- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
HURT: Obama is a greater threat than Toronto’s crack mayor
Question of the Day
Disgraced. An embarrassment. Utter disregard for the law.
Toronto’s crack mayor Rob Ford?
No. President Obama.
This is a man who was granted the extraordinary luxury of attending one of the most prestigious universities in the world. He went to law school. He told us he was an expert on constitutional law. He taught students about the U.S. Constitution.
He is now our president and fills a rather large role in executing that Constitution.
And it is as if he has never read the actual Constitution. Or, as if he read it and found it all so confusing that he simply could not comprehend one of the most basic tenets of it — that the legislature writes laws, which then go to the president for either his signature or veto.
Presidents do not get to write laws. They do not get to ignore laws they do not like or make up new ones on a whim.
Presidents do not get to refuse to negotiate with Congress on financial matters because the president doesn’t like what Congress has been urgently instructed to do by voters. He doesn’t get to make end runs around Congress.
The previous administration felt so constrained by this immutable precept of the Constitution that administration lawyers took advantage of confusing parts of laws passed by Congress and wrote their own understanding of what those gray areas meant — obviously tilted as much in their favor as possible.
Democrats in Congress and the left howled in horror at this reach outside of the Constitution for tiny little scraps of power — even though presidents ever since James Monroe have used this power.
Democrats held hearings about the unchecked abuse of power and warned of a sinister “unitary executive” secretly thwarting Congress and trashing the Constitution.
Whatever you thought of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney’s “signing statements,” you would have to agree that the constitutionality of them was, at the very least, debatable. Their legality was not a slam dunk either way.
But do you know what is not debatable? What is not debatable is whether Mr. Obama can take a properly passed law such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and simply refuse to enforce it. He is not allowed to wave his hand and determine that millions of illegal immigrants now in the U.S. are suddenly legal.
Nor is he allowed to single-handedly gut hard-fought welfare reform laws that were constitutionally enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Russia shipping sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine separatists
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- Let it roll: D.C. Council hits Las Vegas on taxpayer's dime, leaves $14,000 tab
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq