From the article: ...no prior president has claimed the power to negate a law that is concededly constitutional.

Bullshit. Look up the term "signing statement," and you'll see that Obama is hardly the first President to refuse to uphold a law passed by Congress. For as long as there has been signing statements, Presidents have used them to basically thumb their nose at Congress. Obama's approach might be different, but it is not the first time, by any means, that Presidents have claimed the right to refuse to uphold the law.

In fact, Presidents have refused to uphold the law even prior to the use of signing statements. Lincoln once suspended the writ of habeas corpus in parts of Maryland. When Chief Justice Roger Taney, in ex parte Merryman reminded him that only Congress has that power, Lincoln essentially told Taney to fuck off, and suspended habeas corpus anyway.

No disputing that the author of the Dred Scott decision is deserving of nothing but withering contempt, the fact remains that in this case, Taney was correct. And Lincoln did refuse to uphold the law.

And let's not forget, if Lincoln had not refused to uphold the law that the Court had ruled Constitutional, slavery would not have been abolished (at least not in Lincoln's time).

Nor is this Obama's first instance to refuse to uphold the law. Obama has also candidly stated that his A.G. will not defend DOMA, regarding the law as unconstitutional.

While I agree that DOMA is unconstitutional, the President's job is to uphold the law, whether he agrees with it or not. Striking down laws regarded as unconstitutional is the prerogative of the Courts alone, after the decision of Marbury v. Madison, thus beginning the noble tradition of power grabs by the judicial and executive branches.

While Michael McConnell has written some good articles in the past, it is beyond stupidity to suggest that Obama is somehow some landmark President that decided to defy his Constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

I agree with Patrick, but as others have pointed out, this is why immigration reform should be DOA in the house.

Obama has proven that the executive branch can ignore the will of congress, by selectively enforcing only the parts of laws that they like.

There is no reason to compromise and craft a bill when the executive branch will chose to not enforce the law as written, or enforce only parts of it.
This would lead to a path to citizenship for illegals with no real border control.

"Obama has proven that the executive branch can ignore the will of congress, by selectively enforcing only the parts of laws that they like."

Of course the legislative branch has been ceding its authority for a long time. Consider the whole regulatory-agencies thing. They make rules having the force of law (sometimes more force than law) without saying boo to Congress, and nobody in Congress cares much. It's much easier to win re-election when you can engage in platitudes and leave all of the controversial decisions to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

In many states the most important Cabinet positions, like Secretary of State and Attorney General, are elected positions. I wonder if doing that on the federal level would make any difference.

it is beyond stupidity to suggest that Obama is somehow some landmark President that decided to defy his Constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Patrick, he's fucking rewriting the law. It is one thing to look the other way, but to make structural modifications? That's congress' job, not his.

That leads, of course, to the following: why not also suspend the individual mandate? oh, hell, why not just forget about the ACA and just let Teh Won enforce whatever it is that he wants?

This path leads to darkness. Might makes right and all that. If the President won't respect the law, why the hell should I?

And yes, Lincoln was tyrant. Lincoln also had a small problem that doesn't currently exist. So I'm not sure what Obama's excuse is, other than enforcing the employer mandate before the 2014 elections will put a lot of Democrat senators and representatives on the unemployment line.

I have to wonder what people would say if a Republican got into the White House and directed the IRS to not collect income tax from businesses?

It's much easier to win re-election when you can engage in platitudes and leave all of the controversial decisions....

The California Legislature has been doing that for years. The public initiative process in California allows legislators to avoid voting on controversial issues, pushing them instead to a public referendum.

So, instead of a negotiated bill that can be amended as unforeseen consequences make themselves known, we get ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments that must be obeyed and cannot be tweaked when they prove unworkable.

And the lack of negotiation means that almost as soon as a ballot initiative passes, a lawsuit is filed by an aggrieved party - leaving the making of laws in California mostly up to the courts.

And, no, I'm not including Prop 13 in here - I happen to agree with limiting the legislature's ability to use the state's residential property tax payers as an ATM.

For as long as there has been signing statements, Presidents have used them to basically thumb their nose at Congress. Obama's approach might be different, but it is not the first time, by any means, that Presidents have claimed the right to refuse to uphold the law. -- Patrick at July 10, 2013 1:54 AM

The part you refuse to acknowledge and observe: Obama's approach might be different.

There are reasons that Obama has issued fewer signing statements.

But at the same time Holder at Justice has not prosecuted anything he and Obama favors. Obama has also by executive fiat enforced the DREAM act. Obama has suspended enforcement of most of the immigration laws by executive fiat.

Obama is using executive fiat to block investigation of Fast and Furious.

There are so many scandals that his administration is involved in that have been blocked by him it is disgusting.

Please come up with a list of his executive orders and signing statements and compare them to other presidents. It will be an interesting read.

I hesitate to continue this discussion, because there are new threads created now, and the folks I'm replying to are apt to not even see them.

Ah, well.

I R A Darth Aggie: "Patrick, he's fucking rewriting the law. It is one thing to look the other way, but to make structural modifications? That's congress' job, not his."

I see. And when Bush signed anti-torture legislation, including a signing statement that says he'll torture anyone he damned well pleases, and Congress can go fuck itself, he wasn't rewriting the law?

Strange, don't remember too much indignation expressed when that was happening.

"Ooooh, but he's protecting us from...gulp...terrorists! Snivel, snivel, cower, cower."

Jim P. "Obama has also by executive fiat enforced the DREAM act. Obama has suspended enforcement of most of the immigration laws by executive fiat."

Which he has the right to do. Kindly get that fact through your thick head! I'm tired of having to repeat myself for those who just so determined not to get it!

Aren't you the self-appointed constitutional expert on this blog? Or do I have you confused with someone else who fancies himself so knowledgeable on the Constitution?

The AG is the final authority as to which illegals get prosecuted and which don't. The only advantage to the Dream Act is that, as U.S. law, it would have been binding on subsequent administrations.

But the A.G. has the first, last, and every word in between on the subject! So, if Obama's administration wishes to implement a policy that mirrors the Dream Act, he can do this! He has the right! The law is on his side!

Which he has the right to do. Kindly get that fact through your thick head! I'm tired of having to repeat myself for those who just so determined not to get it! -- Patrick at July 11, 2013 10:36 AM

Executive (government):

The executive is the part of government that has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state. The executive branch executes the law. The division of power into separate branches of government is central to the idea of the separation of powers.

The separation of powers system is designed to distribute authority among several branches — an attempt to preserve individual liberty in response to tyrannical leadership throughout history. The executive officer is not supposed to make laws (the role of the legislature) or interpret them (the role of the judiciary). The role of the executive is to enforce the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system.

That it was done in the past doesn't make it any better.

But comparing Bush's Wide Receiver to Fast & Furious is false. Why did the Mexican government know about Wide Receiver but not Fast & Furious?

Why is ICE releasing Mexican prisoners intead of deporting them?

I have no idea why soneone would be so dependent on the Two Wrongs fallacy.

I'm wondering how long 'Waste will depend upon "I'm a moron, therefore I'm entitled to miss the point" fallacy.

Oh, wait. It's not an act, is it? For someone who finds inconsistency such a damnable crime, he's certainly tolerant of it when the president he hates like death is on the receiving end of it.

And the law dictates that the attorney general is the one who determines which illegals get prosecuted. Therefore, Obama has the right and authority to implement whatever immigration policy he damned well pleases. You don't like it? Then kindly take your concerns to congress. The same congress that ceded this power to the AG in the first place.

And for the pitiful 'Waste, who tries so hard to maintain his semi-veneer of stupidity, I R A Darth Aggie is the one who insisted that Obama was "fucking rewriting the law." As if this was something that only Obama was ever guilty of, in the history of the nation. I'm merely pointing out that Bush deciding he will torture anyone he wants, any time anywhere, even as he signed the anti-torture bill into law, is an example of a President who essentially rewrote the law.

Now, 'Waste, please listen carefully, 'k? I will try to use very short words so you can get it.

I didn't say that either one of them was right. Or that either one of them was wrong. I also didn't say that one made it okay for someone else to do the same thing.

I am only saying that Obama is not the first president to do this. That's all.

Get it now, hon?

If not, maybe you should go find a nice bouncy ball to play with, and leave the political discussions to the grown ups. Maybe you'll be able to keep up in a couple of years.

"I'm wondering how long 'Waste will depend upon "I'm a moron, therefore I'm entitled to miss the point" fallacy."

Not what you're doing. Oh, wait... ad hominem cheerfully rejected (it's another fallacy).

"I am only saying that Obama is not the first president to do this. That's all."

And, left unattended, this is endorsement of Two Wrongs, because, rather than condemn the current situation, you simply offered the fact that it was done before - without condemning such action in the past. This dilutes the pungency of current Presidential actions.

Once again, you fail to recognize that when YOU do not say something, it is not up to the audience to fill things in the way you want them to. That's what causes many threads, here and in Amy's columns, to be about you rather than the subject.

'Waste, child, do try and keep up.

I was merely addressing the argument that Obama was "fucking rewriting the law," as if he was the only president to do this.

I was not addressing the rightness or the wrongness. Merely pointing out that Obama was not doing anything new or unheard of. Get it now, hon?

That was my argument. And thank you for conceding the point. I'm not addressing the rightness or the wrongness. Nor can I, until it's recognized that this is not something new or unique to Obama.

You see, 'Waste, the argument as it's presented is to suggest that Obama is his horrible, evil villain who did something so unprecedented thing as to be "fucking rewriting the law."

I cannot agree with the point, because the premise is faulty. He's not the first one. Nor will he be the last one.

Jim P.'s argument isn't just that Obama is "fucking rewriting the law," but that Obama is this horrible, evil, vile man because he's the first President to do so.

Since the premise, that Obama is the first one to do this (at least in modern times) is not true, I cannot agree or disagree with the conclusions, honeybunch.

And if you wish to know my position on something, the onus is on you to ask. You do not have the right to assume because you don't know.