Mark Levin

Stand up for the Constitution




Defund the Presidency - Jeffery Lord

Yes, the firing of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is important. National security is always important. And who replaces Hagel, whatever is the next turn for President Obama’s disastrous national security policy that has allowed the rise of ISIS and is in the process of appeasing Iran (among other crises) needs to be front and center.
conservativereview.com



Jacquelyn Martin | AP

LORD: Defund the Presidency

By: Jeffrey Lord
November 25th, 2014
__________________________________________________ __________________
If you want to know where your member of Congress stands on the conservative spectrum and receive updates on the issues that matter most to conservatives, sign up for FREE.
Signup


Defunding the Presidency:
Defund the presidency. Stand up for the Constitution.
Yes, the firing of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is important. National security is always important. And who replaces Hagel, whatever is the next turn for President Obama’s disastrous national security policy that has allowed the rise of ISIS and is in the process of appeasing Iran (among other crises) needs to be front and center.
But now - and always - the single most important issue is the Constitution of the United States. And Mr. Obama’s executive order giving amnesty to five million illegal immigrants - directly usurping the constitutional powers of the legislative branch - can not only not be ignored, it must be dealt with by Congress. Dealt with directly and forcefully, defending the legislative branch and its specifically delegated constitutional rights and prerogatives.

It’s time to stand up for the Constitution. And the soon-to-be Republican House and Senate, willingly or not, has the job. The question is: Will the soon-to-be Republican Congress have the courage to do what must be done?

Standing up for the Constitution:
It’s time to stand up for the Constitution. And the soon-to-be Republican House and Senate, willingly or not, has the job. The question is: Will the soon-to-be Republican Congress have the courage to do what must be done? What should they do?
It is a huge mistake to make the response to this executive order about Hispanics or personal to President Obama. In fact, the Obama executive order delivering amnesty to some five million illegal immigrants has nothing to do with either. To the contrary, what President Obama has done has nothing to do with Obama or Hispanics but everything to do with the constitutional role of the executive branch. Period.
The executive branch of the US government must be held accountable - by the co-equal legislative branch, the Congress of the United States. Which is to say, it must be held accountable by those serving in the Constitutionally mandated Article One legislative branch of the United States government.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has it exactly right: the very first official response from the legislative branch to the executive branch on the Obama immigration executive order must be to stop all action on presidential nominees with the exception of national security appointees such as Hagel’s successor as Secretary of Defense. Beginning with the nomination of Loretta Lynch to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder.
In Cruz’s words the other day to Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace:

Sen. Ted Cruz

"Step number one that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty. ……And the second big check we've got, the second constitutional power we've got is the power of the purse, and we should fund one at a time the critical priorities of the federal government, but also use the power of the purse to attach riders. We've got to demonstrate that the campaign words Republicans used on the trail were more than just talk, that we're willing to honor our commitment.”



Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)

Cruz is right on both counts. So too is House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia who wrote in the Wall Street Journal that: “Mr. Obama’s plan to violate the Constitution must be stopped. The Framers wisely gave Congress many tools to guard against the executive branch accumulating too much power. My colleagues in the House and Senate will take inventory of the tools afforded to Congress by the Constitution, such as the power of the purse and the authority to write legislation, to stop the president’s unconstitutional actions from being implemented.”

How to use the power of the purse?
So how to use the power of the purse? Use it with the precision of a scalpel, not the mindless bludgeoning of a meat axe. Senator Cruz mentioned the use of “riders” - which is to say specific instructions added in to an appropriations bill that specifically says how federal dollars are - or in this case are not - to be use.
What kind of “riders” should be added to pending legislation coming out of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees? There is understandable focus on defunding the executive order itself.
But under the circumstances, with the GOP leadership repeatedly sending signals that they are terrified of alienating Hispanics and House Appropriations chairman Hal Rogers sending out signals (erroneously) that the order cannot be defunded, there are other ways to deal with this massive breach of constitutional authority using the power of the purse. The response should be precise, targeted. No more “comprehensive” this or that funding for anything. And these riders should sting.
As pointed out over in The Federalist by co-founder Sean Davis - who as a former aide to the budget conscious (and retiring) Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma knows a great deal about the subject? Davis notes that: “….from that power of the purse come the most powerful words in federal law: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for ______.” That blank line standing for “fill in the blank.

Defund the presidency. No - don’t make it personal to Barack Obama. Definitely fund the operational aspects of the personal presidency...

Exactly. And the place to begin? Defund the presidency. No - don’t make it personal to Barack Obama. Definitely fund the operational aspects of the personal presidency - the chefs, the butlers, the Chief Usher’s office, the White House Residence where the Obamas reside. Fund Air Force One, the motorcades, the First Lady’s office, the Social Secretary(let them party!) and Camp David. And for heaven sake don’t touch the Secret Service - they have enough problems as it is.

The Battle of Institutions:
Recognize instead that this is a deadly serious battle of institutions – the impersonal executive branch having assumed the role of the impersonal legislative branch in direct and deliberate violation of the Constitution. The congressional response should recognize that there is much more to the operation of the presidency than the more visible aspects associated with presidential symbols.
Let’s run through some of the potential “defund the presidency” opportunities as listed by the White House itself. Beginning with the recognition that there is an entire “function” (to use congressional budget-making lingo) that is devoted to funding what is known in the budget trade as The Executive Office of the President or “EOP”. Specifically the EOP is included in “Function 800: General Government” which:
“… includes the activities of the White House and the Executive Office of the President..” The amount requested? “The fiscal year (FY) 2015 budget estimate for all components, including programs, within the EOP is $692,391,000…”. Which is to say, almost $700 million is requested to run the presidency itself.

Like what?
There’s the Domestic Policy Council, which includes bureaucratic mini-empires with names like the Office of National AIDS Policy, the Office of Faith-bases and Neighborhood Partnerships, the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, and last but not least, the White House Rural Council. There’s the National Economic Council, the Office of Digital Strategy, the Office of Cabinet Affairs, the Office of Communications (that would be the White House press secretary and staff), the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of Presidential Personnel, the Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.
And don’t forget the Council on Environmental Quality, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and - most particularly - the crown jewel of the presidency in matters of policy, the Office of Management and Budget.
These parts of what is officially called the Executive Office of the President are but an asterisk in the larger federal budget when it comes to money. The Council of Economic Advisers, for example, is funded for 2015 at just over $4 million. But forget the amount of money involved here and concentrate on the institutional power of the Executive Office of the President. These “Councils” and “Offices” are where the modern presidency lives and breathes.
Their power is inversely proportional to the money that funds them. Not much money - but lots and lots of power. What to do with this plethora of presidential Councils and Offices?
Cut. Them. Off.



President Obama meeting with his Cabinet.

The Cabinet Departments:
Then move on through Cabinet Departments. Each and every one of the Cabinet Departments and agencies, like the White House, have a legislative liaison office. Over at the Department of Health and Human Services the office dealing with Congress is called the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation. It’s job is to be “…responsible for the development and implementation of the Department's legislative agenda.”
The EPA’s version of this is the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR), which, as noted on the EPA’s website, “serves as EPA's principal point of contact with Congress, states and local governments. The Office serves as the liaison with these constituencies on the agency's major programs as well as on intergovernmental issues.”
And so on, and so on through the larger executive branch are to be found the offices and programs that collectively when not individually are the power centers of the American presidency.

Would this be controversial? Well of course. The media, not to mention the President’s allies ( but I repeat myself) will raise, um, heck about this. They will shriek about everything from racism (“You never did this to white presidents!”) to the horrors supposedly visited on this or that favored group. Which is why the necessity for precision.
Don’t for example, touch the Department of Veterans Affairs – the subject of enough maladministration as it is when it comes to taking care of America’s warriors. But laser in on the IRS and Eric Holder’s Justice Department. As Cruz has suggested, take every single appropriation bill and target them - one by one.

The point of this is not – and cannot be – an anti-Obama jeremiad. The point is to carry the day for the Constitution – and to make certain beyond doubt that the institution of the presidency pays a considerable price for taking on the legislative branch of the government in such a blatantly unconstitutional fashion.

Constitutional Responsibility:
The point of this is not – and cannot be – an anti-Obama jeremiad. The point is to carry the day for the Constitution – and to make certain beyond doubt that the institution of the presidency pays a considerable price for taking on the legislative branch of the government in such a blatantly unconstitutional fashion.
Can this executive order be sued out of existence? One would hope so. But the Congress, in the words of House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte, has a constitutional responsibility act now and to see that the violation of the Constitution by the leader of the executive branch of government is “stopped.” Not moderated. Not accepted with a finger wagging lecture not to do it again. Stopped. Period.
Defunding the Executive Office of the President should be the place to begin stopping it. Combined with the Cruz suggestion of stopping presidential nominees to all but national security positions, targeting the funding of the presidency itself hits the institution where it lives. Quickly – and painfully.

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...y-jeffery-lord