Letters: Usurpation of Congressional Constitutional Authority

Given the president’s unilateral determination that he may selectively administer the constitutionally crafted laws of the land, please inform me why Congress is not demanding that he adhere to the Constitution, his oath of office, and the letter of the law. In the absence of compliance, Congress should move to impeach.

The issue of selective enforcement of one or more of our laws makes a mockery of all our laws. Why not exempt people between 5 feet, 2 inches and 5 feet, 6 inches from prosecution for failing to stop at stop signs on every other Tuesday? How about exempting individuals weighing between 162 pounds and 184 pounds from prosecution for bank robbery when that robbery was committed on the third Saturday of a month with 31 days? Why not exclude bald female scofflaws from prosecution under the IRS code? This is insane!

When I last checked, our country had a lawful mechanism for changing laws which were determined to be onerous, outdated or overtaken by events. Until such time as that mechanism is constitutionally exercised, does not the executive have the obligation to faithfully administer all laws of the land?

If this is not so, please have the Government Printing Office publish an annotated copy of the U.S. Code with an asterisk to mark those laws which can be ignored.

Bo Shelton

retired businessman

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 26/06/2012

two shriveled peas in a pod

2) Comment by Whatnow - 26/06/2012

@GoldenSage, you are right on in your last comment. "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." - Barack Hussein Obama, II - August 21, 2010

3) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 24/06/2012

gods help GoldenSage

4) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 24/06/2012

1. I never said that Libby was convicted of outing an agent. He was convicted of perjury and lying about his involvement 2. He DID out Plame to Judith Miller on the orders of VP Cheney. This is common knowledge and was part of Miller's grand jury testimony. No points for you. Even an idiot can find this on wikipedia, or even using the Google thingy

5) Comment by GoldenSage - 24/06/2012

Old sayings go a long way, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Quit the Bush and past events to judge what Obama did. Just use "COMMON SENSE". If Obama or Holden didn't do any wrong, then why the cover-up, pure and simple. No, they did. Common sense tells you so. It is just most Americans today do not have any common sense. We have to be politically correct. We can't make a decision, and if we are wrong, apologize later. We have to be respectful and nice to people who don't deserve it. People who follow the old saying, and belief, "the outcome justifies the means," which basically means Obama, Holden, Progressive and Liberal Democrats can lie until they are blue in the face because they will be judged by the outcome, not the means. Lying is OK. Stabbing "The People" in the back, lying to them is OK, as long as, in the end, socialism and communism is the final outcome...government controls The People. Look at Obama, he has said, on video, he wished he could do things HE wanted without having to deal with Congress. Obama wants power...and with power comes dictatorship, which is only a fine line from socialism and communism. Look at the past. Old sayings have such meaning, but people don't listen. God Help U.S.

6) Comment by InPVille - 24/06/2012

@Tea_Slayer "I'm sure I will enjoy debunking the "both side do it just as much and as egregiously" argument." -[**]- Sir; how is that when you can't seem to even accurately quote a quote! I suspect it would like much like a previous exchange as in -[**]- 1) Comment by InPVille - 06/22/2012 @Tea_Slayer: While President Bush did commute the sentence of Louis Libby, Libby wasn't the person who leaked Ms. Plame to the late Robert Novak. It was Richard Armitage who leaked the information to Robert Novak while Armitage was with the U.S. State Department. In his September 14, 2006 column titled "The real story behind the Armitage story" Mr. Novak wrote: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column... he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column. . ." In large part because Armitage never denied providing information or ever found to have said things which could be proven to be false by investigators, Armitage was never convicted of any wrong doing. He along with others were eventually sued. The suit never went anywhere. -[**]- 2) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 06/21/2012 I guess when a President commutes the sentence of someone who outed an ACTIVE CIA agent, it's OK. I guess Scooter got his reward for not naming names... -[**]-

7) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 24/06/2012

"In case you haven't noticed interest groups on both sides of the political aisle have been caught using the same creative editing this year" --- Evidence, examples of this? Please post them. I'm sure I will enjoy debunking the "both sides do it just as much and as egregiously" argument.

8) Comment by Whatnow - 24/06/2012

And Harry Reid is not an obstructionist? Please......

9) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 24/06/2012

your "points" are meaningless to me. The Republicans have used the filibuster (cloture votes) over 360 times since 2007, an unprecedented number of times. They are obstructionists (little children who throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way) --- http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

10) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 24/06/2012

How weak and lame is the hypocrisy of the RW to blast one President while giving a former one a pass for doing much worse and on a grander scale. And InPVille, try harder next time. They did try to get it passed over a long period of time. Every time, the Party of No played parliamentary tricks to keep it off the table.

11) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

Oops back on you. Your second post wasn't loaded from the web site when i pulled up the page and decided to respond. The Advocate web site doesn't automatically update the page and doesn't warn you that anyone else has posted in the interim. I don't doubt that Republicans tried to block the Dream Act though I am not fully up on what was in the bill which caused them to make the effort. But that still doesn't explain why if it was so important Democrats couldn't overcome the resistance when they did it for the AHCA which was just as controversial or maybe even more so. Perhaps it just wasn't that important to Democrats. Or perhaps the problem as an issue was considered valuable enough to the party so that solving the problem wasn't important enough to put forth the effort. Or maybe the energy in their political magic wand was depleted. -[**]- In case you haven't noticed interest groups on both sides of the political aisle have been caught using the same creative editing this year and the tactic has been going on for far longer than that. It is dishonest when both do it and deserves to be criticized when your side does it as well as when the other side does it which is why I assigned you two points.

12) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/06/2012

oops..guess you didn't read my followup. try that Google thingy before blasting a source

13) Comment by Art Vandelay - 23/06/2012

How weak and lame is the best apology for Obama's incompetency is to revert to the old, tired comparison to Bush...how far must the bar be lowered to exhalt the all mighty Obama...I call it intellectual deficiency syndrome, IDS for short. Come on man!

14) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

And yet the AHCA was passed with the same party balance. The civil rights legislation of the 60s would not have been passed without the willingness to overcome filibuster. -[**]- You got to be kidding trying to use the DailyKOS (Pronounced "Daily Chaos") as a bonifide reference. Would you accept references from the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, or TownHall? No dice for you either!

15) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/06/2012

and in case you don't trust DailyKos, just Google "DREAM Act filibuster 2010". Lots of other sources to back up his factual statement that the Republicans filibustered the DREAM Act twice.

16) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/06/2012

One point for you inPville. The Republicans filibustered the DREAM Act twice. Don't believe the rhetoric of Romney. And what about the fact that everyone seems to be cutting off his actual statement? Oh yeah, if caught in a lie change tactics. i.e. lie about his inaction on the DREAM act when the Dems held Congress. Nice try but no dice... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/17/1100802/-Mitt-Romney-Lies-Again-FACT-GOP-Filibustered-Dream-Act-Twice-in-2010

17) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

Two points for Tea_Slayer. However, how do you answer the claim that if President was seriously interested in "fixing" the immigration "problem", then during his first two years in office his party had control of both houses of Congress and could done what he wanted. Sure there was a threat of filibuster. However, why not make the people objecting actually go through the effort of performing the filibuster. Filibusters have happened in the past and sometimes overcome by sufficient political will on the part of the other side of the question. How isn't the unwillingness to fight for what you think is the correct thing to do just political cowardice? Such tactics have worked in those instances where one side threatened to not vote for increased federal borrowing/spending and thereby shut down the government.

18) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/06/2012

Just watch the videos in the link to see how the RW "press" misrepresented the President's statement and to see the full audio/video of Obama's comments that jdk and his ilk chopped up --- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/jon-stewart-fox-news-obama-tape-edit_n_1611735.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-show

19) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/06/2012

and jdk used an edited quote from Obama (surprise, surprise). Of course his hero Hannity say Obama was a flipfloper so he being gullible (like so many others on this board) bought the lie. Here is what Obama said after Hannity cut the tape -- "Now what we can do is prioritize enforcement, since there's limited enforcement resources, and say, 'We're not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who has been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status of the Dream act passed.'

20) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 23/06/2012

ahhh so all of you Obama-bashers just sat by cheerfully while the previous President usurped "Congressional Constitutional Authority" by issuing 85 Presidential Signing Statements in his first 3 years in office. . How rich...

21) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

@Whatnow: At first I thought it was a spoof such as the people at The Onion are always coming up with.

22) Comment by Whatnow - 23/06/2012

@InPVille, yeah, I saw that. Either this is pure desperation or self idolatry. He probably believes that he deserves your gift as his own. And there are actually people out there stupid enough to fall for this. Then I saw where Michelle implies that her husband is like our husband and wants to take care of us. When she says that he is like our Father, then the game is up.Then can you say Dear Leader?

23) Comment by InPVille - 23/06/2012

Here is an interesting development: http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter - - - "Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up? Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl." -[**]- You may even decide to extend this to Christmas and contribute early instead of giving your children a traditional Christmas.

24) Comment by ABayouBoy - 23/06/2012

Too many constitutional amendments, and too much bureaucratic red tape would make me a bad boy too.

25) Comment by Art Vandelay - 22/06/2012

President Obama has told numerous whoppers, mostly out of hypocrisy albeit. But what floored me was him telling us in his latest ad campaign that he's creates 4.3 million jobs under his watch...seriously. The Dept of Labor website clearly shows 136.8 million Americans employed in 2008...in 2011 there were 131.4 million Americans employed. Am I wrong or does my elementary arithmetic show a 5.4 million LOSS?! He may be slick, but just how stupid does he think we are anyway?

26) Comment by Whatnow - 22/06/2012

Obama in 2008: “Let me say as simply as I can, transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. I will also hold myself as president to a new standard of openness.” Obama in 2009: “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure.”

27) Comment by warreni - 22/06/2012

Hypocrisy, the last time I checked, was not an impeachable offense. If it were, as Hamlet said, "none shall scape whipping." If you really want to play that game (and I don't particularly) I could go down a laundry list of such things regarding our most recent Republican president's administration. Although I'd probably have to say those would be more along the lines of outright lying. The point of this letter and your earlier remarks is that the president is using some kind of authority that he does not have and that is clearly not the case. While you may disagree with the actions taken by the chief executive and his subordinates (the "departments" of the federal government), they are actually exercising the authority granted to them by the Constitution and the Congress, respectively. I would be curious to see what EPA, FCC, DOE actions you can list that can be considered outside of the authority of those entities (I have a feeling they're really not). One thing that critics of government like yourself should recognize is that few to no bureaucrats are willing to risk their livelihoods pursuing actions that they cannot provide a statutory or regulatory justification for, precisely because there are folks like you happy to take them to court for doing so.

28) Comment by jdk944 - 22/06/2012

warreni - furthermore, Obama is overreaching, and his actions highlight his hypocrisy. As a senator in 2007 criticizing George W. Bush's White House, Obama expressed the view that executive privilege is really just a tool presidents use to hide inconvenient truths that they don't want to face. In fact, in seeking the cover of executive privilege from Obama, Holder cited Bush administration arguments regarding the firing of several U.S. attorneys -- the very episode Obama criticized in 2007, though in reality completely different from the one at hand. Pres. Obama, changes his position to justify his inappropriate actions!!

29) Comment by jdk944 - 22/06/2012

warreni, correct, misstatement on my part about executive order vs. executive priviledge but it tracks with this adminstration's disregard for the constitution. We could talk about Pres. Obama's tactics along with those in and around him that have circumvented the proper process. Like EPA's tactics, NLRB, FCC, Dept. of Education, and I could go on. In all those departments I've mentioned, they have acted, bypassing congress etc. There is an overwhelming pattern here that has developed. And my comments were contained within Mr. Shelton's letter discussing the federal government. I am far more concerned about their actions at this time that our state's!!

30) Comment by warreni - 22/06/2012

jdk944: I will readily concede that the order was a stopgap measure at best, and probably politically-motivated as much as anything else. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to persecute and prosecute these people for the sins of their fathers (and mothers). I realize the idea that the sins of the fathers should be visited on their offspring is deeply ingrained in you as a Christian but our country shouldn't work that way. I have no real interest in discussing the attorney-general's alleged wrongdoing but I do have to point out that Obama invoked executive privilege on that matter, which is decidedly not the same thing as issuing an executive order. For someone demanding that other people do a lot of research, it seems as though you might have looked into that yourself. As far as any comparisons between Jindal and Obama go, why don't you look at how much of Jindal's agenda got through the Legislature during this past session and compare it to how much of Obama's agenda got through any one of the Congresses that met during his term? I believe you'll find that there really is no comparison because the branches of the federal government really are co-equal and with a Republican-controlled House and a small majority of Democrats (many Democrats in both houses, like our delegation, are of the "blue-dog" variety) in the Senate, gridlock and obstructionism have been the order of the day.

31) Comment by jdk944 - 22/06/2012

warreni - were your referring to Pres. Obama when you used the words "strong executive"? Oh now that would be funny if it weren't so tragic. How about researching the proper use for Executive Orders? Here is a clue, issuing one for Eric Holder is not proper. And since your brought up the illegal immigration Executive order - would like to hear your explanation of this same president who said last year, ''America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. ... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.' Yea, I know, he just changed his mind right? I would serve you well to research the roles of the 3 branches. But then again, that would shed light on your partisan position!!

32) Comment by warreni - 22/06/2012

dday: He's mad about Obama's executive order that the federal government will no longer actively seek to deport young illegals and that they may seek work visas. Ironically, he's probably among those who would agree with the other recent letter that it's okay that the governor strong-arms legislators to get what he wants because that's how our government is supposed to work (full-time governor > part-time Legislature). I guess having a strong executive is only really okay when you agree with his political views.

33) Comment by 8point6 - 22/06/2012

Impeachment would be in order for this president.

34) Comment by Triple - 22/06/2012

Illegal Immigration amnesty.

35) Comment by dday198 - 22/06/2012

in regards to??