Obama defenders have said that this president that you worry about turning into a dictatorship has issued executive orders at the slowest rate since president Grover Cleveland. He is way below the average for either Republicans or Democrats. He is below George W. Bush, is way below Bill Clinton, he is below anybody since Grover Cleveland in terms of executive orders.
THAT IS TRUE but IRRELEVANT. We never talk about the QUANTITY of these executive orders. Let’s go back to the definition of what is an executive order: in the Constitution the president is allowed, carrying out of the wish of Congress (laws passed by Congress) to make sure those laws are faithfully executed. That is to say he can give an order to the executive branch of government bureaucracy to make sure the laws are enforced. Now in Obama’s case he gives orders to make sure they don’t enforce the laws but that’s another story. The point is he can and has, as all presidents have issued orders that are direct orders to the executive branch of the federal government to carry out or to not carry out the laws as passed by the Congress.
That is not what is being objected to. All presidents do that, are supposed to do, they are supposed to carry out the laws and they do need to direct this bureaucracy. What we are talking about are those executive orders that try to command US, that try to command the people of the United States, not the executive branch of the government, BUT US.
The orders that go out by fiat that affects US. The EPA shall shut down coal manufacturing, that was his orders but thousands of US in West Virginia are out of work. We are having the imposition of a liberal agenda through executive order and not lawful processes, not constitutional processes, which are influencing negatively the lives of real Americans. That is a different story that is unlawful.
To take and expand the reach of the law as he has done with EPA, as he has done with labor laws, as he has done with OSHA laws, as he has done with marriage laws, etc. To reach into an area that was never contemplated by the Congress when they passed that law in the first place, is to -by definition –an act of a lawless and unconstitutional offense. Some people go so far as to say an impeachable offense against the people.
I can back this up by the statements of Eric holder to Congress in public yesterday on Thursday Jan 30th. So what is the legal authority for Obama’s executive orders that exceed ordering the executive branch and have an impact on our lives. For example, the executive order that delayed for one year ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Nothing in the law allows the president to do that, he had no authority do that. He called it an executive order and nowhere in the bill (and sometimes, Congress does write in the bill that the President has authority to change certain parts of it, given certain circumstances). NOT IN THIS BILL, ANYWHERE. It is directed to a department of the executive branch the Department of Health and Human Services. But it affects every employer in America with 50 employees or more without authority from Congress.
So Sen. Mike Leigh of Utah has Atty. Gen. Eric Holder at a hearing and asks him about the authority and Holder says there are three key areas he looked at 1)the executive orders of the president and he obviously has the power to issue; 2) there is kind of a gray area second and 3) third sort of an area that is questionable whether the president has that right. Here is the exchange that took place:
Holder: “I have great respect for your legal, analytical skills. You are clearly your father’s son, but I also want to assure you and the American people that the president will not act in way that is inconsistent with the way other presidents have acted in using their executive authority. He has made far less use of his executive power and this point in his administration than some of his predecessors have. He will only do so, as I indicated previously, where he is unable to work with Congress to do things together. That is the desire of the president to work with Congress to deal with the issues that confront the ….”
Sen. Leigh: “ I respectfully but forcefully disagree with the assertion. If this is what you’re saying, that because the number of executive orders issued by this president might be comparable to the number of executive orders issued by previous presidents, that means he hasn’t made more use of than other presidents. When you look at the quality not just the quantity but quality, the nature of the executive orders that he has issued. He has usurped an extraordinary amount of authority within the executive branch. This is not precedented (sic) and I point to the delay the unilateral delay, lawless delay in my opinion, of the employer mandate as an example of this. At a minimum I think he owes us an explanation as to what his legal analysis, was particularly given the fact that it is difficult to imagine who’s got standing to challenge this. And also difficult to imagine who if they acquire standing to challenge, would be able do so in a timely enough manner so as to avoid a mootness problem in the case. And it’s all the more reason why it’s important in this case”
Now this test 123, was first discussed by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. He argued that the president’s authority to issue executive orders is strongest when “ he does so with the backing of Congress,” in other words when it’s in the law. If it was in the ObamaCare law that he had the right to delay the employer mandate for a year, clearly the president has the right. Number two “ says Jackson, “more dubious when he issues an order pertaining to a topic on which Congress has not passed a law or is not in the law, ” and it’s weakest when the executive order is “ incompatible with a congressional law.”
Holder: “ I’ll be honest with you I have not seen, I don’t remember looking at, are having seen the analysis in sometime, so I’m not sure where along that spectrum that would come.” In other words he has no idea and could not present a defense to an executive order that is clearly not found as a basis in the law in ObamaCare and is simply, off the top of his head, a modification of the law or a piece of legislation by the president, which is absolutely 100% unconstitutional.
This now is a very fundamental divide for Obama, he has crossed the Rubicon. He has crossed the red line into an area where Justice Jackson as acknowledged by Eric holder, said the president cannot go. This is an executive order that gives a break under ObamaCare to employers but doesn’t give one to you. You’re still held to the individual mandate, as of right now. In fact, you have until March 31 to sign-up and not get a penalty. Employers get a break for a year, should they get one? I would vote for one but it’s up to Congress, not the President. The
difference is if it’s up to Congress then we have a Republic, if it’s up to the president we have a dictatorship.
And that ladies and gentlemen is a big difference.