Thread: Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

1:49 PM, Dec 12, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER


Send to Kindle

Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts


Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.
"President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President. However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents," Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.
"This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies."
The "legal action against the President" would be, according to an aide for Rep. Rice, "for ignoring Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution." Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states,

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

The resolution alleges that President Obama and his administration have abused executive power and failed to execute the laws of the United States faithfully.
Thus, the resolution calls for "CIVIL ACTION.—The House of Representatives shall bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge any of the following policies or actions:

(1) The policy of the Department of Health and Human Services that, with respect to health insurance coverage that is renewed for a policy year during the period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending October 1, 2014, health insurance issuers may continue to offer coverage that would otherwise be terminated or cancelled for being out of compliance with various requirements of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act and corresponding portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as announced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services on November 14, 2013.
(2) The 1-year delay in the application of the reporting requirements of sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and related requirements of section 4980H of such Code), as provided under Department of the Treasury Notice 2013–45, as announced by the Department of the Treasury on July 2, 2013.
(3) The policy of the Department of Homeland Security to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children, as announced by the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.
(4) The authorization, approval, renewal, modification, or extension of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives compliance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 602).

In plain English, and in the words Rice used to ask fellow members to sign onto the resolution, the complaints are:

1. President Obama recently announced an “administrative fix” in regard to cancelled healthcare plans due to Obamacare. Of course he plans to provide a “fix” which will substantially alter his signature legislation without involving Congress.
2. Over the summer, President Obama’s Administration announced a one-year delay in Obamacare’s employer mandate without involving Congress.
3. Last year, President Obama’s Administration granted temporary status to illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children without involving Congress.

4. In June 2012, President Obama’s Administrative provided a waiver initiative for the welfare work requirement under TANF without involving Congress.

So far, 29 members of Congress are co-sponsoring Rice's Resolution: Bachmann (MN-06), Bridenstine (OK-01), Chaffetz (UT-03), J. Duncan (SC-03), DeSantis (FL-06), Franks (AZ-0, Gowdy (SC-04), Harris (MD-01), Lamborn (CO-05), LaMalfa (CA-01), Marino (PA-10), McClintock (CA-04), Meadows (NC-11), Nunnelee (MS-01), Pittenger (NC-09), Posey (FL-0, Tom Price (GA-06), Ribble (WI-0, Salmon (AZ-05), Sanford (SC-01), Schweikert (AZ-06), Stewart (UT-02), Stockman (TX-36), Walberg (MI-07), Weber (TX-14), Wenstrup (OH-02), Williams (TX-25), Joe Wilson (SC-02), and Yoho FL-03.
Here's full resolution, which is expected to be filed with the House clerk's office very soon:

RESOLUTION
Directing the House of Representatives to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.
Whereas President Obama and officials in his administration have frequently overstepped the limits placed on executive branch power by the Constitution;
Whereas because of President Obama’s continuing failure to faithfully execute the laws, his administration’s actions cannot be addressed by the enactment of new laws, be- cause Congress cannot assume that the President will execute the new laws any more faithfully than the laws he has already ignored, leaving Congress with no legislative remedy to prevent the establishment of what is in effect an imperial presidency; and
Whereas it is therefore necessary and appropriate for Congress to turn to the courts to ensure the faithful execution of the laws as required by the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,

SECTION 1. DIRECTING CIVIL ACTION BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTIONS.
(a) CIVIL ACTION.—The House of Representatives shall bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge any of the following policies or actions:
(1) The policy of the Department of Health and Human Services that, with respect to health insurance coverage that is renewed for a policy year during the period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending October 1, 2014, health insurance issuers may continue to offer coverage that would otherwise be terminated or cancelled for being out of compliance with various requirements of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act and corresponding portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as announced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services on November 14, 2013.
(2) The 1-year delay in the application of the reporting requirements of sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and related requirements of section 4980H of such Code), as provided under Department of the Treasury Notice 2013–45, as announced by the Department of the Treasury on July 2, 2013.
(3) The policy of the Department of Homeland Security to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children, as announced by the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.
(4) The authorization, approval, renewal, modification, or extension of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives compliance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 602).
(b) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS PROVIDED TO BRING ACTIONS.—Any amounts obligated or expended by the House of Representatives to carry out this resolution during a fiscal year shall be derived from existing appropriations for salaries and expenses of the House for that fiscal year, and nothing in this resolution may be construed as authorizing an increase in the amount of budget authority available to the House for that fiscal year.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...12.html?page=2

This is great news! Next week we need to launch an activism campaign to support these brave lawmakers standing up to Obama, we need to thank, encourage, and support those on this list.

Then we need to ask other members of Congress to join them!

W

added to homepage
http://www.alipac.us/content/congres...ing-laws-2496/

Rep. Trey Gowdy on Obama’s Executive Actions: ‘Congress Ought to Be Able to Assert Its Standing’

Dec. 16, 2013 9:00am Fred Lucas
The Blaze



Taking on what he says is an “unprecedented level” of nullifying the will of Congress by the executive branch, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has joined a House resolution to sue the executive branch for taking action on the health care law, immigration and other matters contrary to what was passed by Congress.
Rep. Trey Gowdy on Obamas Executive Actions: Congress Ought to Be Able to Assert Its Standing

House Oversight Committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), listens during a politically contentious session on whether to compel Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner to testify about the extra scrutiny the IRS gave Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status, on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 28, 2013. (AP)

Referring to the Obama administration’s executive action to unilaterally allow younger illegal immigrants brought to the United States by their parents to be exempt from enforcement laws after Congress rejected the DREAM Act, Gowdy said Obama was “substitut[ing]” his judgement for Congress’s.

“Congress had a chance to provide a path to citizenship for children and they refused to do so,” Gowdy said on “Fox News Sunday.” “So Congress refused to act and the president substitutes his judgment for Congress’s and does by executive fiat what the legislative branch refused to do.”

Further, Gowdy pointed out, the president has delayed or provided waivers and extensions on complying with Obamacare.

“With the Affordable Care Act, he went to the Supreme Court to get a finding that it was constitutional. It’s been appropriately funded and yet he’s still turning off certain provisions,” Gowdy said. “So even if he likes the law and Congress doesn’t, he does it by executive fiat. If Congress suggests, as we did during the shutdown a remedy to the employer mandate or the individual mandate, he threatens to veto our action and then goes and does it himself.”

As a co-equal branch of government, Congress must assert itself, Gowdy said.

“I don’t like running to the court. I’d like to use any other remedy other than going to the court,” Gowdy said. “But our other remedies have not worked. And the judicial branch is there for a reason and it certain circumstances, Congress ought to be able to assert its standing, and I just think the pervasiveness of his ignoring Congress is reaches the point, we don’t have a choice.”

In 2011, then Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over the military action in Libya that was done without congressional authorization. The courts ruled that Kucinich as a member of Congress did not have standing.

However, Gowdy, a former prosecutor, said that judicial decisions have said that Congress as an institution would have standing. If the House passes the resolution introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), it would be up to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to take the action to court.

Gowdy wondered which other laws the president can ignore.

“If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off mandatory minimums in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so called Affordable Care Act, why not election laws?” Gowdy said. “Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms of ID? Can the president require one form of ID? Can he suspend all requirements that you show ID? And if not, why not. If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you also not have the power to turn off all categories of the law?”