author of “Beating Obamacare.”
Obama has been picking and choosing what parts of the law he will implement, including delaying the employer mandate and the caps on out of pocket expenses for policy holders, two key provisions the law stated “shall” be implemented Jan. 1, 2014.
According to the Congressional Research Service, half the deadlines in the law have been missed so far. The result is a mangled version of what Congress enacted in 2010.
The Supreme Court has ruled, “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, amend, or to repeal statutes” (Clinton v. City of New York, 1998). The president is obliged to enforce the law as written. For the Speaker to make the continuing resolution contingent on a one-year delay in ObamaCare is righting a constitutional wrong." --- BETSY MCCAUGHEY, author of “Beating Obamacare.”
Article II, Section 1 of The US Constitution begins:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:This first clause in Article II, Section 1 of The US Constitution empowers the President of The United States to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." [Article I, Section 8]
Article II, Section 1 of The Us Constitution closes:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"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."[The Vice President also has an oath of office, but it is not mandated by the Constitution and is prescribed by statute. Currently, the Vice Presidential oath is the same as that for Members of Congress.]
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me GodThe newly elected President takes an "oath of office", and in doing so promises the American citizens that he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Vice-President and Congress do the same.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEYSeptember 26, 2013
Displaying their ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, Democratic bigwigs are excoriating Republican members of the House of Representatives for attaching a condition — no ObamaCare — to a stopgap bill to fund the government.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called it “extortion.” Sen. Steny Hoyer labeled it “hostage-taking.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi termed it “legislative arson.”
In truth, what the House Republicans are doing is not blackmail. It’s checks and balances in action. Congress has always had the power to attach almost any condition — including repealing or changing a law — to appropriations. The framers wrote the Constitution that way for good reason.
The nation’s first plan of government, the Articles of Confederation, had no president. When the framers gathered in 1787 to write a second, more effective plan, they reluctantly created the presidency.
Reluctantly, because the founders worried that a president would accumulate power and spend flagrantly as they had seen the despotic kings of Europe do.
Founders’ Checks
To prevent that, the founders created checks and balances. In the words of James Madison, the Constitution’s chief architect, each branch of government is “effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
Congress was given power over the purse — the power to appropriate money and to borrow it or raise it through taxes, because locating the power in Congress would force the president to constantly negotiate with Congress.
Fast forward 226 years to last Friday. President Obama called Speaker of the House John Boehner to say “he will not negotiate” with Congress on raising the U.S. government’s borrowing authority. The president, who claims to be a constitutional scholar, needs a refresher course.
The same day, Obama whipped up a crowd at a Ford plant, complaining that by attaching conditions to the appropriations bill, House Republicans are “trying to mess with me.”
Yes, they are, Mr. President, though Madison expressed it with more elegance and precision.
“An elective despotism is not the government we fought for,” Madison wrote in Federalist 58. A president with the power to borrow and spend at will would be just that.
Sadly, large numbers of Americans are at risk of being bamboozled by the Democrats’ inflammatory accusations and warnings of a government shutdown.
One reason is that shockingly, only a third of Americans can identify the three branches of government (according to a Pew Foundation poll). That’s how gravely our civics education has failed.
Secondly, the President’s party is fanning fears of a shutdown, something no one wants.
But let’s be clear, the military would continue to operate, doctors and nurses would still come to work at federal hospitals, air traffic controllers and other emergency personnel would be on the job, and everyone would eventually get paid.
If you’re planning a trip to Yellowstone National Park, you might be inconvenienced.
Compare that to what’s at stake: preserving the Constitution. The health reform the president is insisting on implementing is a distorted, mangled, half-baked version of what Congress enacted in 2010. It is no longer the Affordable Care Act.
Illegal Acts
The president is illegally picking and choosing what parts to keep. Gone is the employer mandate, the cap on out-of-pocket expenses, income verification for subsidy recipients, and over half the deadlines in the law.
These changes are not just illegal. They also shift billions of dollars in costs on to taxpayers, cheat seriously ill patients, leave employees in the lurch, all in a devious attempt to patch up an unworkable law.
Madison anticipated this threat to freedom. In Federalist 62, he warned that it will be pointless for Americans to elect a Congress, if it in turn enacts laws “too voluminous to be read,” or if these laws then ” undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” That’s ObamaCare.
On last week’s Saturday radio address, Obama again confronted House Republicans, demanding that they fund the government, no questions asked. Obama claimed that “the most basic constitutional duty Congress has is passing a budget.”
Wrong again, Mr. President.
Congress’s most basic duty is to protect and defend the Constitution, and withholding the money is the chief way to do it.
_______________________________
Speaker Boehner’s Task Is To Defend The Constitution
President Obama’s brazen refusal to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” is inciting Washington insiders to use the “I” word: Impeachment.
Sen. Tom Coburn, who has served 19 years in the Senate and calls himself a friend of the president, told a town hall meeting last week that the president’s actions are getting “perilously close” to impeachable offenses.
That’s premature. But it is time for members of Congress to take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously and call out the president for his repeated violations.
Americans love their Constitution and are proud of the rule of law. Congress has a job approval rating of 15%, according to last week’s Gallup poll. Standing up for the Constitution might improve it.
On Sept. 9, Congress will return from its undeserved five-week vacation to face the reality that it has failed to pass a budget for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. To keep the government running, Congress must vote a continuing resolution, which is a stopgap measure allowing the president to draw down money from the Treasury to pay federal employees and other bills.
Congress should seize the opportunity to give Obama – who calls himself a constitutional expert – a lesson in checks and balances.
The framers devised checks and balances as a routine way to stop presidents from trying to grab more power than the Constitution allowed, without subjecting the nation to the ordeal of impeachment.
The key check is Congress’ power over the purse. House Speaker John Boehner has already said there will be a continuing resolution, not a government shutdown, but he should attach a condition: Mr. President, obey the Constitution.
It’s unlikely many Democrats will challenge the president’s unconstitutional actions, but Republicans should define themselves as the party defending the Constitution. For starters, that would mean telling the president he must implement the Obama health law as it was enacted or delay the entire law for a year.
Obama has been picking and choosing what parts of the law he will implement, including delaying the employer mandate and the caps on out of pocket expenses for policy holders, two key provisions the law stated “shall” be implemented Jan. 1, 2014.
These are not victim less crimes. They shift billions of dollars in costs from winners (employers and insurers) to losers (taxpayers and seriously ill patients).
According to the Congressional Research Service, half the deadlines in the law have been missed so far. The result is a mangled version of what Congress enacted in 2010.
The Supreme Court has ruled, “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, amend, or to repeal statutes” (Clinton v. City of New York, 1998). The president is obliged to enforce the law as written. For the Speaker to make the continuing resolution contingent on a one-year delay in ObamaCare is righting a constitutional wrong.
Boehner could go further. Obama has unconstitutionally declined to enforce some immigration laws and some criminal drug laws, in effect changing the law without Congress’ consent.
The continuing resolution could also make funding of the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service conditional on the president’s faithfully executing the law.
In Federalist 58, James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, explained that Congress’ power to withhold funding is the “most effectual tool” to prevent a president from abusing power.
In 1970, Congress used that tool to defund and stymie President Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia. In 1985, Congress used its power of the purse to cut off President Reagan’s unauthorized dealings with the Nicaraguan Contras.
This time, the stakes are higher. If Obama is allowed to ignore or delay laws, future presidents – whether Republican or Democrat – will assume the same power to dictate what the law is.
There will be no point in electing a Congress to make laws if a president picks and chooses what to enforce. In this country, the rule of law is supposed to be king, not the president.
* McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and the author of “Beating Obamacare.” www.BetsyMcCaughey.com
_______________________________
The Congressional war over Obamacare may, or may not, be a constitutional crisis. It most definitely draws into question the "the supreme law of the land" that our Constitution represents. The President of the United States has wantonly broken a law passed by Congress that he himself signed into law by choosing which parts of the Affordable Care Act he would like enforced and/or which parts he would like delayed or ignored. There is NO provision in The Affordable Care "law" that allows for these actions by the President.
Clearly, based on the "supreme law of the land", THE US CONSTITUTION, the President has NO power to change, modify, or abridge ANY Federal law without the consent of the US Congress.
If President Obama thinks he can delay portions of Obamacare, he should think again. He has no Constitutional authority to do so. If the Congress wants to delay portions or ALL of Obamacare, short of more public hissy fits, there is little the President can do to stop them...they have The Law Of The Land on their side.
What the US House of Representatives should be doing is demanding that Obamacare be implemented FULLY, as the Affordable Care Act law demands, along with their continuing resolution to fund the US Government.
The President has obviously waived portions of the law because he knows that if they are included, his namesake will be an epic failure, and economic catastrophe. Either the Affordable Care Act law should be followed to the letter, delayed completely, or stricken from the federal register.
If the President refuses to uphold the letter of the law, IMPEACH HIM.
No comments:
Post a Comment