Don’t just stand there—do something!
[T]he number and scope of the legal threats to Obama appear unprecedented. This comes in part because, these days, the extreme polarization of political opinion in Congress is reflected in the federal courts as well. On the Supreme Court and on lower courts, the differences between conservative and liberal federal judges can lead to dramatic differences in results. Sometimes, it’s worth it for challengers to roll the dice in front of the right judge.
When I interviewed President Obama about legal matters, last year, he made another point about why litigation has become so important in contemporary Washington. He noted that there was once a time when Congress actually did pass laws to address national problems. Legislators enacted a major reform of immigration laws in 1986 and a significant addition to the Clean Air Act in 1990. But Congress has been paralyzed by partisan gridlock in recent years; its inability, or unwillingness, to address immigration is only the best known of its failures. When Congress doesn’t act, the underlying problems don’t go away—and a President will try to address them on his own. This leads to lawsuits in response. And now there are lots of them, and their verdicts will pass judgment on President Obama as much as on any individual issue.
Let us reject outright that there are “threats to Obama”. He is the threat. In all the cases cited at the original article—ObamaCare, amnesty for illegals, even “net neutrality—Obama is the one acting outside the law. He threatens the Constitution.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the Congress you have. If Congress is incapable of “acting”, it’s because the people have voted it so. We the people gave Obama the Congress he wanted in 2008, and we’ve been trying to claw it back ever since. The most recent election was the clearest indication of all. No to Obama, no to his “acts”, no to his approach to “national problems”. He is the national problem. Unfortunately, it came an election too late. Obama is unbound.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: There’s pushback from the Hill from a number of leaders there who say this represents yet another agreement that Congress should be involved with. They feel like they should have a voice in it, especially considering an agreement of this nature on an international scale. How do you respond to them?
JOSH EARNEST, FOX NEWS: Well, these are individuals, at least many of them, deny the fact that climate change even exists. So I’m not sure that they would be in the best position to decide whether or not a climate change agreement is one that is worth entering in to.
BREAM: Politics aside, is this the kind of agreement that Congress should have an ability to sign off on?
EARNEST: Well, again, I think it’s hard to take seriously from some members of Congress who deny the fact that climate change exists, that they should have some opportunity to render judgment about climate change agreements.
And with that, the executive branch of government dismissed the legislative branch from its assigned duty of approving treaties. The politically driven ends justify the unconstitutional means. The Congress we just put in place has no voice on an issue polls indicate we don’t give a crap about.