House to target Obama's "Law Enforcement" and ignoring of Congress

[ArcadiaGP]

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-act...se-to-attack-obamas-non-enforcement-next-week

Glad to see it. Hope it gets somewhere. Lawlessness has gone on too long unchecked.

 

[rambone]

I have no use for Obama or Obamacare, but NOT enforcing oppressive laws is something I applaud.

There are tons of laws that are flat out unconstitutional, unjust, and oppressive. Any responsible president would boldly refuse to prosecute Americans for breaking these non-violent, victimless, constitutionally-unfounded federal laws.

This applies to the President all the way down to the average street cop. If the law is evil, draconian, and violates your own conscience, then you don't use it to ruin other people's lives. Ignore it. Stand down. Do not enforce. I don't give a crap that the Congress and courts condone the tyranny. YOU don't have to. THAT is a check and balance in the system.

Laws are like tools in a tool chest, and its perfectly OK if some of them sit at the bottom of the drawer and never EVER get touched. Discretion needs to be applied when looking at the list of tools... weapons actually. The Executive Branch should not be filled with mindless law-enforcing robots who care less if they oppress Americans.

Apparently the Republican Establishment feels exactly the opposite. "Yes, Obama, please 'ENFORCE' harder. I can't wait until Obamacare is faithfully executed down my throat."

Replace "Obamacare" with "Assault Weapon Ban" if the point is lost.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have no use for Obama or Obamacare, but NOT enforcing oppressive laws is something I applaud.

There are tons of laws that are flat out unconstitutional, unjust, and oppressive. Any responsible president would boldly refuse to prosecute Americans for breaking these non-violent, victimless, constitutionally-unfounded federal laws.

This applies to the President all the way down to the average street cop. If the law is evil, draconian, and violates your own conscience, then you don't use it to ruin other people's lives. Ignore it. Stand down. Do not enforce. I don't give a crap that the Congress and courts condone the tyranny. YOU don't have to. THAT is a check and balance in the system.

Laws are like tools in a tool chest, and its perfectly OK if some of them sit at the bottom of the drawer and never EVER get touched. Discretion needs to be applied when looking at the list of tools... weapons actually. The Executive Branch should not be filled with mindless law-enforcing robots who care less if they oppress Americans.

Apparently the Republican Establishment feels exactly the opposite. "Yes, Obama, please 'ENFORCE' harder. I can't wait until Obamacare is faithfully executed down my throat."

Replace "Obamacare" with "Assault Weapon Ban" if the point is lost.

While I agree in principle, it is not possible for Obama to use this principle to justify non-enforcement given that the law was his idea in the first place. I consider delaying by executive fiat the implementation of a law which is a gross infringement on the rights of free citizens for the purpose of avoiding a political backlash until after the next election when it will be too late for an effective effort to repeal is even more reprehensible than pushing it in the first place.

 

[amboran]

How ironic...Pelosi wanted to pass the bill before seeing what is actually in it,so the vote is ramrodded through.Then the roll-out was so screwed up and the website was not pre-tested and deadlines couldn't be met.Then special exemptions and changes were approved by Obummer without Congress approval or a vote on "the law". Why doesn't Congress stand up and start impeachment proceedings now..? Sounds like circumvention and illegal changing of his "law" meets the burden of high crimes and misdemeanors...

 

[IndyDave1776]

How ironic...Pelosi wanted to pass the bill before seeing what is actually in it,so the vote is ramrodded through.Then the roll-out was so screwed up and the website was not pre-tested and deadlines couldn't be met.Then special exemptions and changes were approved by Obummer without Congress approval or a vote on "the law". Why doesn't Congress stand up and start impeachment proceedings now..? Sounds like circumvention and illegal changing of his "law" meets the burden of high crimes and misdemeanors...

Oh, but such rules only apply to conservatives and libertarians. They do not apply to liberal/leftist/Democrats who, after all, are motivated only the purest of desires to help the people by protecting them from themselves through totalitarian control over their lives. (apply purple and/or red as necessary)

 

[rambone]

While I agree in principle, it is not possible for Obama to use this principle to justify non-enforcement given that the law was his idea in the first place. I consider delaying by executive fiat the implementation of a law which is a gross infringement on the rights of free citizens for the purpose of avoiding a political backlash until after the next election when it will be too late for an effective effort to repeal is even more reprehensible than pushing it in the first place.

I agree the delays are to avoid political backlash. And he should be shamed and suffer politically. The Republican response worries me though.

 

[ATOMonkey]

How ironic...Pelosi wanted to pass the bill before seeing what is actually in it,so the vote is ramrodded through.Then the roll-out was so screwed up and the website was not pre-tested and deadlines couldn't be met.Then special exemptions and changes were approved by Obummer without Congress approval or a vote on "the law". Why doesn't Congress stand up and start impeachment proceedings now..? Sounds like circumvention and illegal changing of his "law" meets the burden of high crimes and misdemeanors...

She actually wasn't off the mark at all. If you read the bill you'd see that the meat and potatos of the law basically gave power to the executive to regulate at their discretion. The remainder of the bill was just grants for this, and additional spending for that, and mandates that states had to comply with. Sure, there were some timelines for implementation, but no one took those seriously from the word go. Not sure why she would want to cede all of her power to the executive, but I guess one hand washes the other.

The stack of regulation relating to the ACA is probably 100 times taller than the law itself, and there are no checks or balances against regulations.

 

[Draco]

So, if I understand this right, the complaint is that President Obama isn’t following the law. In response to this Congress will pass another law.

Anyone see a flaw here, or is it just me?

Truth be told, while I don’t like how Republicans have handled things, the Presidency does need to lose some of its power. By the time President Bush was put into office – though it did not start with him – the executive branch had claimed far too much power. From signing statements to use of the military beyond that sort of “trial period” that Presidents get to authorizing waterboarding, the executive branch could use a reminder that it is but a third of the government.

However, I am always curious, why is it that the reasons for impeachment are always the wrong ones? The vast overreach of the national security apparatus seems worthy; the wholesale scale of fourth amendment violations seems enough (even if Congress was implicit); the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen seems to qualify. Delaying the mandate in Obamacare, though? Not kicking people out of the country swiftly enough, that is what you want to go after?

Then again, the whole President Clinton impeachment circus was nothing but a colossal waste of time, money, and political capital. Republicans are going to come off looking even worse if they launch an impeachment over something people aren’t so impressed by. I don’t think there is widespread support enough for kicking out illegal immigrants who have committed no other crime to go after Obama for not doing it quickly enough; or for delaying the implementation of Obamacare provisions, for that matter. Presidents have always had such influence, right or wrong, but if you want to go for impeachment it better be a great deal more involved that an affair. (I don’t much care who President Clinton spends off time with; I only care about on the job performance. Politics would do well if things focused on that rather than everything else.)

Then again, the whole Iran-Contra thing seemed like it should have had a shot at such ramifications. Or the selling of the second Iraq war, if they really pushed (it is worthy, but the evidence too murky at the time to be successful). It seems Democrats can never quite get their act together for such things and Republicans are always looking for a reason to go that route (and keep picking the wrong ones). Anyway, that’s just how I see it; I could be wrong.

 

[B-lou]

Nixon was impeached for bugging a hotel room and then lied about it....seems a whole lot less of a crime then what is going on now.....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Nixon was impeached for bugging a hotel room and then lied about it....seems a whole lot less of a crime then what is going on now.....

O has yet to commit perjury. Unfortunately, you cannot be impeached for lying to The People.