We've got a Constitution that provides three branches of government, each with distinct powers. For each power that a branch exercises there is a restraint available to the other two branches to protect the overall structure.
The legislature enacts laws. That is their job. Given those laws, the executive administers the programs and enforces the laws. If the executive wants a law or policy, he asks the legislature to enact such laws. If he is dissatisfied with a policy, he can seek for the legislature to modify, repeal or supplement those policies. The judiciary protects the rights of the people and defends those not in the majority from political abuse through the legislative and executive branch. The judiciary has the sole power to declare an act of Congress or an executive policy not in consonance with the Constitution. As a check to this power, the legislature can than rewrite a law or otherwise bring it in compliance. The executive can redraw regulations in conformity to the judgment of the courts.
This week, however, the Bamster declared a law which has been in effect for fifteen years to be unconstitutional and indefensible. This was done independently of the courts or the legislature.
Gingrich Speaks Strongly on Abuses
OK, we know that Newt Gingrich is a potential presidential contender for 2012. So, he's got an interest in highlighting the behavior of the incumbent. I think he has said something which needs saying though. Unfortunately most Americans are unaware of the roles of the three branches. They've been trained to believe that individuals interpret law for themselves rather than living under an objective rule-of-law.
Most importantly, few on either side of the issue will be able to detach the law's subject itself from the outrage of the President's action. It doesn't matter a whit what the law itself is dealing with, the issue is an executive usurpation of power and making his own rules to suit his agenda.
2 comments:
As he is sworn in, the President swears that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Ignoring a law is not preserving the Constitution that empowers that law. Instead, the President's actions to ignore the law is nullifying those parts of the Constitution that grant the power to make that law.
He has violated the trust granted to him by The People.
That makes it an impeachable offense.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree. If the President believes that a law is unconstitutional, no matter what the other branches have said, then his oath compels him to refuse to defend said law. This is not my idea; I saw it raised elsewhere but it makes sense to me.
Having said that, I strongly doubt that anything remotely resembling that reasoning is behind this decision. I don't see fidelity to his Constitutional duty as a high priority for this President.
Post a Comment