Memo to liberals: Do you want the next GOP president to govern by decree?
I had coffee with a liberal friend in the Dallas area this week. We discussed everything, from the Voting Rights Act to the abortion battle in Austin.
We had a lot of friendly disagreements but did agree on one thing: It is a bad idea for President Obama to govern by decree.
He said that liberals should remember that President Obama is very likely to be replaced by a GOP president. What happens if he decides to go around Congress and govern by decree?
It was nice to have coffee with a liberal rather than some "yes we can" screamer intoxicated with "hope and change"? I love it when I find an Obama voter who loves the US Constitution more than Obama!
Our conversation eventually ended with Michael McConnell's article at the WSJ:
"The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013." Imagine the outcry if Mitt Romney had been elected president and simply refused to enforce the whole of ObamaCare.
This is not the first time Mr. Obama has suspended the operation of statutes by executive decree, but it is the most barefaced. In June of last year, for example, the administration stopped initiating deportation proceedings against some 800,000 illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16, lived here at least five years, and met a variety of other criteria. This was after Congress refused to enact the Dream Act, which would have allowed these individuals to stay in accordance with these conditions. Earlier in 2012, the president effectively replaced congressional requirements governing state compliance under the No Child Left Behind Act with new ones crafted by his administration.
The president defended his suspension of the immigration laws as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. He defended his amending of No Child Left Behind as an exercise of authority in the statute to waive certain requirements. The administration has yet to offer a legal justification for last week's suspension of the employer mandate."
There is also Egypt. The Obama administration is now redefining "coup". The law is very clear: Overthrow n elected leader and we cut the money! However, we are now going around that too.
To be honest, I don't think that we should tie a president's hand by forcing him to cut off aid if there is a coup in every country. At the same time, it is the law of the land and President Obama is supposed to enforce laws.
Perhaps he should address the nation and call on Congress to change the law.
Oops. I forgot that President Obama never speaks to the nation about anything complicated! Wrong president!
The GOP, and honest liberals like my aforementioned friend, should not let these latest examples of presidential arrogance pass without consequences. This latest example of "governing by decree" will have a devastating impact on the immigration bill in the House.
Question: What if President Obama decides in the near future that he will defer the border security component of that bill?
It's time to draw line. Barrack Obama is the president of the US not Venezuela.