Thread: Congress Passes Bill to Make Obama Enforce the Law - Ignores Impeachment

Congress Passes Bill to Make Obama Enforce the Law - Ignores Constitutional Remedy of Impeachment

Suzanne Hamner 2 Hours Ago
1 Comment



One of the powers of the President of the United States, according to the US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Time and time again, America has been witness to Obama treating any and all laws as though they were a Chinese buffet, which includes the Constitution. Congress has watched his lawlessness while sitting on the sidelines like benched football players, unable to participate in the game because the coach said so. However, the House of Representatives has passed the "Enforce the Law" bill by a vote of 233 to 181. What the bill is designed to do is "rope in the courts to serve as potential referees between the branches of government."

According to the Washington Times:

The bill, which passed on a near party-line 233-181 vote, says that when either the House or Senate passes a resolution finding that a president is failing to execute the law, lawmakers will have legal standing to sue in federal court, with a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court.

"We are not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law," said Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who wrote the legislation.

This is the solution by the Republicans in the battle over Obama's continued misuse of his executive authority to create pseudo-law or amend laws thereby doing an end-run around Congress.

Republicans maintain they have no recourse when they believe the current occupant of the People's House is abusing his authority since members of Congress have difficulty proving they are injured by the president's decisions in a court of law – the same with ordinary citizens. Republicans contend this piece of legislation will give them legal standing in order for courts to hear their cases.

According to Obama, he has the right and authority to decide how to faithfully execute the laws, and "Congress can't drag judges into the dispute."

And so the power struggle continues between the legislative and the executive branches over who has the biggest stick with both sides appearing childish and foolish.

First of all, I agree with Rep. Gowdy in his statement that Congress is not held in any high public esteem right now. Congress has allowed itself to be rendered moot by the executive and all his ilk. Whether it was out of fear, uncertainty or just plain negligence, Congress has allowed the executive branch to operate almost unrestrained. It hasn't just been with this current executive either. The usurpations by this one have been more blatant and outright criminal. His lawlessness has been put on display for the entire American public to see while Congress leadership caved to his demands time and time again.



Congress is not entirely a victim in all of this either. Through the passage of many of their pieces of legislation, the representatives of the people have created laws that infringe on God-given rights, support continued practices by federal agencies that violate due process and privacy and seek to redistribute wealth leading to the destruction of the middle class. To be clear, it hasn't been just the members of Congress during the Obama presidency. Members of Congress have for quite some time passed laws outside of Constitutional authority which effect the American people and the citizens are required to follow while they consider themselves to be exempt or above the law. Feinstein's recent outrage at being spied on comes to mind.

While Congress attempts to seek remedy through another piece of fodder legislation, they ignore the one true remedy outlined in the Constitution – Impeachment.

According to Article II, Section 4, "the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

I am no constitutional scholar by any means; but, the Constitution was written for all people to be able to understand it in order to be able to enforce it. Many individuals may not understand what would constitute treason or high crimes but everyone understands misdemeanors. If not, a few questions, answered honestly, would determine if the president is "taking care that the laws are faithfully executed."

When laws are passed, those laws are to be implemented and enforced in their entirety, as long as those laws are within the scope of power delegated to Congress by the Constitution. The best example are the immigration laws. No one in the United States can ignore parts of that law they do not like. However, Obama and his Department of "In"Justice have determined not to enforce certain parts of the immigration law while using executive power in order to change that law. Does the President have the authority to pick and choose laws or which parts of laws to execute?

Obama says he has that power. To reinforce his own belief in his usurped authority, Obama has altered, through executive mandate or order, the Obamacare employer and individual mandates.

Granted, Obamacare is unconstitutional but the executive branch does not possess legislative powers. Any one man who is allowed to make law independently is considered a dictator or tyrant. So, in Obama's belief that he has authority to determine how to faithfully execute the law, he is in essence saying he has authority to make or change law.

Obama has continually supported the Muslim Brotherhood, a known terrorist organization. He has sided with the terrorist sects that have infiltrated the Syrian rebels against the Asaad regime. Obama supported the Arab Spring takeover in Egypt. He supported the downfall of the government of Libya placing it in the hands of Islamic terrorists. His own administration is stacked with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and he frequently follows the advice of pro-Islamic organizations. Obama is involved either directly or indirectly in every unresolved scandal plaguing Washington DC.

It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to be able to see these acts as "high crimes and misdemeanors" or treason. Anyone who breaks the law is determined to be a criminal. With Obama exceeding his authority as outlined in the Constitution, Obama has broken the law thereby committing a crime worthy of impeachment.

Whether Obama would be convicted of treason or not, it is important the House exercise its Constitutional authority and file articles of impeachment against this usurper for high crimes and misdemeanors along with treason. Anything less on the part of Congress is political grandstanding leading into the mid-term elections.

Editor's Note: The Washington Examiner is reporting that Obama is threatening to veto the bill.

President Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allow Congress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws because it "violates the separation of powers" by encroaching on his presidential authority.

"[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations," the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. "Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes."

…

Obama also threatened to veto another bill by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., which would require the administration to explain decisions not to enforce laws when those decisions are rooted in policy concerns rather than just constitutional concerns (which the Justice Department is already required to do).

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/co...y-impeachment/

By David Iaconangelo | Mar 13 2014, 03:23PM
latintimes.com


Image Reuters



House Republican leaders may still be trying to convince their party’s rank-and-file of the need to pass a version of immigration reform which holds out some kind of benefit for immigrants. In the meantime, they’re sticking with the tried and true. On Wednesday, the House voted along party lines to pass the ENFORCE Act, a bill which would establish a procedure for lawmakers in Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute the laws. The bill’s sponsors say it’s intended to counteract what they see as President Obama’s “executive overreach”, and cite his actions on immigration – along with healthcare – as proof.

“Our Constitution is clear: Congress writes our laws and the President enforces them,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in a press release on March 5 after it passed the committee. He went on to accuse President Obama of “waiving, amending or ignoring our laws by issuing executive decrees from the Oval Office rather than working with Americans’ representatives in Congress…we’ve witnessed President Obama systematically dismantle our immigration laws and rewrite his signature healthcare law even though he doesn’t have the authority to do so.”

The White House quickly issued a press release saying that if the measure were to pass in the Senate, Obama would veto it. According to the Huffington Post, Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters during a Wednesday briefing, “It doesn't require much to look at what House Republicans are doing today and question whether or not they're serious about moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform.” House Democrats also expressed outrage during floor debate over the bill on Wednesday, pointing out that it marked only the second time in the present Congress that the chamber’s GOP leaders had brought a bill on immigration up for a vote. The first time came in 2012, when Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) introduced a measure which would have defunded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created earlier that year by President Obama – a program which extended protection from deportation and work authorization to many Dreamers, or young undocumented immigrants brought to the US illegally by their parents as children.

“I want to read to you from the Republican principles on immigration,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), a key House Democrat player on the issue. “This is what your caucus put forward. ‘One of the greatest founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistake of their parents. It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residents of citizenship for those brought to this country as children through no fault of their own and no other place.’ Yet today you want to take away that very ability from the president of the United States.”

Two other similar bills that passed the House Judiciary Committee last week will soon come up for a vote. One, the Faithful Execution of the Law Act, would require the Attorney General to notify Congress whenever a federal officer in the Justice Department does not faithfully administer the law. The House will vote on that on Thursday. The other bill, the Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) Act, would defund any position in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency which advocates for the rights of immigrants.

http://www.latintimes.com/house-repu...erreach-159392

"Let's see if they buy this bull$it just one more time .."

Originally Posted by HAPPY2BME

"Let's see if they buy this bull$it just one more time .."

That about Sums it up

Obama Threatens to Veto House Bill that Requires Him to Enforce the Law

Posted on Friday, March 14th, 2014 at 5:12 pm.
by: Patrick Henry



By Greg Campbell

As President Obama and his Department of Justice have become entirely comfortable with abandoning their duties as law enforcers, House Republicans have pushed back by pushing a bill that would allow legislators to sue agency officials if they refuse to enforce legally-passed laws.
The House bill is entitled, “the Faithful Execution of the Law Act.”
However, President Obama is threatening to veto such a law if it reaches his desk, a sure sign that the imperial president is uncomfortable with strengthened checks on his power.
According to the Daily Caller:

“President Obama has refused to enforce those parts of our nation’s immigration laws that are not to his political liking, has waived portions of our welfare laws, has stretched our environmental laws to accommodate his policy objectives, and has waived testing accountability provisions required under the ‘No Child Left Behind’ education law,” according to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House judiciary committee.
For example, in June 2012, Obama created a temporary mini-amnesty for at least 500,000 younger illegal immigrants. The act boosted his election-day support among Hispanics, but made it more difficult for young Americans to find jobs.
“Political appointees at the Justice Department have announced that rather than work with Congress to amend the federal criminal code, they will simply stop prosecuting low-level drug offenders under mandatory minimum sentencing laws,” said Goodlatte in a Fox News op-ed.
“And now that his signature health care law has not been working and revealed his empty promises, President Obama has changed that law unilaterally over 20 times,” Goodlatte added…
The bills are expected to be blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate.
But the veto threat will help minimize the number of Democrats who will support the GOP bills.
Without many Democratic votes, the White House and its allies will try to dismiss the bills as partisan.
White House officials said they oppose the measure because it creates a paperwork burden for them.
“Federal agencies are continually engaged in the process of determining how to concentrate limited enforcement resources most effectively,” said the White House statement.
“The vastly expanded reporting scheme required by the bill would be unduly burdensome and would place the Attorney General in the unprecedented position of having to be kept informed of and report on enforcement decisions made by every other Federal agency,” the statement said.
“If the President were presented with H.R. 3973, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.”

It appears beyond absurd that Congress should have to create a law that mandates that the executive, who has sworn to uphold and enforce the law, should be compelled to do exactly that.
Further, it seems outrageous that such efforts are being threatened with a veto. The Obama presidency may very well be remembered in history books as one of our Republic’s more-shameful hours.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/12/obama...force-the-law/

http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/u...s-enforce-law/