Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"We all swore an allegiance to the same document that the president swears allegiance to, to faithfully execute the law,” he added. “If a president does not faithfully execute the law… what are our remedies?”

He also said Congress should do what then-Senator Obama once suggested: “To go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say once and for all: ‘We don’t pass suggestions in this body. … We don’t pass ideas — we pass laws. And we expect them to be faithfully executed.'”

The house bill, H.R. 4138 -- also known as the "ENFORCE the Law Act" -- passed the House in a 233-181 vote and now heads to the Senate, but, the Washington Examiner said, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is unlikely to let it receive a vote.

“From Obamacare to welfare and education reform, to our nation’s drug enforcement and immigration laws, President Obama has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce,” said House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. “In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that ‘I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer’ and that ‘where [Congress] won’t act, I will.’”

Obama has also repeatedly said the he has a "pen and a phone," and has threatened to take unilateral action when he sees fit.

Obama has threatened to veto this and other measures requiring him to follow the law, claiming it "violates the separation of powers" by encroaching on his authority.

"The president doesn’t get to decide which laws he’s going to enforce any more than Americans get to decide which laws they’re going to follow," he said. "The fact that the president would threaten to veto a measure requiring him to uphold his constitutional obligations underscores why this bill is needed, and why Senate Democrats should pass it immediately."

kalm wrote:Why wouldn't he just ignore this law too?

What are the chances that a majority of the members of both houses of Congress will take their oath of office to defend the Constitution seriously enough to call out the president on failures to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”? Don’t get too optimistic about that prospect.

Yet if not…if an imperial president is allowed to ignore separations of powers and pick and choose which laws to enforce… then what is the point of electing a Congress in the first place? There should be little wonder then why so many Americans have come to distrust government and its expansionary intrusions into our liberties and lives. The larger question is why so many citizens voted for exactly that…twice.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:Why wouldn't he just ignore this law too?

He's already said he would go one better-

He'd veto it

That's irony

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:Why wouldn't he just ignore this law too?

He's already said he would go one better-

He'd veto it

That's irony