Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?

posted at 7:31 pm on December 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

The post on Jonathan Turley’s testimony at yesterday’s House hearing was well received, so here’s another seven minutes on executive power grabs from the same proceeding. Simple question from Gowdy to the legal panel: How far can Obama go? Now that he’s claimed the royal prerogative to not enforce immigration law against young illegals, not enforce O-Care’s employer mandate against businesses, and not enforce the new rules about “essential benefits” against insurers who un-cancel old plans, what else can he choose not to enforce? If Congress imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses, presumably Obama could refuse to enforce that by granting blanket commutations for thousands of people convicted of those offenses. Presumably he could also refuse to enforce election laws. Why not? What’s the limiting principle?

If you watched last night’s clip, you can guess Turley’s response. The takeaway from all of this, really, isn’t that there’s no limit on the president, it’s that there’s no way of enforcing the limit. You might very well get a bipartisan group of federal judges to agree with Turley that Obama’s over the line. But they can’t issue that ruling without first hearing the case, and the vagaries of the law on standing to sue are such that often there’s no one who’s legally empowered to bring that challenge. The most productive thing that could come out of this hearing, I think, is an effort in Congress to expand standing for challenges to executive power. Two big problems there, though. One: Good luck getting Democrats to go along with it, especially at a moment when O’s power grabs are keeping some of the nastier political backlash to O-Care at bay. By covering his ass, they’re covering their own. Two: Even if the Senate flips next year and O is somehow pressured politically into signing a bill that would constrain his own power (good luck with that too), standing’s not a simple matter of passing a bill. There are constitutional components to it that can’t be changed by statute. You’d need an amendment, and there’s bound to be resistance both in Congress and in the state legislatures to the idea of expanding the Constitution to let private citizens potentially gum up the executive branch with lawsuits by making standing broader.

There’s an obvious compromise possibility, though. Why not pass an amendment expanding Congress’s right (and maybe the right of the state legislatures too) to sue instead? That would limit, if not eliminate, the risk of nuisance suits against the feds, and it would be true to the nature of separation of powers. When the president refuses to enforce part of a law duly enacted by Congress, Congress itself has suffered an injury. Pass an amendment to clarify that and you could potentially block O and his successors when they decide to expand the concept of prosecutorial discretion into de facto lawmaking power. No one’s keen on the idea of the judiciary having to referee fights like this, but it’s better than letting the president do whatever he wants whenever he feels it’s politically convenient to do so.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

of course he can. Laws and regulations only apply to the little people.

acyl72 on December 4, 2013 at 7:33 PM

MICHAEL CANNON, CATO INSTITUTE: “There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints the Constitution places on the government. Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government, or our revolutionary right to overthrow it. That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate but … if the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they. That is why it is a very, very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do — to wantonly ignore the laws and to try to impose obligations on people that the Legislature did not approve.”

Akzed on December 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Out of curiosity, let’s say that judges issue a ruling. Who enforces it? Technically the Supreme Court has some US Marshals to implement things, but realistically what are they really going to do if Obama just ignores the ruling?

irishgladiator63 on December 4, 2013 at 7:36 PM

It’s good to be da King!
(…but not to be one of the pleb serfs underneath this D*ckWhistler!)

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on December 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Out of curiosity, let’s say that judges issue a ruling. Who enforces it? Technically the Supreme Court has some US Marshals to implement things, but realistically what are they really going to do if Obama just ignores the ruling?

irishgladiator63 on December 4, 2013 at 7:36 PM

I’m willing to be deputized.

kcewa on December 4, 2013 at 7:39 PM

How ’bout we pass an amendment that makes it a high crime to not faithfully execute the laws of the land? Or just use the laws we already have covering that issue?

BKeyser on December 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Let’s just stop this debate right here and right now.

If you oppose Obama, if you dislike his policies, if you don’t trust him, if you think he stinks as POTUS? You are a racist. So let’s not have any racism, mmm kay?

You like Obama. You adore him. You’re crazy about him. He’s perfect. Adorable. And sooper smart!

/Ya racists.

Key West Reader on December 4, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Behold the mind-numbing power of PIGMENT.

All Hail the Messiah BARACKUS!

dmann on December 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM

But they can’t issue that ruling without first hearing the case, and the vagaries of the law on standing to sue are such that often there’s no one who’s legally empowered to bring that challenge.

This gets to something that I’ve been batting around recently: we should create an office for the second place finisher in each Presidential election who has the power to investigate the sitting administration and challenge the legality of any Presidential action.

Count to 10 on December 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Presumably he could also refuse to enforce election laws. Why not? What’s the limiting principle?

In a lawless society, the only limiting principle for opportunists is that of self-interested aversion to the willingness of the people to violently overthrow the government.

Stoic Patriot on December 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Out of curiosity, let’s say that judges issue a ruling. Who enforces it? Technically the Supreme Court has some US Marshals to implement things, but realistically what are they really going to do if Obama just ignores the ruling?

irishgladiator63 on December 4, 2013 at 7:36 PM

There is a Supreme Court Police, but it is quite small and occupied with maintaining security of the Supreme Court building.

I have to wonder whether Teh SCOAMT will vacate the office come noon Eastern 1/20/2017 as is Constitutionally-required, especially if a non-Rat wins.

Steve Eggleston on December 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

more likely he’ll be in DC either keeping a firm hand on the rudder of Hillary’s term so she doesn’t go wobbly…or appearing on every TV show to scold and hector a republican.

in the event of a R victory, he will be leading the charge, along with Podesta, screaming at every move the the R makes to unwind even the most minor part of the Leviathan he has set up. He will be an Agitator. That’s what he loves best

r keller on December 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

I found this.
At a 2007 fundraiser, he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president [George W. Bush] I actually respect the Constitution.”

RickinNH on December 4, 2013 at 7:48 PM

I’m in favor of amending the Constitution on this issue. It ought to be obvious that we’ve got a President who dishonorably refuses to exercise his duty as he pledged to do, but if we’ve now seen one person like this we can expect to see more. That’s especially true now that potential candidates have seen how much Obama has got away doing without being called to account.

MTF on December 4, 2013 at 7:48 PM

love Rowdy Gowdy!

commodore on December 4, 2013 at 7:49 PM

however, i do seem to remember some comments made by some leftists somewhere that given the crisis of all crises, that barry should take office early after the 08 election

remember that silly seal he had…office of the prezy elect?

these are not silly stupid people…they are deadly serious propagandists and agitators for a final Victory of the People

r keller on December 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Irishgladiator-

“John Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it.”

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

wolly4321 on December 4, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Impeach

SouthernGent on December 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM

The answer is, you impeach him and, if he won’t leave you cuff him and frog march him out of our house. Game over, man.

gordo on December 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM

This is a crack in the foundation of the republic that must be repaired. If the President can take action in violation of the Constitution without remedy, and we run into a President — such as this ego in a suit — who is willing to do it, the nation as we know it is at risk. That is not, I don’t think, an overstatement.

The same is true of directives issued by Congress, that accompany the passage of legislation. Reports or other actions required to be taken by statute. They are routinely ignored.

This is not about who would win a given contest over any action, only that there must be some oversight against a rogue executive like Obama whose only take-away from being a “Constitutional Law” lecturer was that he didn’t care for the document.

IndieDogg on December 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

The Cherokee won at the Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson still shipped them to Oklahoma.

And the 22nd Amendment is racist. Dear Liar shouldn’t have to be bothered with campaigning again, just anoint him President for Life.

rbj on December 4, 2013 at 7:58 PM

There’s an obvious compromise possibility, though. Why not pass an amendment expanding Congress’s right (and maybe the right of the state legislatures too) to sue instead? That would limit, if not eliminate, the risk of nuisance suits against the feds, and it would be true to the nature of separation of powers. When the president refuses to enforce part of a law duly enacted by Congress, Congress itself has suffered an injury.

This reminds me of an episode of X-files. The one where the genie grants Mulder 3 wishes. The first two get monkey pawed so he sits down and composes a lengthy contract to ensure the third won’t go awry. Mulder finally realizes that he isn’t smart enough to keep the wish straight if it wants to go sideways. It’s futile.

That’s the problem with attempting to force a President to respect, and honor the Constitution. The problem isn’t the fact that you just haven’t crafted a clever enough law to stop him. The problem is that you elected a man that doesn’t respect the Constitution to the Presidency, and no law will stop him.

DFCtomm on December 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Jacksons response In a popular quotation that is probably apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”. This derives from Jackson’s consideration on the case in a letter to John Coffee, “…the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate,” (that is, the Court’s opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict).

So, yes. There is historical precedence of what you suggest.

SCOTUS doesn’t have an Army.

wolly4321 on December 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Why not? I don’t think anyone has ever told him no.
And, I will need extra popcorn with my pitch fork order when Hillary gets bumped again.

HornetSting on December 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM

r keller on December 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

You flatter the SCOAMF. He’ll be reduced to doing stand up comedy in some gaybar frequented by the likes of Peggy Noonan, Oprah Winfrey, Babwah Wahwah, Madonna,…

/

Key West Reader on December 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?

…I thought that happened in 2012 already!

KOOLAID2 on December 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Is it possible that we’ll have another such lawless President in our lifetime? Obama has total disregard for the law and the constitution and I believe we should pull the accreditation from Harvard Law for putting out such a specimen. I believe he can be dealt with if the American people understand how lawless he is, how the Democrats allowed it to go this far and to elect Republicans to deal with it. I’m not sure the average citizen understands the importance of this, it’s quite apparent Obama and his minions don’t.

bflat879 on December 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM

This is a crack in the foundation of the republic that must be repaired. If the President can take action in violation of the Constitution without remedy, and we run into a President — such as this ego in a suit — who is willing to do it, the nation as we know it is at risk. That is not, I don’t think, an overstatement.

The same is true of directives issued by Congress, that accompany the passage of legislation. Reports or other actions required to be taken by statute. They are routinely ignored.

This is not about who would win a given contest over any action, only that there must be some oversight against a rogue executive like Obama whose only take-away from being a “Constitutional Law” lecturer was that he didn’t care for the document.

IndieDogg on December 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Hoping Rush Limbaugh picks this up.

Key West Reader on December 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM

The takeaway from all of this, really, isn’t that there’s no limit on the president, it’s that there’s no way of enforcing the limit.

Actually, there are ways of forcing the issue. The Justice Department is the enforcement arm and Congress…ahhh, forget about it.

Mitoch55 on December 4, 2013 at 8:09 PM

MICHAEL CANNON, CATO INSTITUTE: “There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints the Constitution places on the government. Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government, or our revolutionary right to overthrow it. That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate but … if the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they. That is why it is a very, very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do — to wantonly ignore the laws and to try to impose obligations on people that the Legislature did not approve.”

Akzed on December 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM

That’s the same thing that happened with many young people when Clinton said he didn’t have sex with Monica.

davidk on December 4, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I just watched the video and I may have a new favorite Congressman.

DFCtomm on December 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM

however, i do seem to remember some comments made by some leftists somewhere that given the crisis of all crises, that barry should take office early after the 08 election

remember that silly seal he had…office of the prezy elect?

these are not silly stupid people…they are deadly serious propagandists and agitators for a final Victory of the People

r keller on December 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Victory of the Correct People, actually. Otherwise known as themselves.

They are so accustomed to playing “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” on every subject, and being lauded for doing so by an adoring Greek chorus in the press, academia, and Hollywood, that it never occurs to them that if everyone else decides to stop being nice and play by their rules, they not only will lose permanently, they’ll be lucky to survive.

Even the standard gambit of going to a country with no extradition treaty might not help. Not since The One has gotten away with executing U.S. nationals overseas, by drone, after what amounts to a “star chamber” proceeding.

If Reagan had been just one-half the ogre the progressives think he was, imagine what he might have done with that particular driver in his “golf bag”.

clear ether

eon

eon on December 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM

I guess the military does not holds its oath to defend the constitution in very high regard. Nough said.

astonerii on December 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

MICHAEL CANNON, CATO INSTITUTE: “There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints the Constitution places on the government. Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government, or our revolutionary right to overthrow it. That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate but … if the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they. That is why it is a very, very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do — to wantonly ignore the laws and to try to impose obligations on people that the Legislature did not approve.”

Akzed on December 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM

This is why the Articles of Impeachment need to be drawn up now. I think Obama would welcome it, actually.

What a stanky mess this man has made of our once great Nation.

Impeach him. We’ve got nothing to lose at this point. It’s either Obama and Socialism/Marxism or Free America.

Impeach him.

Key West Reader on December 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Presumably he could also refuse to enforce election laws. Why not? What’s the limiting principle?

In a lawless society, the only limiting principle for opportunists is that of self-interested aversion to the willingness of the people to violently overthrow the government.

Stoic Patriot on December 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM

When the West was being settled, there was no established law. Good men took it upon themselves to mete out justice. Are we are at that point? When will good men/women rise up and say, “Enough.”

davidk on December 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

His attitude towards the law should scare everyone. No libbies you won’t have the Presidency forever and one day this precedence will come back to bit and hard.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM

we should create an office for the second place finisher in each Presidential election who has the power to investigate the sitting administration and challenge the legality of any Presidential action.

Count to 10 on December 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM

I can’t see the advantage of that. Should Jimmy Carter and later Walter Mondale have had investigative power over the Reagan administration? Heck, should John McCain have had investigative power over the Obama administration?

J.S.K. on December 4, 2013 at 8:19 PM

His attitude towards the law should scare everyone. No libbies you won’t have the Presidency forever and one day this precedence will come back to bit and hard.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM

I think that’s why we need to stop this man and do it quickly. What he is doing is wrong and it should be stopped and never attempted again. Not in America.

Key West Reader on December 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM

When the West was being settled, there was no established law. Good men took it upon themselves to mete out justice. Are we are at that point? When will good men/women rise up and say, “Enough.”

davidk on December 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Like that guy who shot Lincoln?

I would imagine if any good men did rise up and say enough, you would be in the forefront of the army of people fist saying, they do not represent you, second that they should be summarily executed and thirdly that anyone even imagining standing up to the government should be stopped long before they even come close to waking up in the morning.

astonerii on December 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM

If Reagan had been just one-half the ogre the progressives think he was, imagine what he might have done with that particular driver in his “golf bag”.

clear ether

eon

eon on December 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM

His attitude towards the law should scare everyone. No libbies you won’t have the Presidency forever and one day this precedence will come back to bit and hard.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM

This is the impulse that has to be resisted. If the GOP takes office and embraces this practice themselves then the law will be destroyed. We will have nothing left but party policy, and there won’t be a country for long after that.

DFCtomm on December 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

The House brings Articles of Impeachment. The trial is held in the Senate.

harry reid, who has violated the Constitution every year for at least five years by not passing a Constitutionally required budget, won’t let obama go down.

davidk on December 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM

You don’t have to rebel. There are other ways to hurt the govt. If you are an honest person, you just haven’t done them yet. But you can.

thgrant on December 4, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Gen Y N

davidk on December 4, 2013 at 8:29 PM

One of the scary parts of that video happens in the last 5 seconds “With that, we recognize the gentle lady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee”

kurtzz3 on December 4, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?

We lost this argument when the ever so awesome American sheeple, both Libtards and Conservatives, totally ignored the Natural Born Clause.

Too late now, folks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 4, 2013 at 8:38 PM

The Dear Liar has ignored other laws and parts of the Constitution – what’s to stop him from ignoring his term limits?

Or even standing for re-election at all?

Galt2009 on December 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM

We need not look any farther than the City Council of Anapolis Maryland, was it? for an answer to that question. While one may wonder whether Obama, president of the United States, could be compared to a lower body like a city council – it’s the pettiness of their actions that define both.

The Nerve on December 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM

But federal agencies stuffing ammo and advanced weaponry into every nook and crannie is pure coincidence. Either they know something we don’t or they think we know something they don’t.

I think I’ll keep digging straight down in the bunker, it will mean ripping up the purple shag but that can always be replaced.

Bishop on December 4, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Well, let’s see how Obama ignores election laws, then. You think that maybe that might be the last straw that sends people into the streets? Go ahead, make my day.

HiJack on December 4, 2013 at 8:43 PM

You don’t have to rebel. There are other ways to hurt the govt. If you are an honest person, you just haven’t done them yet. But you can.

thgrant on December 4, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Hints? Clues?

HiJack on December 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM

One of the scary parts of that video happens in the last 5 seconds “With that, we recognize the gentle lady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee”

kurtzz3 on December 4, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I caught that… my twitter response:

Wackobird Julie ‏@jffree1 3 Dec

Devout believer Rep. SJ Lee (Idiot-Tx) thinks the Devine Obama should have the power to grant RELIEF to all dreamers.

jffree1 on December 4, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Presumably he could also refuse to enforce election laws.

They already have refused to enforce election laws.

Midas on December 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM

The takeaway from all of this, really, isn’t that there’s no limit on the president, it’s that there’s no way of enforcing the limit.

Oh yes there is.

VorDaj on December 4, 2013 at 8:48 PM

The GOP won’t shut down the government to stop the runaway train…you think they are going to impeach Dear Leader?
Even if he is mentally ill?

d1carter on December 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Been a fan of Trey Gowdy since first time I saw him at a hearing. He hasn’t disappointed me yet. And I love his hair :)

CoffeeLover on December 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM

This is the impulse that has to be resisted. If the GOP takes office and embraces this practice themselves then the law will be destroyed. We will have nothing left but party policy, and there won’t be a country for long after that.

DFCtomm on December 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

…it could even be another liberal that decides to ignore the law and pushes things to a degree that most liberals would even find objectionable. They should not fear GOPers only.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 4, 2013 at 8:52 PM

His attitude towards the law should scare everyone. No libbies you won’t have the Presidency forever and one day this precedence will come back to bit and hard.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM

This is the impulse that has to be resisted. If the GOP takes office and embraces this practice themselves then the law will be destroyed. We will have nothing left but party policy, and there won’t be a country for long after that.

DFCtomm on December 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I guess.

If the GOP *doesn’t* do this – and make it hurt the Dems beyond their wildest dreams – nothing will prevent the Dems from continuing their ways.

I’m not sure, at this point, that I have a problem with the GOP exercising some power to drag things back towards ‘normalcy’, and demonstrate to the Dems how truly, deeply painful it will be for them when they flout the law.

In fact, I want the GOP to do this. I want the Democrats destroyed, publicly, painfully, humiliatingly, financially, etc – to the point that *no one* ever wants to publicly associate themselves with that party or ideology for generations for fear of what awaits them.

Midas on December 4, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Should Americans be just as honest as the POTUS..?

d1carter on December 4, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I’m willing to be deputized.

kcewa on December 4, 2013 at 7:39 PM

All American militarily officers are already, in effect, “deputized” for that purpose by their sworn and unambiguous oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies domestic and foriegn. Of course, they could all be traitors to that solemn oath and to America, I suppose.

VorDaj on December 4, 2013 at 8:54 PM

The takeaway from all of this, really, isn’t that there’s no limit on the president, it’s that there’s no way of enforcing the limit.

Oh, but there really, truly is.

Brush up on your history, it might come in handy – the Democrats are pushing us closer every damn day.

Midas on December 4, 2013 at 8:54 PM

“Is it possible that we’ll have another such lawless President in our lifetime?”

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…

Unless Obama is reigned in, you can count on seeing other presidents oppress the people (call it what it is) as much or even more arrogantly than our current president.

Governments take power from the people – they do not give it back.. it has to be taken back.

DrDeano on December 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Obama’s idea of “being President” is as the Rat-faced Valerie Jarrett exclaimed at his inauguration: “ready to rule.”

Obama doesn’t understand a Constitutional Republic, which is what the USA is. Obama only understands tribal “culture” and self-gratifiction. He’s king of the huts, accept it or be banished with a great deal of loud-speaker accusational gossip to accompany your trek through the thorns, leaving him and his huts in peace to bounce and eat.

I’m NOT referring to Obama’s DNA. I’m referring to his head, his mind. He does NOT understand a Constitutional Republic. The very idea of such is “unfair” to him.

Lourdes on December 4, 2013 at 9:03 PM

“Is it possible that we’ll have another such lawless President in our lifetime?”

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…

Unless Obama is reigned in, you can count on seeing other presidents oppress the people (call it what it is) as much or even more arrogantly than our current president.

Governments take power from the people – they do not give it back.. it has to be taken back.

DrDeano on December 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM

VERY BIG DITTO.

Lourdes on December 4, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I’m not sure, at this point, that I have a problem with the GOP exercising some power to drag things back towards ‘normalcy’, and demonstrate to the Dems how truly, deeply painful it will be for them when they flout the law.

In fact, I want the GOP to do this. I want the Democrats destroyed, publicly, painfully, humiliatingly, financially, etc – to the point that *no one* ever wants to publicly associate themselves with that party or ideology for generations for fear of what awaits them.

Midas on December 4, 2013 at 8:52 PM

It’s interesting (to a degree, anyway) that, of late, some of the Left’s most vociferous haters in media are taking the “let’s all be civil, let’s all talk to one another, let’s understand each other” tact.

They KNOW they’re losing — losers, in fact — so of late they’re trying to sort-of float on top of the ocean and claim the liferaft rights by “advising” everyone else to “just talk to one another”…

…meanwhile they’re not ceasing their grip on the liferaft or offering it to others (the “others” meaning the Right). They just want the others to “talk” while they float on the sea while the Left keeps it’s grip on the liferaft.

Don’t buy it. The only time the Left “understands” anyone else is when they submit to the Left’s crazy perspectives.

Which is what the Left today actually means when they say smugly, “let’s all just talk to one another”. They mean, “hey, you Righties, shut up.”

Lourdes on December 4, 2013 at 9:10 PM

When you only control one house of congress, the only way to deal with this lawless president is to not play the game. Put the House into recess until a compromise is reached. No laws get passed – nothing.

happi on December 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Been a fan of Trey Gowdy since first time I saw him at a hearing. He hasn’t disappointed me yet…

CoffeeLover on December 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM

DITTO.

Lourdes on December 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?

We lost this argument when the ever so awesome American sheeple, both Libtards and Conservatives, totally ignored the Natural Born Clause.

Too late now, folks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 4, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were writing about when they used that phrase. Our problem today is too many wise-in-their-own-eyes academics proud in their intelligence have boiled the term down to synonymous with “citizen” without conditions.

“Natural born” really does refer to A STATE OF CITIZEN, a STATE OF BEING as a citizen. You’re eigther OF this nation wholly or you’re not, you’re conflicted, you bring ~other loyalties~ to the Executive Branch whether you’re an ethical, good person or not (in Obama’s case, I do not attribute either latter quality to him).

The Founders really did “mean” a President must be “of” this nation, “from” this nation, wholly uncompromised by reference to any other.

Obama’s proven time and time again that his “head is in the Middle East”.

Lourdes on December 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM

The American people have the right to physically remove anyone from office for not obeying, or blatantly disregarding the law. It is written in the most sacred document ever written, besides the Bible. Why can’t we form a peaceful militia of 150 million Americans, and demand that laws be followed? We could refuse to pay taxes for starters, we could storm DC and make citizens arrests, we could start a revolution if necessary. These are our rights. Are most of you too scared to stand up for your and your families freedom? Sit back like sheep and it will get much worse. Look at all the laws Obama will not enforce. Illegal immigrant laws being one. Executive orders, allowing his senators to enact a nuclear option to get progressive nominees into important judicial positions. All to circumvent the law. This sh*t is deadly serious.

F_This on December 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I like Trey Gowdy. I think he wants to point out something important. But instead of getting people to focus on what is important, he has now made himself a butt of jokes. The idea of Obama ignoring election law seems extremely paranoid to the point where it destroys whatever message he was trying to convoy. It would have been have far better and far more effective if he asked if the next Republican President just said he was interested in enforcing Obamacare and so the ACA law no longer has any effect.

thuja on December 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

The process for this is already available, and it is right in the Constitution itself.

Its called impeachment. If the executive refuses to execute the law “duly” passed by Congress, that is a violation of the Constitution and therefore an impeachable offense. The power to make law is vested soley in the Congress. The Executive can sign into law, or veto it. He cannot use what is essentially a line item veto, nor can he create law. Either of those is, at a minimum, a misdemeanor. If he attempts to usurp the Congress, that would be a high crime.

Ask Hillary what should happen to Presidents who defy the will of Congress. She helped in the impeachment proceedings of Nixon, and is married to the only living impeached President.

BobMbx on December 4, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Lawless and lovin’ it. Preezy for life.

Philly on December 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM

…Are most of you too scared to stand up for your and your families freedom? Sit back like sheep and it will get much worse. Look at all the laws Obama will not enforce. Illegal immigrant laws being one. Executive orders, allowing his senators to enact a nuclear option to get progressive nominees into important judicial positions. All to circumvent the law. This sh*t is deadly serious.

F_This on December 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

It used to be most Americans at least had an acre or thereabouts and a milk cow and a few goats and a garden plot (if not much more) and free-title to their little property (or big property), so, they could take risks with opinions if not actions against corrupt government. Or they could just “go West” and get away from it.

No longer. Our increased urbanization of customary living in the USA has placed all of us at far greater risk to life when/if we so much as disagree with local/state/fed govts.

I’ve seen the swift denigration of a person’s life at the whim of a disgruntled Senator or even local Supervisor when a complaint is made that they resent. IT’s tough today to confront corrupt govt., to state the obvious.

I agree with you theoretically, however. I only try to explain the severe consequences most of us face today when we “want to revolt” or try to as to disagreeing with govt. and how that fear is used to corral the American public.

Lourdes on December 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

I do not get the standing problem. Either house of Congress has an important stake in seeing that the laws it has enacted are faithfully executed. Otherwise the separate and equal status of the Legislative Branch is null and void. This should not even be up for discussion.

xkaydet65 on December 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Arrrrrrggh!

We don’t get to hear the wisdom of the Gentlelady from Texas Mrs. Jackson-Lee?

Allah, C’mon , man!

socalcon on December 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM

F_This on December 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I have, in my own way, been asking for this for a while now…

I want this to happen, it’s the only way to get our country back.

Scrumpy on December 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Lourdes on December 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Also well said… :)

Scrumpy on December 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM

I’ve got a better question for Gowdy — why don’t you and the GOP fuc*ing stop him?

rrpjr on December 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

rrpjr on December 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

In the end, it doesn’t matter which ‘golden’ guy or lady stands up and speaks out or asks difficult questions, they face the same thing we all do…

The foundations of what Obama says and does and also does not say or do, has been laid for more than 40 years, and the people let it happen.

There is a rot in our nation, both politically and morally…

God has been removed and they still try to remove even more of Him out of our lives.

How does one stop this rot? Why wasn’t it stopped so long ago?

I am loathe to say this, but americans have spoken, not once but twice, and got what they wanted…

So, it’s to heck with the rest of us…

It is too late, all we can do is pray for an intervention form God at this point.

Scrumpy on December 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Simple question from Gowdy to the legal panel: How far can Obama go?

As far as I know, there are no judicially enforceable limits on federal prosecutorial discretion so long as it is not exercised for a constitutionally impermissible reason, like racial discrimination.

That does not mean there are no limits on prosecutorial discretion at all. It just means the limits are political: we can vote Obama out if we think he’s exercising his discretion in an inappropriate way.

That brings us to the stupid election law hypothetical. Practically speaking, if we’re at the point where a President is refusing to enforce election laws, what good would a judicial determination that he is acting unconstitutional do us? If he refuses to enforce election laws, he certainly would not enforce a judicial order finding he’s violated the constitution.

righty45 on December 4, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Why not pass an amendment expanding Congress’s right (and maybe the right of the state legislatures too) to sue instead? That would limit, if not eliminate, the risk of nuisance suits against the feds

It actually would not, as evidenced by the House’s hyperventilating about the relatively benign exercises of prosecutorial discretion regarding the ACA. If anything I’d rather grant everyday citizens standing over Congress. Who’s more likely to bring a frivolous but possible highly-publicized suit with no possible monetary relief: an average joe with a real life to carry on, or a hyper-partisan political body hell-bent on damaging the President?

righty45 on December 4, 2013 at 11:42 PM

We’ll see your repeal and raise with a new amendment creating a national recall vote.

flataffect on December 5, 2013 at 12:12 AM

The problem isn’t the fact that you just haven’t crafted a clever enough law to stop him. The problem is that you elected a man that doesn’t respect the Constitution to the Presidency, and no law will stop him.

DFCtomm on December 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM

BINGO

I guess the military does not holds its oath to defend the constitution in very high regard. Nough said.

astonerii on December 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

The ones who do have been quietly, surgically and strategically relieved of command. All by design. The stealth war against this country has been afoot for some time; it isn’t something that is coming – it is here. The majority of the populace has either been asleep at their post or simply do not want to believe it could happen here.

ghostwalker1 on December 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM

When you only control one house of congress, the only way to deal with this lawless president is to not play the game. Put the House into recess until a compromise is reached. No laws get passed – nothing.

happi on December 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM

I agree with this kind of approach – when you’ve got leverage, you should use it. But…

I’ve got a better question for Gowdy — why don’t you and the GOP fuc*ing stop him?

rrpjr on December 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

they’re too wimpy.

Anti-Control on December 5, 2013 at 1:30 AM

This article shows how much the non-conservatives and RINOs control the article output at Hot Air.

This business about standing is just so much %@^#$^%@ coming from people like the Chief Justice who rewrote the PPACA twice and amended the Constitution twice to find the PPACA constitutional.

First amendment anyone?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Try petitioning for a redress of grievances (including if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it and if-you-like-your-doctor-you-can-keep-him/her because they passed the Bill before all but a few elites could read it) since the SCOTUS made it almost impossible through a series of atrocious late 1930s decisions.

As constitutional jurist Edwin Vieira (PhD, JD, Harvard) has noted: John Marshall’s unconstitutional finding of “judicial review” has lead directly to “judicial supremacy.” And… “However, given that the powers that be hold basically the same views, the political branches of the Federal government will support “judicial supremacy” through “judicial review” for this concept perfectly rationalizes wholesale violations of the Constitution that politicians wish to perpetrate and wholesale nullifications of powers politicians do not wish We The People to exercise.”

And—-
“Compared to the “living” Constitution, original intent is unpretentious and plausible. It requires interpreters of the Constitution only to develop expertise as legal historians (to determine what the original intent was) and as legal technicians (to determine how to apply that intent to new factual situations). The “living” Constitution, conversely requires erstwhile rewriters of that document to develop (or at least pretend to) expertise in all bodies of knowledge relating to social, political, and economic organization. Indeed, coupling the “living” Constitution with “judicial supremacy” implies that justices of the Supreme Court must approach – or at least aspire to – universal genius in these matters as qualification for their office.”

With the SCOTUS behaving so badly can the chief executive be far behind? If only Congressman Gowdy had pursued his points with more intensely – maybe something would leak out to the middle class that always ends up being exploited through both wealth confiscation and federal laws that are always imposed against those the DC elites do not favor while going unenforced against those they do not like with no penalty for non-enforcement.

Falcon46 on December 5, 2013 at 2:17 AM

impeachment is the Constitutional remedy, thought unfortunately the Congress has become more concerned with defending partisan influence than Constitutional privileges. I’m beginning to believe that we would be better off with the President as an entirely non-partisan position; that is that he couldn’t be a member of any political party whatsoever. If the prerogatives of Congress are abridged, that should be a concern for every Senator and Congressman regardless of the political party of the President.

theblackcommenter on December 5, 2013 at 2:33 AM

A government of men, not laws.

David Blue on December 5, 2013 at 2:41 AM

“John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!”

- President Andrew Hussein Obama Jackson

BigAlSouth on December 5, 2013 at 5:53 AM

He committed felonies before he was elected. He had already shown he has no respect for the rule of law. Why is anyone surprised by his actions?

talkingpoints on December 5, 2013 at 6:03 AM

The more I hear and see Trey Gowdy, the more I like him.

Might be just a back country lawyer…but damn, he’s good, fearless, and right.

coldwarrior on December 5, 2013 at 6:35 AM

The first thing you do is impeach Obama. If you want an argument besides ‘no controlling legal authority’, you will get that argument during the impeachment trial. Why would congress need more power in this regard?

Buddahpundit on December 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Forget about all those changes or amendments. There already is an action that can be taken. Congress should do it’s job and impeach the lawbreaker in chief. Start the proceeding now and finish it when Reid and company are relegated to the back bench.

Kissmygrits on December 5, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I am glad the House is at least holding hearings about this and creating an official record of the lawlessness of this President. I do not think he should be impeached, only because the optics of it would surely backfire on the Republicans.

History will not be kind to him.

He is a radical who has long believed the U.S. Constitution is inherently flawed, was written by rich white men to protect their racial and class prerogatives, and thus should be ignored and actively undermined whenever possible in the name of “the people.” He was raised by a radical mother who hated America and left it, spent his formative years in the Third World, was educated by far-left radicals at Columbia and Harvard Law, and spent much of his adult life around other radicals like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, who despise our Constitution.

He disdains Congress as an institution, and did even when it was controlled by his party. Now that it is controlled by the other paty, he feels almost liberated to ignore it, taunt it, and flout every law he can. He is a mini-Chavez who believes in a strongman form of government that can rule unilaterally. Juan Peron is a good example in recent history.

He is also actively trying to turn his base supporters against Congress and the Supreme Court as institutions. This is what is most frightening to me.

Our Constitutional order cannot be completely destroyed by one man in 8 years, but it can be destroyed by an electorate that becomes convinced by that man that it is outdated and impeding “progress.” They will vote it out of existence.

rockmom on December 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM

This gets to something that I’ve been batting around recently: we should create an office for the second place finisher in each Presidential election who has the power to investigate the sitting administration and challenge the legality of any Presidential action.

Count to 10 on December 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM

The way Presidential elections used to work under the Founders was that when there was a Presidential election between two people, the winner was President and the loser became Vice President. That way there was always pressure on the President to perform his duty. Perhaps the Founders were on to something… (duh)

dominigan on December 5, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I’ve got a better question for Gowdy — why don’t you and the GOP fuc*ing stop him?

rrpjr on December 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

“Because he’s the first (half) black president and we don’t have the stomach to treat him equally, hold him to the same standards…wait, that makes us racist, per MLK…mhhhh, what to do? Duhhhh”

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Gowdy is expounding on an unspoken but intrinsic aspect of our system of government. The POTUS can assume any powers of government that he chooses. By the same token, the Congress can and routinely does assume powers that it is not granted in our Constitution. The limiting principle is merely what the other branches of government and ultimately the voters will enforce.

Even the SCOTUS is impotent to stop either the executive of legislative branches. It can only provide public pressure or otherwise motivate the public and other branches to act by ruling. A POTUS is free to disregard what the court says and can only be held to account by impeachment or a midterm election.

That is the reason why we have seen the clean, limited system defined by our Constitution become so radically distorted over the years.

MJBrutus on December 5, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?

Well of course. Each according to Barrack’s needs.

onomo on December 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Several years ago I and others started making the Chavez comparison but no one took that up because it was too extreme. Now we are past the point of stopping this US version of Chavez and these law professors, legislators and historians are really starting to confirm it. The government under this tyrant have consolidated power in many ways but the scariest is way TSA, FBI, DHS and others have become the internal military instrument of the administration but that is just too hard too realize, isn’t it?

Pardonme on December 5, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Bmore

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2