Speaker Boehner’s meaningless, craven lawsuit

Posted by: Phineas on June 25, 2014 at 3:42 pm

**Posted by Phineas

"Timid"

“Timid”

Pathetic. Speaker John Boehner announced plans for the House to sue President Obama in court to force him to do his job and enforce the laws. Without being specific about the grounds of the suit, one can safely assume it covers Obama’s non-enforcement of immigration laws along the southwest border and, perhaps, the administration’s unilateral rewrites and illegal waivers of the Affordable Care Act and it’s serial failure to cooperate in the IRS investigations.

Speaking to the press, Boehner added the following:

Boehner strongly brushed aside a question of whether impeachment proceedings could result from the suit. “This is not about impeachment. This is about his (Obama’s) faithfully executing the laws of our country,” he said.

Pardon me a moment; I was rolling my eyes so hard on reading that, I was getting dizzy.

Mr. Speaker, on taking office, every president swears the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The President is Chief Magistrate of the United States, its top federal law-enforcer. “Faithfully execute” means doing that job. If you are suing because the president has broken his oath by not faithfully executing the duties of his office, then you have perforce invoked grounds for impeachment by reason of maladministration.

You’ve said it, so don’t go denying in the next breath what we all know it means. Leave being a weasel to the Democrats.

More:

He also rejected a suggestion that the suit was designed to give traditional Republican voters a reason for going to the polls this fall when control of Congress will be at stake.

“This is about defending the institution in which we serve,” he said. “What we’ve seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch.”

Argh. The Congress has been surrendering legislative power to the Executive, more under Democrats, less so under Republicans, since the Progressive era. More and more regulatory authority has been given to panels of bureaucrats in the guise of “rule making,” when really it amounts to the power to make law. It’s more accurate to say this process has greatly expanded under Obama, who pushes the bounds like no president has since FDR (or maybe Nixon), but let’s not pretend this hasn’t been going on for a long time. If the Congress were truly interested in “defending its prerogatives,” as Madison intended, it has had plenty of opportunities, but has done so only fitfully.

You want to “defend the institution” in which you serve? Then forget the ridiculous lawsuit (and Senator Paul’s and Senator Johnson’s); you don’t resolve political power struggles between the legislature and the presidency by running crying to the courts (1). You have two powers: cutting off funds and impeachment. The former seems to be ineffective, but you have the latter. As I wrote yesterday:

I’d suggest forming another [House Select Investigating Committee] for the IRS scandal and one for Fast and Furious, both with full subpoena powers and special counsel hired to lead the inquiries. They all should work through the summer and, when done, present their findings to the full House. Forget the Department of Justice; it can’t be trusted with Eric Holder in charge. Instead, the House should impeach whomever is found culpable by the investigations.

While impeaching the President himself isn’t politically practical (yet), his political appointees bear the same responsibility as he: faithful execution of the laws and obedience to the Constitution. If committee investigations find any derelict in their duties, such as top management at the IRS, impeach them, place them on trial before the Senate, and make Harry Reid defend their abuses of power. Fence Obama in by taking away his minions.

That’s how you defend the institution, Mr. Speaker. If you really want to.

Footnote:
(1) For one thing, the courts rely on the Executive to enforce their orders. If you can’t trust Obama to enforce the laws…

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 Responses to “Speaker Boehner’s meaningless, craven lawsuit”

Comments

  1. ST says:

    Hmm. I hadn’t put much thought into the lawsuit one way or the other but you make some good points. I’m convinced. :)

  2. Sefton says:

    Obama will persuade Boehner to drop this by offering to give him a couple of mulligans on the golf course.

    In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was Boehner’s intent when he thought this up.

  3. Drew the Infidel says:

    Nixon did not do one-tenth the things Obhammud has done and was impeached. Oh, I forgot, those impeachment panels, blockbuster books and movies, and dark figures posing as mysterious credible sources are reserved for Republican presidents.

    How about Congress growing a set and fulfilling their constitutionally mandated functions?

    “Cowards do not count in battle; they are there, but not in it.”–Euripides

  4. Carlos says:

    That’s how you defend the institution, Mr. Speaker. If you really want to.

    Yeah, and when has Boehner ever indicated that was among his priorities? Or even on his radar?

    There’s not a court in the land, at ANY level, that will touch this because the dirty little secret is that they entirely powerless, effete if you will, as it is up to the executive to enforce their decisions.

    Unfortunately, this is just the first shot in what the Republican establishment will do before November to drive voters to vote for what they perceive as the “lesser of two evils,” the Democraps. Hence, the establishment saves itself from the embarrassment of actually having to lead, one more time.