In 2008 after winning the presidential election, Barack Hussein Obama trotted out to give his victory speech — a speech of defeat for America — and stated something that slid past everyone’s attention: “Chicago is coming to Washington DC.”The crowd there in Chicago cheered and fools wept with joy. But no one realized exactly what that meant: the thug-style corruption that has defined Chicago politics was coming to the nation’s capitol — and indeed it has.
The Beltway pundits and moderate Republicans refused to see what we all knew, that Barack Hussein Obama was a president who held the US Constitution in contempt. Those of us who recognized and described what was occurring were negatively attacked, but we knew it would be clear to all eventually.And so I guess we could say better late than never, but based on George F. Will’s recent piece in the Washington Post, he’s come to the realization as well:
“Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity and qualitatively different.”
In simple words, Barack Obama does not believe in the fundamental premises of our government, coequal branches, separation of powers, and checks and balances — all emanating from Montesquieu’s writings in “The Spirit of the Laws.”Some will respond — actually try to defend — by stating all executives use presidential discretion. However, Will points out the difference, “Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must have some latitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must have some freedom to act in the absence of law. Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism.”
Will says that regarding immigration, health care, welfare, education, drug policy and more, Obama has suspended, waived and rewritten laws, including the Affordable Care Act. It required the employer mandate to begin this year. But Obama wrote a new law, giving to companies of a certain size a delay until 2016 and stipulating that other employers must certify they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. It is here where Will believes there is a potential to take action. He recommends the House of Representatives pursue the course of bringing a lawsuit against Obama and feels there is standing.
David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University have studied the case law and believe that standing can be obtained conditional on four things:1. That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorizes a lawsuit.
2. That the lawsuit concern the president’s “benevolent” suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff.
3. That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law.
4. And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress’s power.
Will’s plan would be for a House lawsuit, advocated by Rivkin and Foley, that would unify fractious Republicans while dramatizing Obama’s lawlessness. The House would bring a civil suit seeking a judicial declaration that Obama has violated the separation of powers by effectively nullifying a specific provision of a law, thereby diminishing Congress’s power. Authorization of this lawsuit by the House would give Congress “standing” to sue.
That approach is fine by me, but as a military fella, I do believe in the tactic of the “double envelopment.” I would also pursue impeachment articles based on the unilateral decision to release the Taliban 5, as I previously outlined. The only question I’m quite sure both George Will and I would ask is, does Boehner and — now McCarthy — have what it takes to stand up to a lawless president, a tyrant?