Constitution, Legislation, Executive Authority, Laws, Amendments
Constitution gives congress the exclusive power to legislate. Only, and only congress has that authority. President can veto a bill passed by congress, but, cannot legislate a law. Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional and invalid, but, cannot make a law. A Supreme Court decision has also made it clear that president can only sign in or veto a law in its entirety. President cannot sign or veto parts of a bill, passed by congress, as this would be the identical to framing a new law, therefore, unconstitutional. Executive branch is mainly for execution. It, basically executes the laws of land. President does have some exclusive powers, those do not include legislation, in any way.
This lake of legislative powers is often bypassed by presidents with the help of something called executive order. I have no clue where the authority to issue executive orders originates from? There is certainly nothing in constitution, except for the presidential authority to place our military in harm’s way, in case we are attacked. Even in that case, congress must affirm president’s action within 60-90 days, depending upon the situation. I don’t know why these executive orders do not get challenged? And why Supreme Court does not interfere in these matters. We do not see any tradition of the issuance of executive orders, in our earlier history.
Now, you must have heard so many times from democrats that ACA is now the law of land and congress has no authority to interfere in its execution. True. But, on the same note, president also does not have any authority to suspend or delay any of the parts of this act without congressional authorization. Once congress passed it, and president signed it into law, he has a constitutional responsibility to enforce the whole law in its entirety. President doesn’t have legislative authority, so he cannot decide that the enforcement of which part of the law may be delayed or suspended.
The problem is, president is having an increasingly deeper and broader realization that his signature achievement is not working, and it will not work. He and his partly does not have the courage to publicly admit that the law they created so much fuss about is not working. So, he is playing the strategy of giving away with the law. Just let it gradually disappear in thin air. Every few days you hear that president has postponed the enforcement of a specific part of Obama care.
Problem here is that president has no constitutional authority to do that. Once signed into law, he has only two options available. Either enforce the law in its entirety or go to his party and ask them to work with the other members of congress to repeal the law like they did with fourteenth amendment, for example. This may give rise to a third possibility. It would be to work with congress, and draft and pass a new law which might be more realistic and workable. Continuous and repeated constitutional violations from a former professor of law, and the person who took the oath to be the first and foremost protector of constitution, is very outrageous.
We have also heard from president, if congress doesn’t take action on certain issues then he will issue an executive order and get it done. He has issued quite a few executive orders, already. The purpose of this political drama is not only to forward his liberal agenda, it also has the intention to create a false impression that congress is a hurdle and president is the only person in Washington who really cares about this country, this nation, American people, and their problems and issues. In other words all the others are idiots and His highness has a divine right to overrule everything including supreme law of land, the constitution of United States of America.
He must know that in this way he is stepping over the most solemn document in our country. By definition, this is treason, and the person who commits treason is liable to have capital punishment. Our founders created system of check and balances between all three branches of government, for a reason. What is now termed as political gridlock by media and ideologists, was the original intention founders. They did not want any law to be passed without having a proper discussion in congress.
Any legislation may be dubbed as absolutely necessary by an ideological, political or special interest agenda. But this does not mean that the people will not have a difference of opinion. Every member of congress has a solemn duty of representing his or her constituents and voters. If the voters of any member of congress think different or otherwise, then, that member of congress has a right and a duty to raise the voice. As a matter of fact every citizen of United States has the right to expression, difference of opinion and to write a petition.
Laws are supposed to serve this country, this nation and the people of this nation. They are supposed to preserve and protect the individual rights guaranteed by constitution. They were never, and will never meant to serve any specific ideological, political or other interest group. Constitutionally speaking, federal government must make sure that every law has same implications for every citizen of this country. President has no authority to provide favors and immunity to specific groups or companies which president has been doing since the signing of Obama care into law.
Of course, a major part of this whole issue is the two party domination on our political system. Unfortunately, this system makes it look like is that there are only two ways to look and think about any issue. By default, you are either for or against everything. There is no third option, and there is no third way of thinking, speaking and action. This is where the presence of a third party becomes absolutely essential. A party in which people would not be for or against anything, by default. They would use their voice, authority and votes on the bases of merit, rather.