President
Obama has dared those who criticize his repeated failure to faithfully
execute the laws to “sue me,” believing that no one can show the injury
needed to do so. But when one of the administration’s many lawless
actions shifted certain responsibilities to the states, we gained the
standing to sue that so many others have lacked. So on July 29, I
accepted the president’s invitation and filed a lawsuit on behalf of the
state of West Virginia to hold the Obama administration accountable for
its illegal conduct. Though we are a small state — with approximately
1.8 million people — our lawsuit speaks for the millions more who wish
to sue but cannot.
The president and his administration have ignored the law on a breathtaking range of issues. For example, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to propose new environmental rules that will devastate coal miners and raise electricity prices sky-high, even though the EPA admits that the “literal” terms of the Clean Air Act prohibit the regulations. Similarly, after he failed to pass immigration reform through Congress, the president decided to ignore the laws on the books and give out work permits as he pleases. He did the same thing with the Affordable Care Act, giving billions of dollars of tax credits that the law does not authorize. Finally, when Americans learned that the president could not keep his promise that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it,” he ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to create an “administrative fix” — to stop enforcing politically unpopular parts of the law.
Americans from both political parties have decried this lawlessness. Citizens from across the country have called on the president to work with Congress to change policies in a lawful manner. Regardless of whether one supports the policy changes or not, the president cannot play by different rules than everyone else. No one is above the law.Even some courts have stepped in. This June, the Supreme Court struck down one of President Obama’s unlawful greenhouse-gas regulations, rebuking the president’s attempt to “rewrite clear statutory terms.” So, too, in July, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., struck down the president’s attempt to give out tax credits clearly not permitted under the law. Both courts reaffirmed the “principle of legislative supremacy” — that Congress, not the president, makes law.
Unfortunately, even public and judicial outcries have not stopped the president. He has selectively refused to enforce some of the laws Congress passed. In fact, reports suggest that he may rewrite even more laws soon.
Our lawsuit specifically challenges the president’s “administrative fix” to Obamacare, which was designed to remedy a flaw within the Affordable Care Act that resulted in Americans with health insurance losing their coverage. But rather than properly change the law, which Congress said it was willing to do, the president unilaterally “fixed” it by ceasing federal enforcement of the plan-canceling provisions. Because of the way the law is written, this abdication by the federal government had the unusual effect of shifting enforcement responsibility to the states. This increased responsibility gives us the standing to sue.
It is important to point out that our goal is not to put individual health-insurance policies at risk. We just want the president to follow the laws as written, as the Constitution requires him to do. Congress — not the president — gets to write the laws. Here, the law provides that the federal government “must” enforce those provisions of the law. Our suit asks the court to require the Obama administration to fix any problems with the law by working with Congress, not by executive edict.
President Obama’s disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law must be stopped. A president is not a king. That is why I sued the Obama administration.
The president and his administration have ignored the law on a breathtaking range of issues. For example, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to propose new environmental rules that will devastate coal miners and raise electricity prices sky-high, even though the EPA admits that the “literal” terms of the Clean Air Act prohibit the regulations. Similarly, after he failed to pass immigration reform through Congress, the president decided to ignore the laws on the books and give out work permits as he pleases. He did the same thing with the Affordable Care Act, giving billions of dollars of tax credits that the law does not authorize. Finally, when Americans learned that the president could not keep his promise that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it,” he ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to create an “administrative fix” — to stop enforcing politically unpopular parts of the law.
Americans from both political parties have decried this lawlessness. Citizens from across the country have called on the president to work with Congress to change policies in a lawful manner. Regardless of whether one supports the policy changes or not, the president cannot play by different rules than everyone else. No one is above the law.Even some courts have stepped in. This June, the Supreme Court struck down one of President Obama’s unlawful greenhouse-gas regulations, rebuking the president’s attempt to “rewrite clear statutory terms.” So, too, in July, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., struck down the president’s attempt to give out tax credits clearly not permitted under the law. Both courts reaffirmed the “principle of legislative supremacy” — that Congress, not the president, makes law.
Unfortunately, even public and judicial outcries have not stopped the president. He has selectively refused to enforce some of the laws Congress passed. In fact, reports suggest that he may rewrite even more laws soon.
Our lawsuit specifically challenges the president’s “administrative fix” to Obamacare, which was designed to remedy a flaw within the Affordable Care Act that resulted in Americans with health insurance losing their coverage. But rather than properly change the law, which Congress said it was willing to do, the president unilaterally “fixed” it by ceasing federal enforcement of the plan-canceling provisions. Because of the way the law is written, this abdication by the federal government had the unusual effect of shifting enforcement responsibility to the states. This increased responsibility gives us the standing to sue.
It is important to point out that our goal is not to put individual health-insurance policies at risk. We just want the president to follow the laws as written, as the Constitution requires him to do. Congress — not the president — gets to write the laws. Here, the law provides that the federal government “must” enforce those provisions of the law. Our suit asks the court to require the Obama administration to fix any problems with the law by working with Congress, not by executive edict.
President Obama’s disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law must be stopped. A president is not a king. That is why I sued the Obama administration.
I have not seen a more lawless President in my lifetime. Hopefully this November will bring the changes needed to reign this dictator back to Earth.
ReplyDeleteAlways remember in the absence of a decision, someone will step up to make a decision often in their own best interest. Often referred to as self serving.
ReplyDeleteCongress should make the laws. But, they are bogged down in partisan bickering and petty squabbling. Congress now has an approval rating in single digits. Why doesn't this bother our "public servants"? I think we all know the reason.
ReplyDeleteThe current House was put into place to block the senate and this president to prevent further damage. Instead we now have the imperial president who enforces what he like, changes what he doesn't, makes laws to suit his mantra and ignore the rest.
DeleteI agree with Mick on this one, Lou. The most recent an obvious example is South American refugee kids sleeping on the floor at the Southern border.
DeleteNow, this wasn't an immigration policy debate, this was a crisis situation that required some emergency funding. Boehner wouldn't get anything passed thru the house and said, "Screw it. We're going on recess. Let the Prez handle it." At the same time, the GOP brings a lawsuit against Obama for acting without congressional authority?
C'mon, really? I mean, I'm no big fan of Obama, but really?
It's nothing but a political circle-jerk, Lou ...
Wasn't it the Senate who went on vacation?
DeleteU.S. House passes border-security funding bill to speed deportations
By David Lawder and Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON Sat Aug 2, 2014 8:15am EDT
(Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to crack down on Central American migrants, including unaccompanied children, who are flooding to the U.S. border with Mexico, as lawmakers passed a $694 million border security bill.
The 223-189 vote came one day after conservative Republicans balked at an earlier version of the measure, exposing a deep rift between Tea Party activists and more mainstream Republicans.
In passing the retooled bill, the Republican-led House ignored a veto threat from the White House. But with the Senate already on a five-week summer recess, this measure will advance no further at least until September.
"We couldn't go home (for recess) and not have a decision," said Representative Kay Granger of Texas, who helped draft the original bill.
In any case unless it's what the prezzy wants, veto.
The circle jerk as well as the tone set starts in the WH.
What the house passed was the same old tired immigration bill that will never make it through the senate.
ReplyDeleteYes we would hate to enforce the border and stop the flood of illegals.
Deletep.s. The senate went on vacation without discussing the time of day. A stellar group of people with their own best interests in mind. next up, replacement of the senate slugs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd it's not like the Senate leader to compromise now is it. The Senate could easily reconvene if they truly wanted to pass a bill. They would rather have a campaign issue than a solution.
ReplyDeleteLet the president do what he wants. Soon enough the tables will be turned and conservative legislation will flow. Let the dems win the Senate again (for now,,the remainer of king obamas term), and let blissful gridlock reign.
pfunky and rick truly have no answer for the 109,000,000 (out of 310,000,000) people on welfare in our country. Keep spending progressives,,keep spending out your fat little a__es.
There are currently 65 million Americans on government assistance. This includes welfare, food stamps and unemployment.
Deletehttp://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
And it's not like the Senate leader to compromise now is it. The Senate could easily reconvene if they truly wanted to pass a bill. They would rather have a campaign issue than a solution.
DeleteThe above is an extract from William above. I use it a lead in to my own comment and enquiry. Not to be taken in any way as a criticism of Williams views.
Perhaps the entire debate here could, or perhaps should revolve around this small word “compromise”. No one arm of government has a monopoly on wisdom and no voter in your land or mine has the wisdom and perspicacity to accurately prejudge the wisdom within the President he elects or the members he sends to the hill in his name.
We have seen over the past four plus years how opposing forces have given up trying to govern for the people, they have instead spent the time and money, both belonging to the people, in point scoring from each other in a fruitless pursuit of ideological dominance. Budgets have remained in deadlock, the health care insurance system limping along with as many opposed to change as there are in favor. What has occurred is that the president I believe has tried to achieve reform and improvement in the living standards of your people. The Senate has been willing to assist and the House on a few occasions has reluctantly passed bills.
What has been so obvious to onlookers is the inherent mess within your system which appears to promote stalemate and inactivity. Here we apparently have a State Attorney General deciding to sue the President. Yet another instance of obfuscation which will titillate the media and waste precious time in preventing your national government from trying to work through the present impasse. What charges are being brought against the President and by inference against ALL WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA WITH THEIR VOTES AT THE PREVIOUS TWO ELECTIONS? Without looking it up and without knowledge of the political color of the West Virginia Legislature I offer the opinion that WV is a Republican state.
So there you; are as always you are leading the way; you shine a light on the path Australia is destined to follow and as all great nations eventually fell in the past, I fear you are in great danger of leading us into the same abyss
Cheers from Aussie
The WV legislature is comprised of 24 DEM's and 10 Repubs. They have two demo senators. Two out of three of their representatives are Repubs. Since 1977 only one governor has been a republican.
DeleteYou see king our president doesn't place minions into congress. We the people do. The big city/states control the electoral college. Our founders thankfully divided the powers and presently our representatives are a large majority (which is certain to grow even larger) of the opposing party. Thank God!
As much as you view our gridlock as an impediment to progress the opposite is true. Our division enables adults to attempt to control our budget problems. Which at 17T and counting are substantial.
Our movement has just celebrated our 5th birthday. We have only just begun. Progressives may minimize our impact but as adults we stand in the back of the room, bide our time, negate the nonsense, cool our heels, make adjustments, continue to educate ourselves, roll with the punches, and have the balls to say no to the progressive children.
1773-2009 we exist right below the surface. But we are always here.
William as always my thanks for the reply and the additional info re the make up of the WV legislature and Federal representation.
Delete“As much as you view our gridlock as an impediment to progress the opposite is true.”
I wish I could agree with you but this is the major reason for my concern. We have the same thing here, a Right wing lower house with a massive majority and a Senate with a Right wing having the most senators but the Left wing and the odds and sods (Non aligned or small splinter groups) having the balance of power. The annual Budget bill (Fiscal appropriations bill) has been passed in part, there are however many attendant parts of the budget which are held up in the Senate. These bills are about cutting waste, including cutting welfare waste and are unpopular with the electorate. Of course the opposition in the Senate is trying to make political capital by rejecting them.
There have been so many carrots offered to the people in the past that we now have more carrots than the country can afford. The present government is trying to get the fiscal spending under control and this means a reduction in spending which will affect everyone. From this, you can see that the mandate given to the government by the people at the last election is being castrated in the parliament.
Even though my wife and I are financially quite comfortable, we receive several thousands of dollars in government carrots! Having retired we pay very little income tax and are therefore a drain on the public purse.
Cheers from Aussie
King it's the same with the government here. Neither party is really willing to do much more then score points with their base. Just like the bill mentioned above. It's the same shit worded differently that repubs have been trying to pass for years. The House pushed it through quickly so that they could go on their vacations also.
DeleteKingston.
DeleteThis was an interesting story, not found in the Main Stream Media. It is all about control of the agenda. The House has passed 534 bills that sit in the Senate. Reflecting back, the House and the Senate are the lawmakers and the executive branch enforcement. Today the House is about lawmaking and the Senate is the presidents filter.
We are faced with the same issues. Want free vote for me ruled the last election. It will be most interesting to see the dismay when the free begins to run out. So many are not concerned about the excessive debt we have accumulated as long as the free continues.
As a side note you have contributed in the past and are retired today and little should be expected from you in taxes. My opinion only.
A shame Rick forgot to mention while the house was working on the bill and passing it, the Democratically controlled Senate left town with no intention of negotiating with the House. Hence my comment the Senate is the presidents filter to keep him from looking bad.
DeleteThe pathetic part then they blame the house for another failed bill. The party faithful then scream for obama to enact an executive order bypassing the constitution with great satisfaction. The next president will do the same and expand the power with the other party screaming. Hopefully the Dems will get a taste of being totally marginalized and put in the closet.
King you speak of compromise. Well in the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship I give you the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) signed into law by President Reagan often described as a three-legged stool. 1)Amnesty 2)Strong border controls 3)Strong penalties for employers who hire illegal’s.
DeleteFurther compromise to that act was a program for agricultural workers that critics said would create an influx of illegal’s... It did.
What we have today is essentially the same situation as before only with much larger numbers... come together to fix a problem once is called compromise.... submit to the same compromise again is called capitulation. Two of the three legs were never enforces and I don't care who didn't enforce it.... What we need to do is ENFORCE THE DAMN LAW.
The basic choice for us in the United States (and indeed all western democracies) is whether to accept all who want to enter and work (or not) here without limit, or alternatively to enforce some sort of numerical limit on how many immigrants we will accept every year. I think a coherent, intellectually defensible argument can be made for open borders and accepting all who wish to enter regardless of how many BUT those opportunities must be 1) universal across all countries and 2) fair with respect to the economic and social disparities created by a world of national sovereignty. Opening the borders of only wealthy western countries will only diminish their prosperity and strain there resources in the short term; Damage from which they may never recover. If your intention is to drain the wealth from a country, just unilaterally open its borders... someone will exploit it.
Personally, as a sovereign nation, I don't think our immigration policy is broken... enforcement sucks but the policy is not broken. As Senator Marco Rubio correctly noted, "We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over 1 million people a year to come here legally." The U.S. actually admits more permanent legal immigrants with a clear path to full citizenship than all the rest of the nations of the world combined, every year. That doesn't sound like a "broken" immigration system. That sounds like an immigration system worthy of American values.(of course the recons that we still have a set of coherent values)
"It's wrong to condone illegal immigration that flouts our laws, strains our tolerance, and taxes our resources. Even a nation of immigrants must have rules and conditions and limits, and when they are disregarded, public support for immigration erodes in ways that are destructive to those who are newly arrived and those who are still waiting patiently to come." Bill Clinton - June 13, 1998
As a footnote, my wife’s green card expired recently (it can't be renewed outside of the country). We left the US after my parents passed away to look after her mother here in the UK. Because she left the US and presumably had no desire to reside there, regardless the reason for her departure, the acceptance of her reapplication is, from what I am being told, doubtful given my reduced retirement.. you see to sponsor a spouse ‘legally’ you must have, what they feel is adequate income and sign a statement that she will not seek public assistance ... too bad she isn’t Latino... no.
Take the easy route.
DeleteFly to Mexico walk across the border.
It's done every day.
DeleteWhat William doesn't realize is that like King we all are takers of what the government has to offer. William do you drink Milk? Do you eat cereal? You can afford these things because the government. Do you have a mortgage? You get tax relief if you do. Do you give to charity? You get tax relief if you do. Do you have extraordinary medical bills? You get tax relief if you do. Have you put new windows etc on your home, yep tax relief.
ReplyDeleteNow William I agree that there are too many people of the dole ( it would include every American really) but the hand out dole. Most need it. Many are playing the system they always have. What's your solution?
You didn't build that. It was the government!
DeleteWhat a crock of horse shit.
Extraordinary.... what came first the the person or the arbitrary thumb... what came first the wealth creation or the tax....I suppose the rest of what someone earns (that which is not consumed by tax) is merely a gift of a benevolent government...
Delete