Jump to content

Legal experts back House suit against Obama 'uber presidency'


Recommended Posts

?intcmp=latestnewsFox News:

A pair of respected legal scholars gave credence to House Republicans’ plan to sue President Obama for exceeding his authority in implementing the Affordable Care Act, warning that such action is needed to defend the system of checks and balances from an “uber presidency.”


George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, speaking at a GOP-led House Rule Committee hearing, said the suit, which accuses Obama of materially altering his signature health care law without a congressional vote, is necessary to restore constitutional equilibrium among the branches of government.


“Today’s hearing is a historic step to address the growing crisis in our constitutional system -- a shifting of the balance of power … in favor of a now dominant Executive Branch,” Turley said. “The Legislative Branch has lost the most, with the rise of a type of uber-presidency. Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. … At some point this body has to take a stand.”


Elizabeth Foley, a professor at Florida International University College of Law, echoed Turley's concern, and said the suit had an "excellent chance" of succeeding. But two other attorneys expressed doubts, with one saying it could lead to a flurry of lawsuits between co-equal branches.


The draft resolution put forward last week by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, focuses specifically on the president changing the so-called ObamaCare employer mandate, which postponed some businesses’ legal responsibility to provide health insurance to full-time workers.


“The Constitution states that the president must faithfully execute the laws, and spells out that only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate,” said Boehne, in announcing his resolution “The current president believes he has the power to make his own laws – at times even boasting about it. He has said that if Congress won’t make the laws he wants, he’ll go ahead and make them himself, and in the case of the employer mandate in his health care law, that’s exactly what he did.”


While the focus of the resolution and intended lawsuit focuses on the employer mandate, House Republicans and their legal witnesses expressed concern that Obama has abused his constitutional authority other times during his two-term presidency.


“The president has instead selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in other instances and in a few cases changed the law altogether,” said Texas GOP Rep. Pete Sessions, the committee chairman.



Yes, Mr. President, the law still matters...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is to be done?
Scott Johnson
July 16, 2014


The House Rules Committee took the first step toward initiating a lawsuit against President Obama over his faithless execution of the laws and abrogation of the separation of powers. The committee held a hearing on the House Resolution that would provide the House authority Four professors of constitutional law testified to the Rules Committee about the merits of the lawsuit, with two supporting and two opposed; the two in support were Jonathan Turley (testimony here) and Elizabeth Price Foley (testimony here). National Journal’s Billy House provides background here, with links to the testimony of all four scholars.


Assuming the House passes a resolution providing authority to initiate the lawsuit, the lawsuit will focus specifically on Obama’s delayed enforcement of Obamacare’s employer mandate. Whence Obama’s authority to rewrite the statute without congressional approval? That is the question.


Professor Turley’s testimony takes up themes that have preoccupied us as we have explored Philip Hamburger’s new book on the nature of administrative law. Here is an excerpt of Professor Turley’s testimony (footnotes omitted):



Link to comment
Share on other sites

IBD: Boehner Critics Blew It Before



Separation Of Powers: John Boehner's lawsuit against President Obama is being mocked by the very same people who dismissed an earlier challenge to Obama's imperial ways — one the Supreme Court unanimously upheld.


That case involved Obama's decision in early 2012 to make "recess" appointments to several key posts, though the Senate was still in session. As with Boehner's proposed suit, it was widely ridiculed as a "political stunt" without legal merit that would end up backfiring on the GOP.


Laurence Tribe, the left's favorite constitutional law professor, said, "Whatever standards the courts ultimately adopt . .. this case ought to be a slam-dunk."



Link to comment
Share on other sites



Turley. Phssssh. He also said Bush should have been impeached.



Source? Thanks.


Here's one from 2006. It's the one I recall.



At a recent forum on the president's electronic eavesdropping program, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called the NSA program an impeachable offense.


"This type of violation should be a textbook example of an impeachment issue because not only is it a federal crime, but it violates the doctrine of separation of powers," said Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1713243987
  • Create New...