Thoughts on lawsuit against Obama

Executive branch’s powers are limited

After reading John E. LeMoult’s column about the House of Representative’s lawsuit against the President having no basis, I felt it prudent to retort. Mr. LeMoult begins the article describing his academic pedigree of having been an attorney who practiced law for 37 years and had a special interest in constitutional law. To begin, his academic pedigree cannot outweigh the basis of my argument.

Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” (referring to laws passed by both branches of Congress) To those unfamiliar with the Constitution, Article 2 lays out the Executive Branch powers (powers of the President). If Congress intended to delay pieces of the legislation, they would have written that into the Affordable Care Act. If Congress intended to exempt certain groups from the ACA, they would have written that into the law. The President simply exempting certain privileges and exemptions for specific groups, doesn’t pass the legal smell test.

If John E. LeMoult and President Obama are, in fact, correct, and the President has the power to substantially change laws enacted by Congress, then I would argue that we have officially entered an American age of Dictatorship and left behind the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers put in place for us. Congress should begin simply passing blank pieces of paper for legislation and allowing the President to do as he pleases as he can change any law written by Congress to fit his narrative.

Regarding the immigration issue facing the United States and the belief that the President will simply issue an Executive Order granting amnesty or citizenship to the illegal aliens currently flooding into our country, this should read to be an impeachable offense. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, states: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” Again, to those unfamiliar with the Constitution, Article 1 lays out the Legislative Branch powers (powers vested to Congress (The House and the Senate). For the President to simply issue an Executive Order granting amnesty/citizenship would clearly violate the Constitutional process of law making. How a lawyer with 37 years of experience with a specialty in constitutional law can read the same document I have just laid out in a different fashion, completely perplexes me. I suppose it is better that I went to Business School than Law School with those differing renditions of the Constitution. I can still read plain text of a document with a business school degree.

While some may argue that the President signing an Executive Order should be done out of political expediency, keep in mind that this current administration’s party may not be in power forever. Granting the President powers not specifically given to him/her in the Constitution opens up a large can of worms for the government we will leave our children and grandchildren. While going through the process of legally passing a law and legally updating our immigration and naturalization laws (if needed), we must keep in mind that our Founding Fathers put in place a great system of checks and balances. When we as a country begin to accept the usurping of this process for political expediency, we must accept the future demise of our country into a dictatorship. — WILL BACH, CFP(r), MBA, MIAMI TWP.

Thank you for reading the Springfield News-Sun and for supporting local journalism. Subscribers: log in for access to your daily ePaper and premium newsletters.

Thank you for supporting in-depth local journalism with your subscription to the Springfield News-Sun. Get more news when you want it with email newsletters just for subscribers. Sign up here.