- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I agree with that, actually. But what's also relevant is precedence, and if you have a long line of precedence indicating that the POTUS simply DOES have a great deal of discretion with regard to, for example, immigration matters, then that must be taken into account. If Bush argued that the Unitary Executive has certain rights that Congress cannot strip and those rights were accepted by the courts and/or Congress, that DOES matter. On this thread the issue is the lawsuit about Obama not enforcing the ACA as written. It's a legitimate question whether he has that authority. But it's a difficult case to make that he MUST enforce the ACA as written (cannot delay certain provisions), but CAN allow Colorado to break federal law and allow pot to be sold, or allow companies to disregard EPA regs, etc. POTUS's have exercised regulatory discretion dating back to the 1800s, it is simply a prerogative of the Executive branch.
I'm not saying there is no line to cross, but it seems to me where the discretion of the POTUS begins and ends is incredibly difficult to determine, as we saw with Bush and now Obama.
And that's the problem...If we just throw our hands in the air, and say 'oh well, they have that discretion, and it's too hard to fight' , then we won't keep our constitutional republic as Franklin predicted back at the beginning...Do I like how Obama, or hell even Bush before him on certain issues, stretched their authority? No...but even as during Bush's terms, he had the left constantly on his arse, crying about every move, Obama has that now with some of the right leaning groups. The difference is that somehow the very same people in here that were doing the indignant, outrage back then, are now saying to us all that we should just take a chill pill, and let this one do what he wants unobstructed, or hampered by protest....Why?