It’s come to this: Obama threatens to veto Republican bills that … require him to follow the law

posted at 4:01 pm on March 12, 2014 by Allahpundit

If he had a sense of humor, he’d sign the bills and then ignore them. Just like he did with ObamaCare.

Forcing him to threaten a veto was, of course, the whole point of these bills in the first place.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

    H.R. 4138 – Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law (ENFORCE the Law) Act of 2014
    (Rep. Gowdy, R-South Carolina, and 11 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4138 because it violates the separation of powers by purporting to permit the Congress to challenge in court the exercise by the President of one of his core constitutional functions – taking care that Federal laws are faithfully executed.

Congress ordinarily has the power to define the bounds of the Executive Branch’s enforcement authority under particular statutes, and persons who claim to be harmed by the Executive Branch’s actions may challenge them as inconsistent with the governing statute. But the 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. Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.

If the President were presented with H.R. 4138, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Translation: Congress is violating the separation of powers by trying to make Obama stop violating the separation of powers. The executive can summarily re-write key provisions of a momentous health-care law that was written and passed by the legislature (while offering no legal justification for doing so), but if the legislature tries to get judges involved to hold him back, well, that’s a constitutional bridge too far. Essentially, he’s arguing that because Article II leaves it to the president to faithfully execute the law, only O gets to decide whether he’s “faithfully executing the law” by selectively ignoring portions of it that benefit him politically. Remember, this is the guy who ran in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.

But let me ask you this: Would any president respond differently? Would any president sign a bill like the one the GOP’s proposing and then, duly chastened, start to comply? The novelty of O’s power grabs isn’t that he’d go to the mat constitutionally to defend them; presidents are forever claiming that attempts by Congress to rein them in violate Article II. (The War Powers Act is a perennial flashpoint.) You could, in fact, argue that this is all part of the checks-and-balances process: As different branches compete for power, they naturally seek to vindicate their supremacy in court. What’s novel about O is that, transparently, he’s refused to enforce parts of a major law (a law that’ll define his presidential legacy, by the way) not because of any constitutional problem but because they’re inconvenient to him politically. He needs to suspend the employer mandate for a few years, not because some unforeseen complication in enforcing it has arisen but because his party’s royally screwed at the polls as this boondoggle pisses off more and more voters and he’s frantic to minimize the damage. If he can define “faithful execution of the laws” to encompass an excuse as weak as that, then Jonathan Turley’s even more right than we thought. But, having made the leap to nonenforcement for reasons of pure political expedience, it’s no surprise that he’d now threaten a court battle over his constitutional powers. Presidents always do.

Still, good optics by the GOP to squeeze this threat out of him. The only thing I don’t get is why he’d play along. The bills will die in the Senate. Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?


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 3

“Rules? Those are for regular presidents.”

-President Obama

portlandon on March 12, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Please raise your hand if this surprises you, even just a smidgen…

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Why the heck aren’t we checking and balancing him? His mandates and executive orders at the VERY LEAST should be challenged in court. Where the hell is our Repub leadership? If Dems go unchallenged, why do we vote the GOP in at all?

melle1228 on March 12, 2014 at 4:04 PM

…can he pardon himself?

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?

He’s showing his contempt for the Congressional Republicans and their fundamental weakness. And to an extent, he’s right to do this. What are the Republicans going to do, even if they capture the Senate? Whine louder?

Doomberg on March 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM

“It’s just a stunt!”

/libs, msm

Ward Cleaver on March 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM

How dare those dastardly Republicans try to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
What do they think this is, a Republic?
Have they no shame?

Another Drew on March 12, 2014 at 4:09 PM

He’s showing his contempt for the Congressional Republicans and their fundamental weakness. And to an extent, he’s right to do this. What are the Republicans going to do, even if they capture the Senate? Whine louder?

Doomberg on March 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM

This ^^^

melle1228 on March 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Tyrant.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Still, good optics by the GOP to squeeze this threat out of him. The only thing I don’t get is why he’d play along. The bills will die in the Senate. Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?

You sure about that, AP? With the Dems poised to lose the Senate(not to mention more seats in the House), you don’t think there’d be enormous pressure on Harry Reid to allow a vote on this and the possibility that enough Dems will cross over to allow it to pass?

Doughboy on March 12, 2014 at 4:11 PM

He’s showing his contempt for the Congressional Republicans and their fundamental weakness. And to an extent, he’s right to do this. What are the Republicans going to do, even if they capture the Senate? Whine louder?

Doomberg on March 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Impeach him.

Ward Cleaver on March 12, 2014 at 4:12 PM

This isn’t going to end well. The Republicans are the only ones with a ‘systemic’ way to handle this – if they don’t, it simply isn’t going to end well for anyone.

Midas on March 12, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?

Maybe because he’s rallying his base in doing it?

Hard core Liberals llllooooooovvvveee this idea of having a President who takes the authoritarian approach of “putting his foot down and laying down the law”, in spite of what that old worn out document the Constitution might say to the contrary.

lineholder on March 12, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Remember, this is the guy who ran in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.

As history has proven, his strong suit is stuff.

His presidency is a show about nothing. That, and endless lies.

fogw on March 12, 2014 at 4:14 PM

He’s showing his contempt for the Congressional Republicans and their fundamental weakness. And to an extent, he’s right to do this. What are the Republicans going to do, even if they capture the Senate? Whine louder?

Doomberg on March 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Impeach him.

Ward Cleaver on March 12, 2014 at 4:12 PM

This.

If they don’t, there’s really only one other way this is likely going to end.

Midas on March 12, 2014 at 4:14 PM

The 3rd term jokes are less funny now.

Oil Can on March 12, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Impeach him that is what is set up to deal with would-be tyrants. He SWORE to uphold the Constitution. He has failed utterly. There’s your reason.

Impeach him you cowards!

neyney on March 12, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Lord of the Flies

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Still, good optics by the GOP to squeeze this threat out of him. The only thing I don’t get is why he’d play along. The bills will die in the Senate. Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?

Good question. Maybe because that was my first thought in reading this. The administration responding to this nonsense is small ball.

Unless the Dems have already figured out that their rat-eared idol is going to spend his last two years with an opposition Congress. Then this is a warning shot across the GOP bow that he still has that veto pen. He’ll spend the 114th Congress vetoing the hell out of anything that he doesn’t agree with.

Happy Nomad on March 12, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Obama is a tyrannical fascist A-Hole!

workingclass artist on March 12, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Arrest him. Take him into fuc*king custody. Are we a nation of laws or not?

rrpjr on March 12, 2014 at 4:18 PM

He can be impeached in the House and then the names of all those senators who fail to convict him. Those names should be given the widest dissemination so the people can know what has happened to this once great nation.

rplat on March 12, 2014 at 4:18 PM

He is on record as saying that Crimeria splitting from the Ukraine is against their constitution. I think he is practicing with theirs and will get around to ours when he knows more about constitutions (I guess we know why his college transcripts are sealed. He never attended any of those classes that would qualify him as an “expert” on constitutional law did he).

teejk on March 12, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Just noticed this is being sponsored by Trey Gowdy. Rule of law man if there ever was one.

Wonder what he’s got in mind by pursuing this…..

lineholder on March 12, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Whatever.

“It’s good to be King!” – King B. Hussein’O

Pork-Chop on March 12, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Impeach him that is what is set up to deal with would-be tyrants. He SWORE to uphold the Constitution. He has failed utterly. There’s your reason.

Impeach him you cowards!

neyney on March 12, 2014 at 4:14 PM

I always get a kick out of the “impeach him” crowd. As if the Democrats in the Senate would ever vote to convict. And then they would scream “racist” all the louder and make him a likely political martyr in the same vein as Clinton.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:19 PM

The sad thing is Obama is pretty much right. The Constitution already provides for Congress to reign in errant Presidents: it is called impeachment. But everyone knows that isn’t going to happen, so we are reduced to trying extra-constitutional means.

Which explains why he is playing along. He knows this is going nowhere, but he has to set up the talking points for the 4th branch of government. He is gambling that the press will be able to paint this as a power grab by Republicans. I don’t know if that will pay off, but what other choice does he have?

JackOfClubs on March 12, 2014 at 4:19 PM

No wonder LilliPutin laughs at the hypocrite for lecturing on “freedom, rights, liberty”.

obama is the USA’s Mugabe.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Tyrant.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2014 at 4:11 PM

At least Julius Caesar had some talent…

workingclass artist on March 12, 2014 at 4:20 PM

I actually agree with Obama here, but not at all for the reasons he states. But I think this bill is unconstitutional.

Why?

It is not appropriate, nor necessary, for Congress to go to the courts to try to force a president to uphold the law. Congress has a remedy for lawless presidents built into the Constitution: impeachment. If a president is willfully flouting the Constitution and duly enacted legislation, Congress has a duty to remove him from office. Not to punt the issue to the judicial branch and say “pleeeease make him listen to us!”

No president has ever done so much worthy of impeachment as has Barack Obama. If Congress will not act, and instead continues pointless political theatrics such as this bill, they have truly abdicated all their authority.

Shump on March 12, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Futile and symbolic but at least not as damaging as the debt ceiling stunt. There is only one Constitutional remedy that Congress has available to it. Sadly there is no way that it is a viable option without control of the Senate. So, we’re stuck with show biz for the ugly.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Then he says “It’s the R’s fault. The do nothing”…and his Jeantels and phoneladies cheer.

Where are the trolls? Must be hard to defend such a thug.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:21 PM

This situation is entirely the fault of the press. If the MSM had done its job and covered the excesses of Obama, from Fast & Furious to Benghazi to immigration to IRS to NLRB to EPA and now PPACA, the public would have never reelected the bum.

Instead, the press, aided and abetted by shadowy propagandists in Ezra Klein’s “Journ-O-List” which never disbanded, actively covered up every Obama blunder and scandal. They betrayed the nation as well as their purported “calling” or “profession.”

Adjoran on March 12, 2014 at 4:22 PM

There has been enough on this miscreant for years to impeach him. I know, the Senate would quash any and all attempts, but, at least, it would make for good tv.

vnvet on March 12, 2014 at 4:22 PM

The 3rd term jokes are less funny now.

Oil Can on March 12, 2014 at 4:14 PM

You only thought they were jokes.

hawkeye54 on March 12, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Impeach Valerie!

butch on March 12, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Could you imagine the outrage and people taking to the streets if we win the Senate and decide enough is enough…and impeach him successfully?

We might as well wait until 2016. Nothing will change in the meantime. Nothing.

Deckard BR on March 12, 2014 at 4:23 PM

He’s showing his contempt for the Congressional Republicans and their fundamental weakness. And to an extent, he’s right to do this. What are the Republicans going to do, even if they capture the Senate? Whine louder?

Doomberg on March 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Impeach him.

Ward Cleaver on March 12, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Whine louder Doomberg? No, with both houses of Congress, Obama loses his firewall with Harry Reid and the Senate. IMO, the Demonrats have already conceded their defeat in the Senate- Harry Reid is maneuvering to overturn the draconian rules that limits the minority to introduce amendments. He isn’t doing that to soothe the partisanship atmosphere of the Senate. He’s trying to help Demonrats after January 2014.

And let’s not kid ourselves here. If the rats lose the Senate in November, the looting of this nation in the next couple months will be akin to a Louisiana Wal-mart when the EBT system goes down.

Happy Nomad on March 12, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Well, if it isn’t Lazarus.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Translation: Congress is violating the separation of powers by trying to make Obama stop violating the separation of powers.

Actually, they happen to be correct on this one. If Congress thinks that a tyrant is running amok in the Oval Office, they don’t pass idiotic bills telling him that he has to stop acting like a tyrant. That’s moronic. Congress has the RESPONSIBILITY (!!!) to impeach the tyrant and try their hardest to get him taken out of office. Period. That is how Congress is supposed to handle this sort of a situation.

This bill is moronic and is nothing but the act of cowards. Barky and his junta recognize this (as everyone does) and just tells them to FO. The Congress are cowards and they will happily FO (and help Barky continue to be a tyrant whenever they can, as they did with illegals and a bunch of other obviously impeachable (and criminally prosecutable) acts of the Indonesian.

I’m really tired of these meaningless kabuki acts that the House runs as they avert their true responsibility – going on 5 years, now (3 years for the douchebag Vichy GOP having been in charge).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2014 at 4:24 PM

“Why would O give conservative activists a new reason to get their base excited to vote in November when he didn’t absolutely have to?”

Short answer: because he’s a self-absorbed idiot, that’s why.

Bob Davis on March 12, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Yeah. But I’m bat-shit crazy for saying we ought to just nullify the whole damn thing. Okay. Sure.

gryphon202 on March 12, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Arrest him. Take him into fuc*king custody. Are we a nation of laws or not?

rrpjr on March 12, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Ah, nation of laws….more like guidelines. For some following them is optional.

hawkeye54 on March 12, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!

Y’know, this site is really screwed up.

butch on March 12, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Anyone believe Obama will quietly walk out of the White House in January 2017? Or will some purported national emergency require that he remain in Office…or at a minimum be granted “temporary” Executive power beyond the Inauguration?

Sounds nuts, doesn’t it?

Other major nations and a lot of lesser nations have had Constitutions and the rule of law simply tossed aside by a president.

Why, in this day and age, should we seriously consider that we are immune from this sort of thing?

Remember that oft forgotten Obama quote way back in 2008?

“Fundamentally change the way we are governed?”

coldwarrior on March 12, 2014 at 4:28 PM

We might as well wait until 2016. Nothing will change in the meantime. Nothing.

Deckard BR on March 12, 2014 at 4:23 PM

By 2016, Bammy may decide he’d like to stay on a while longer in the WH and void the presidential elections altogether.

Wait and see CONgress get in a tither if he were to do that!

Bammy does have a pen and phone, doncha know, and nobody’s talked about taking them away from him.

hawkeye54 on March 12, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Futile and symbolic but at least not as damaging as the debt ceiling stunt. There is only one Constitutional remedy that Congress has available to it. Sadly there is no way that it is a viable option without control of the Senate. So, we’re stuck with show biz for the ugly.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:21 PM

You need more than just control of the Senate. You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. How many Dems would stick their neck out to convict the first black president?

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:30 PM

coldwarrior on March 12, 2014 at 4:28 PM

To answer your question, YES. Only it doesn’t just sound nuts, it is Nucking Futs. As loony as the libs who said the same about W.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:30 PM

True. You also need enough public support behind you to pull it off. So, effectively, the power of the POTUS is unlimited until he crosses the line that even his own party and the public will not tolerate.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:33 PM

I always get a kick out of the “impeach him” crowd. As if the Democrats in the Senate would ever vote to convict. And then they would scream “racist” all the louder and make him a likely political martyr in the same vein as Clinton.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Consider this… November isn’t that long away. Impeach him now over this, and force the Democrat to defend his lawlessness, or impeach him after the November election when the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate.

Either way, the Democrats are loosing the Senate in November.

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:34 PM

How many Dems would stick their neck out to convict the first black president?

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:30 PM

How many will be up for reelection in 2016…

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:35 PM

This administration is going to end uglier than a Berkeley pajama party.

Chuck Schick on March 12, 2014 at 4:35 PM

To answer your question, YES. Only it doesn’t just sound nuts, it is Nucking Futs. As loony as the libs who said the same about W.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:31 PM

You think it’s totally, off-the-wall nuts!!!!? Really?

Funny you should mention W because – yeah, I know it’s NUTS!!!!! – do you remember what Barky and his junta wanted to happen right after the election in 2008? Do you remember a little something about them wanting W to just leave office and Barky to slip in early and start Precedentin’ in December … because he was so good at it and stuff?

Yeah, I know that only a total NUT!!!! would claim that that happened, that officials in Barky’s camp actually proposed such an un-Constitutional, preposterous idea … I must be a total maniac for remembering it … since there is no Constitutional mechanism of any sort, whatsoever, to allow a President-elect to just slip into office in front of the chain of succession before the Constitutionally authorized date of power transfer … I must be crazy to remember it actually being proposed by the Indonesian and his insane, Anerica-hating, power-hungry junta …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Short answer: because he’s a self-absorbed idiot, that’s why.

Bob Davis on March 12, 2014 at 4:24 PM

There’s something to that. The rat-eared wonder takes these POLICY issues way too personally. A reporter challenged him about issuing a de facto DREAM act by executive order when the Congress would not act and he had a hissy fit. The Congress did not pass the administration’s gun-grabbing legislation and the rat-eared wonder had a hissy fit.

Harry Reid has been a reliable backstop, ensuring that legislation Obama doesn’t like never makes it to his desk. That run could well be coming to an end. For the first time in this era of bad stewardship, the filthy lazy stupid coward may find stuff on his desk that he doesn’t agree with. That scares the bastard since he isn’t all that bright to begin with.

Intelligent Presidents would look at what previous Presidents did with an opposition Congress and seek to build bridges. This stupid bastard has decided to go the “eff” you route.

Happy Nomad on March 12, 2014 at 4:37 PM

I’m rubber, you’re glue,
Anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!
.
..

….
…..
……
wut?

ExpressoBold on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM

We will never be free of this. Even after he’s out of office, the precedent he has set for lawless rulers will bedevil us the rest of our days.

JeremiahJohnson on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Consider this… November isn’t that long away. Impeach him now over this, and force the Democrat to defend his lawlessness, or impeach him after the November election when the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate.

Either way, the Democrats are loosing the Senate in November.

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Control of the Senate alone won’t get the job done.

How many will be up for reelection in 2016…

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Not enough to overcome the fact that 41% of the idiots people in this country still think he’s doing a bang up job.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Yes really. I wish that I had the words to express just how totally crazy that is.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Well, if it isn’t Lazarus.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:23 PM

I saw your comment, the other day :)

The bad don’t die so easily.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:41 PM

There has been enough on this miscreant for years to impeach him. I know, the Senate would quash any and all attempts, but, at least, it would make for good tv.

vnvet on March 12, 2014 at 4:22 PM

It would make them look strong.

crankyoldlady on March 12, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Good afternoon, my friend. :)

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Nor could I be more delighted to see you.

thatsafactjack on March 12, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Which one? I remember the one where I used your proper noun as a common one.

Nothing personal. I don’t know you or anyone else here and just don’t care about who comes or goes.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:43 PM

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Not enough to overcome the fact that 41% of the idiots people in this country still think he’s doing a bang up job.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM

51% over rules 41% every single time. (Unless it’s a single homosexual judge overruling the will of 67% of California.) Impeaching Obama is not as big a hurdle as many want you to believe, unless of course, you are one of those who really want people to believe that it is an obstacle that cannot be overcome, in which case, I’m really not inclined to care what you think.

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Everytime HotAir uses that picture of Obama all I can think of…..

portlandon on March 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Lord of the Flies

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Good to see you back and sparring.

Cheers,

fogw on March 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM

What is the point of having a judicial branch of government if it is so constricted by its own rules that an ordinary citizen let alone a member of Congress cannot petition it for a ruling on such a basic question as this?

bluesdoc70 on March 12, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Good afternoon, my friend. :) Wonderful, as always, to see you.

thatsafactjack on March 12, 2014 at 4:45 PM

I’m so scared man Obama is a punk what if governors started signing executive orders outlawing his law??

sorrowen on March 12, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Yes really. I wish that I had the words to express just how totally crazy that is.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Just as I thought. You have no knowledge of history, at all.

It happened. There were a few posts at Hotair about it, I believe. Barky and his team argued that the situation was so dire in November that Bush should just leave office and let barky waltz right in, since he was all set to go. Sadly, of course, they didn’t get their insane wish and then Barky couldn’t put a cabinet together for his life when he finally did get in (remember the jokes about “the difference between barky and Jesus … Jesus could build a cabinet” .. no, I’m sure you don’t).

Anyway, the fact that you don’t remember what happened is no surprise. It does put your opining about what might happen in the future clearly into the comic realm, though.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2014 at 4:46 PM

To the eGOP regarding the next election:

I think you have misunderstood me. Your savagery is principles are an issue. That’s true. But, you see, on in the thousands hundreds of planets districts under our control, we breed warriors politicians, gentleman. Warriors Politicians to fight for us across the galaxy country! In your case, your savagery has principles have not bred true. You are woefully backwards in the act of war politics. You fight erratically and clumsily. Your weapons hearings and bills are shockingly crude. And worst of all, in your hearts you long for peace to get along. A small talent for war politics. Too small. Too small to be of any use to us.

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Why the heck aren’t we checking and balancing him? His mandates and executive orders at the VERY LEAST should be challenged in court. Where the hell is our Repub leadership? If Dems go unchallenged, why do we vote the GOP in at all?

melle1228

The “check & balance” is impeachment & they’re not going to go there.

Unfortunately, for good reason – the House would pass articles of impeachment, the Senate would Deep-6 them & “everyone” would call the House Republicans names.

The goal of the bill was to give Congress constitutional standing to file suit in its own name – standing it presently lacks.

No, it shouldn’t come to that – - – but that’s how lawless Obama & the Senate Democrats are.

BD57 on March 12, 2014 at 4:47 PM

This site’s jumpiness is making posting so cumbersome. *sigh*

thatsafactjack on March 12, 2014 at 4:47 PM

You know the house should just defund the White House don’t give them any money.

sorrowen on March 12, 2014 at 4:48 PM

He has learned from the master:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/when-asked-where-constitution-authorizes-congress-order-americans-buy-health-insurance

can_con on March 12, 2014 at 4:48 PM

If I wasn’t so busy today I would write a long, profanity-filled rant.

myiq2xu on March 12, 2014 at 4:48 PM

We will never be free of this. Even after he’s out of office, the precedent he has set for lawless rulers will bedevil us the rest of our days.

JeremiahJohnson on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM

After the mid-terms, there’s Article I, sections 2 & 3 (impeachment and conviction)

tkmcp on March 12, 2014 at 4:48 PM

President of one of his core constitutional functions – taking care that Federal laws are faithfully executed.

If they mean execute as in death sentence, then he is doing a fine job.

DAT60A3 on March 12, 2014 at 4:50 PM

We will never be free of this. Even after he’s out of office, the precedent he has set for lawless rulers will bedevil us the rest of our days.

JeremiahJohnson on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Yep. The damage is irreparable. And fatal.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2014 at 4:50 PM

This site’s jumpiness is making posting so cumbersome. *sigh*

thatsafactjack on March 12, 2014 at 4:47 PM

You presume that this is an accident, or otherwise somehow out of their control. I would not presume to suggest that it is intentional, though, neither would I presume to suggest that it likewise was not.

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:51 PM

When the Republicans don’t do anything to stand up against these criminals there’s a large element out there that assumes the Republicans think what is going on is ok. There is no one to represent the good side.

crankyoldlady on March 12, 2014 at 4:52 PM

You know the house should just defund the White House don’t give them any money.

sorrowen on March 12, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Obama would just steal it from some other agency’s funding.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:52 PM

But I thank you for a most amusing day. You people have a delightful sense of the absurd. You might take some comfort in that. After all, as one of your fine Earth actors, Edmund Wynn, once said, “Dying is easy, comedy is hard.”

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM

And then they would scream “racist” all the louder and make him a likely political martyr in the same vein as Clinton.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:19 PM

‘Martyr’ implies that he’s out of the way. I’ll gladly tolerate a shrine to Saint Barack somewhere as long as he can’t do any more damage…

affenhauer on March 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM

thatsafactjack on March 12, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Thanks for all. Posted note to you on last night’s QotD, toward the end.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Obama would just steal it from some other agency’s funding.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:52 PM

But eventually there would be no money to play with. Of course, he could just borrow mlre.

crankyoldlady on March 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Good point man he is a punk though at some point there will be a breaking point.

sorrowen on March 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM

This Tyrant needs to be charged with Treason and tried. He’s beyond mere impeachment with his crimes.

ConstantineXI on March 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Good afternoon, Mr. Wilde. :)

I know posting has become laborious and irritating.

thatsafactjack on March 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM

more

crankyoldlady on March 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM

fogw on March 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Thank you, fogw.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM

We’re friends. :)

I’ll go find your post on last night’s QOTD.

thatsafactjack on March 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Not enough to overcome the fact that 41% of the idiots people in this country still think he’s doing a bang up job.

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM

It will always be in this range…

90% of blacks approve of him all the time, so does 30% of whites, and 60% of Hispanics, and 50% of others…

Whites are 70% of the population, Hispanics are 14%, Blacks are 13%, other races are 3%…

Do the math:

0.3*70 + 0.9*13 + 0.6*14 + 0.5*3 = 42.6%, let us say 43%… Add an change of +/- 3% and his approval will always range from 40% to 46%…

His problem as the democrat party problem is that their approval among the by far the most powerful, the richest, and the most numerous segment of the American society, Whites, is only at 30% or
less… And hence the constant frustration and anger of the democrats even when they win national elections… They know that they are winning national elections (not local elections) only because of they are getting the 95% of vote from people that they will never ever want them in their neighborhoods…

mnjg on March 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM

The fact that the REB can get away with crap like this makes me think that Democratics will do their damnest to nominate a black, any black person, for President.

A white Democratic could not get away with ignoring laws he doesn’t like, making up new ones, and corrupting entire departments of the government for political gain. When the Democratics’ bigs get together, like Soros, Gerard, Suckerberg, Schmidt, Trumpka, Richards, Pritzker, etc, I think they will go black and tell Hilz to take a pass.

slickwillie2001 on March 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Which one? I remember the one where I used your proper noun as a common one.

That one.

Nothing personal. I don’t know you or anyone else here and just don’t care about who comes or goes.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Never to worry. Won’t be changing you if you won’t be changin’ me.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM

<—- Kicks Schade… Oh hey Schade, didn't see you standing there… Jolly sorry bout that ole boy, how bout a nice pint of ale???

oscarwilde on March 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM

But let me ask you this: Would any president respond differently? Would any president sign a bill like the one the GOP’s proposing and then, duly chastened, start to comply

No other president has flaunted the law enough for the opposing political party to feel like they have to resort to this.

itsspideyman on March 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Good to see you back, my friend.

Obamas can’t speak without a teleprompter, can’t negotiate without ticking off our allies, and can’t govern without Valerie jarrett telling him what to do.

He’s the laughingstock of the world.

kingsjester on March 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM

The Constitutional avenue given to Congress is impeachment.

All the rest is just smoke and mirros. Playing games for the sake of politics. Trying to sway low information voters.

If the Congress believes the president has risen to such a level of abuse, they impeach him. Otherwise, he can keep doing whatever he is doing.

For example, does the President have the power to pardon? Imagine for a moment that President starts to pardon convicted criminals that we all know are guilty or heiness crimes. Could the Congress pass a new law saying the President no longer has the power to pardon? Of course not. They could only impeach to stop him. Which is why Presidents love to do it on their way out the door, because, what are you going to do?

Baggi on March 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM

You need more than just control of the Senate. You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. How many Dems would stick their neck out to convict the first black president?

Bitter Clinger on March 12, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Exactly.

It will be just as it was during the Clinton impeachment – when every single Democrat Senator not only refused to review the evidence against Bill Clinton, but voted in lock-step to acquit him. The exact same thing will happen with any impeachment effort made in 2015-6 against Obama.

For the Democrats, integrity, honesty, ethics, and morality all are immaterial when it comes to advancing their agenda or defending the actions of one of their own. There is no one in the Democrat caucus who will do to Obama what the GOP leadership did to Nixon in 1974.

Then there are the nimrods like talk-radio’s Michael Medved who last week was arguing that Obama’s selective enforcement of laws didn’t even rise to the level of a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’.

Athos on March 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Nothing personal. I don’t know you or anyone else here and just don’t care about who comes or goes.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Brutis had a funny as hell post when he found out you were booted.

Something about Schadenfraud…

ToddPA on March 12, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3