Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?

[mystery-ak]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/04/trey-gowdy-to-liberal-law-prof-if-obama-can-ignore-parts-of-obamacare-could-he-ignore-election-laws-too/

Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?
posted at 7:31 pm on December 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

The post on Jonathan Turley’s testimony at yesterday’s House hearing was well received, so here’s another seven minutes on executive power grabs from the same proceeding. Simple question from Gowdy to the legal panel: How far can Obama go? Now that he’s claimed the royal prerogative to not enforce immigration law against young illegals, not enforce O-Care’s employer mandate against businesses, and not enforce the new rules about “essential benefits” against insurers who un-cancel old plans, what else can he choose not to enforce? If Congress imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses, presumably Obama could refuse to enforce that by granting blanket commutations for thousands of people convicted of those offenses. Presumably he could also refuse to enforce election laws. Why not? What’s the limiting principle?

If you watched last night’s clip, you can guess Turley’s response. The takeaway from all of this, really, isn’t that there’s no limit on the president, it’s that there’s no way of enforcing the limit. You might very well get a bipartisan group of federal judges to agree with Turley that Obama’s over the line. But they can’t issue that ruling without first hearing the case, and the vagaries of the law on standing to sue are such that often there’s no one who’s legally empowered to bring that challenge. The most productive thing that could come out of this hearing, I think, is an effort in Congress to expand standing for challenges to executive power. Two big problems there, though. One: Good luck getting Democrats to go along with it, especially at a moment when O’s power grabs are keeping some of the nastier political backlash to O-Care at bay. By covering his ass, they’re covering their own. Two: Even if the Senate flips next year and O is somehow pressured politically into signing a bill that would constrain his own power (good luck with that too), standing’s not a simple matter of passing a bill. There are constitutional components to it that can’t be changed by statute. You’d need an amendment, and there’s bound to be resistance both in Congress and in the state legislatures to the idea of expanding the Constitution to let private citizens potentially gum up the executive branch with lawsuits by making standing broader.

There’s an obvious compromise possibility, though. Why not pass an amendment expanding Congress’s right (and maybe the right of the state legislatures too) to sue instead? That would limit, if not eliminate, the risk of nuisance suits against the feds, and it would be true to the nature of separation of powers. When the president refuses to enforce part of a law duly enacted by Congress, Congress itself has suffered an injury. Pass an amendment to clarify that and you could potentially block O and his successors when they decide to expand the concept of prosecutorial discretion into de facto lawmaking power. No one’s keen on the idea of the judiciary having to referee fights like this, but it’s better than letting the president do whatever he wants whenever he feels it’s politically convenient to do so.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdGkAmxOk8&list=UUVvxvugtuNZSygB4z4aVfsg

[Rapunzel]

Everyone should have watched this testimony yesterday.......

[xfreeper]

As the professor said, the legislative branch is becoming less and less relevant. As long as the executive branch seizes more and more power unobstructed by the courts, that trend will continue

[Rapunzel]

As the professor said, the legislative branch is becoming less and less relevant. As long as the executive branch seizes more and more power unobstructed by the courts, that trend will continue

This is why I was against the bill the congress passed before the 2012 election allowing the President to bypass the senate on certain confirmations.  At the time people here fought me saying "yes, but Romney is going to be elected and this will help HIM."  I didn't care then and don't care now who is president it is dangerous for congress to sign over their constitutional rights to the executive no matter if the executive is a Republican or a Democrat.  I was also against the Patiot act because I knew how it would be abused in the hands of someone like Obama.. if only people would think beyond tomorrow and instead think constitutionally this country would not be in such a mess.

[EC]

Is there a link to the full testimony anywhere? Might be worth grabbing and archiving if there is.

if only people would think beyond tomorrow and instead think constitutionally this country would not be in such a mess.

Spot on. Actually been thinking (scary thought). We talk of the dumbing down of society - I think the idea of instant gratification and very short attention spans are part of that. Putting on my tinfoil hat for a second - it could be deliberate. An attempt to recreate the 17th century, where the elite few were educated and literate and obviously deserved to be in power over the illiterate masses.

Unfortunately, literacy is under attack - the USA had something like a 90% literacy rate in 1900 and is now hovering around 60%. That is fine and part of the plan. A population that can't read and critically evaluate ideas is open to exploitation via rhetoric.

However, the other two legs of the tripod, instant gratification and short attention spans, are highly contagious. The "elites" wind up infected as well. Short term planning becomes the norm. Quick fixes replace real fixes. The machinery of government slowly fails as it lurches from one short sighted crisis to another.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

This is why I was against the bill the congress passed before the 2012 election allowing the President to bypass the senate on certain confirmations.  At the time people here fought me saying "yes, but Romney is going to be elected and this will help HIM."  I didn't care then and don't care now who is president it is dangerous for congress to sign over their constitutional rights to the executive no matter if the executive is a Republican or a Democrat.  I was also against the Patiot act because I knew how it would be abused in the hands of someone like Obama.. if only people would think beyond tomorrow and instead think constitutionally this country would not be in such a mess.

How can you watch this and have any faith in a Constitution warped by the courts and enforced by Obama. 

Ours is a government run by public servants.  They serve at the pleasure of their constituents and they are removed at their displeasure.  Few constituents have read the Constitution or studied it in any depth.  So few voters know, or care what is in it.  But worse still The Constitution gives judges final authority to interpret the Constitution.  Does the Constitution say murdering a child in the womb is constitutional? It sure does. Obamacare is constitutional because it's a tax, and because Clinton jammed the SCOTUS with judges.  The rule of law is what five justices say it means...so now the Constitution gives me the manditory right to buy health insurance at exhorbitant prices.  There are a million examples everywhere except in the minds of conservatives.  Thanks to the protections of the Constitution, my tax dollars are constitutionally spent on emergency visits for illegals and drug addicts, The FDA will soon constitutionally ban transfats, and Obama can change Obamacare legislation with a press conference.  How can Obama legislate from the podium?  Because there is no entity to judge his actions as President CONSTITUTIONALY except impeachment by Congress(maybe someday but not today, and probably not someday either) or public pressure.  Obama gets away with it because the people are ignorant of and/or don't give a crap about the constitution and the constitutionally empowered Press likes to keep secrets from its consumers.

Conservatives want a strict construction of the Constitution.  It's never happened in our history.  The Constitution went into effect in 1789 and in 1803 the SCOTUS told James Madison, in Madison v Marbury,  Madison didn't understand the meaning of the constitution he wrote.  They interpreted it better for him.

A constitution can't protect a government the people reject.  Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  If a majority of the people in America stand in defiance against our government, our government can not stand.  It will bend to the will of the people or it will break. With or without a constitution. A constitution has no value if no one follows it or its has a penumbra of meanings.

Do you believe we have been following the Constitution at any point during your lifetime?

So again it doesn't matter what is in the law, who writes the law, or how its written when the people choose a President like Obama and a Senate Majority leader like (insert rat) time and time again.  The only game worth playing is judicial and executive, and that means the Presidency and Senate seats.  Ever wonder why so few Presidents and Senators would be what you call conservative?  Because conservatives comprise about 1/3 of the voters in general elections.  The liberals get 1/3 and moderates get the last 1/3.  Conservatives can get elected to gerrymandered congressional districts without problem, but statewide races in moderate and liberal states require moderate and liberal Republicans to win, with few abberations.  Every election conservatives pin their hopes on that one magical candidates who will make conservatism sound yummy to a majority of voters.  But if the arguments that convinced you that conservatism is great worked on moderates then they would be conservatives.  Anybody who wants to know what conservatism is can find out and forcing them to listen to conservative ideology turns them off just as much as listening to liberal ideology.  Many of them have jobs and families and don't have the time to indulge in politics or the mental capacity to see its relevance.  You will convert very few with great effort by using conservative arguments of constitutionality.

So believe in your piece of paper, but don't think that quoting the constitution gives anyone wood except conservatives.  In 1933 the German people choose Hitler and he wiped his jew hating arse with the german written constitution and then burned it in the Bundestag fire, and the people loved him for it.

Try saying jobs and economy once in awhile instead of constitution.  Try figuring out how to take credit for dropping fuel prices.  Try to win some statewide elections.  "How do I do that Once-Ler?" I hear you ask.

Let the teacher explain.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1328970/posts?page=16#16

The key to changing a single state or even the entire nation is to find candidates that are as close to your views as possible while still being able to get the support of a majority of voters. A winning rightwing candidate must get votes from just left of center and add to those the votes of those to the right of center in order to win. A winning leftist candidate must get voters from just right of center and add to those the votes of those to the left of center in order to win.

Of course it goes without saying that defeated candidates never change anything. To be anything except hot air, a candidate has to win.

Our states are varied. And what it take to win in a liberal state is far different than what it takes in a conservative state. The center in California is nothing like the center in South Carolina. A liberal Democrat who could win in South Carolina would be far too right wing to win as a Republican in California.

If most Republicans in the federal legislatures are conservative and they can add to that liberal Republicans from the liberal states, the conservatives can enact much of their agenda. If the Republicans just limit themselves to conservatives they can never get enough votes in the Senate to enact or repeal anything. The nation would just drift ever more leftward.

One has to be aware that at least 20 percent of the voters are not ideological. Political philosophy is not a consideration in how the center votes. So a winning candidate has to win a philosophical base and a majority of the non ideological center.

Movements based solely on political philosophy are doomed to failure. They can never win enough votes to get elected. They never can convince a majority of the voters to support their philosophy.

The far left when it refuses to compromise to get in power only insures that the center right rules. When the far right refuses to compromise to get in power only insures the center left rules.

The nation changes when one of the parties nominates a candidate that only appeals to its ideological base. That is when the other party wins a big victory and proceeds to move the nation in its directions. Thus a right wing Barry Goldwater as the Republican candidate elects a Lyndon Baines Johnson with enough of a margin for LBJ to create the Socialist Great Society.

Since 1980 this nation has been gradually inching to the right. But the center is still way to the left of where it was in 1928.

Moving this nation to the right can happen. But it takes political servants and a right of center electorate who understand how to move the center. It took two generations to move this nation as far left as it is now. It will take two generations to move it back.

The left is convinced the right is not patient or smart enough to do it. The left may very well be right.  - Common Tator 2005

[Lipstick on a Hillary]

Try figuring out how to take credit for dropping fuel prices.  Try to win some statewide elections.  "How do I do that Once-Ler?" I hear you ask.

Let the teacher explain.

Given the caustic climate on the right these days, I would say the onus is on YOU coax the disillusioned back into your fold.  Good luck with that, you're doing great so far. 

[olde north church]

Things couldn't be better for Americans obviously.  Their lives are worth so much more than liberty.  The old saying about cake as a slave is obviously wrong.  Americans are eating crumbs while slaves, pretending their bellies are full.

[aligncare]

So, teacher, what I take from your lesson is that the winning candidate in a state wide or nationwide race wins because opposition candidates are extreme left or extreme right. Bottom line, moderates win. Do I have that correct?

If so, then Reagan, who was seen as too extreme to be nominated, notwithstanding eventually went on to win his party's nomination and then to defeat Carter the extreme leftist in that race. Gee, teach, I don't think I framed that properly. Looks like I may fail your quiz...

[rangerrebew]

if only people would think beyond tomorrow and instead think constitutionally this country would not be in such a mess.

The difference between a politician and a statesman?  A politician thinks about the next election, the statesman about the next generation.

[xfreeper]

The difference between a politician and a statesman?  A politician thinks about the next election, the statesman about the next generation.
And the american voters think about the kardashians

[aligncare]

 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

So, teacher, what I take from your lesson is that the winning candidate in a state wide or nationwide race wins because opposition candidates are extreme left or extreme right. Bottom line, moderates win. Do I have that correct?

If so, then Reagan, who was seen as too extreme to be nominated, notwithstanding eventually went on to win his party's nomination and then to defeat Carter the extreme leftist in that race. Gee, teach, I don't think I framed that properly. Looks like I may fail your quiz...

since you liked the last quote from the Teacher so much here is another
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/602693/posts?page=11#11

The Democrats are never under the illusion that everyone will agree with them once they hear them out. Only the right believes everyone will agree with them once they are educated to the right's true goals and plans. It is the major reason for the right's failure to prevail as often as the left.

The left always structures its pitch to the desires of the voters they are pitching. The left is not even open with its own supporters. The left always works to get the support of the middle and some of the right. They do this by only talking about parts of their plans that would appeal to the center and some of the right. They never mention the parts that appeal only to the left. They try to enact their agenda when in power, but they never pitch them in a campaign. If their agenda proves to be very unpopular they will drop it. As an example look at what they did about Hillary Care. When it got lots of opposition they dropped it like a hot potato. The right rarely understands that its pitch must be to the center and the left.

Reagan knew very well how to do just that. He did so very effectively. How many times did Reagan say, "I am the only candidate for President who has been elected President of his Union not just once but tw*ice." Reagan was saying over and over, I am not a Right wing zealot. Reagan was saying I am a former Union President, whose performace as a union advocate was good enought to win RE-ELECTION. He was saying are being fooled if you thing I am from the far right. He talked about his Dad being fired by an "Evil Corporation on CHRISTMAS EVE." Why do you think Reagan did that?

How many times did Reagan say he was a BIG FAN OF FDR. He said it hundreds of times in 1980. He said over and over that he had been a DEMOCRAT in the FDR years. Reagan said over and over and over "I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY POSITIONS... the DEMOCRATIC party has changed."

Reagan did not try to appeal to the right in 1980 and 1984. He tried to get the votes of the middle and the left. He was very successful. His tax cuts were pure FDR. It was HATED Republican HERBERT HOOVER who refused to cut taxes to stimulate the economy in 1930,1931, and 1932. It was FDR that cut taxes to stimuate the economy. How many times did Reagan refer to his tax plan as identical to the plan enacted by that Demoratic Saint of Camelot....President Kennedy. He was appealing to the center and LEFT. Guess what .... IT WORKED.

The LEFT WINS when it appeals to the Center and the right.. That is why CLINTON was a "NEW DEMOCRAT!"
The RIGHT WINS when it appeals to the Center and the LEFT. "I WAS TWICE ELECTED A UNION PRESIDENT and MY TAX PLAN IS JUST LIKE JFKs" .
The world if full of clueless people... who get more clueless every day. Common Tator 2002

[truth_seeker]

Good thread, reminding the difficult task for conservatism to prevail. I like the 3 x one-thirds breakdown.

The numbers may vary, but not the principle that the win goes to the candidate which convinces enough middle and opposing voters to come over.

I said "convinces," the thing which Reagan proved.

[rangerrebew]

As Hitler also proved, lying to the target audience is a good strategy.  He also said tell a lie big enough so no one will doubt it - sort of like Obamacare will cut your costs by $2,500 and never let off the lie.  He also said to never, ever hint that your opposition may be correct.  Does this sound a bit like the Obama regime? :peeonobama: