Sue Me!

Late last month, the U.S Supreme Court ruled unanimously (note to Obama supporters: the 9-0 ruling included all liberal justices who are typically lionized by the Left) that the president's recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. In a later case, Obama again lost when Obamacare coverage mandates were also ruled unconstitutional. When faced with a threatened congressional law suit to reign in his lawless behavior, he petulently said, "So, sue me."

Respected constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley comments:

The fact that the administration decided to force a confrontation on such a weak case [the NLRB ruling] shows not just a lack of judgment but a cavalier attitude towards the costs of such losses. While he clearly has authority to set enforcement priorities in areas like immigration law, Obama has repeatedly stepped well over the line of separation.

These acts of defiance of Congress often come with chest-pounding acclaim, but they also come with costs. For example, by violating the Constitution on recess appointments, a huge array of rulings out of the National Labor Relations Board could be invalid — creating havoc in the area.

Likewise, the President’s recent loss in the Hobby Lobby case, regarding contraception provisions of Obamacare, will require huge changes in such coverage . In a case that may be issued any day now in Halbig vs. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit could strike down another unilateral policy on tax credits under Obamacare that would mean that the administration wrongly committed billions of dollars without authority. That decision could jeopardize the very viability of health-care reform.

In our system, there is no license to go it alone. Rather, the Republic’s democratic architecture requires compromise. The process is designed to moderate legislation and create a broader consensus in support of these laws.

Nor is congressional refusal to act on a particular prescription of how to fix the economy or repair immigration laws an excuse. Sometimes the country (and by extension Congress) is divided.

When that happens, less gets done. The Framers understood such times. They lived in such a time.

Barack Obama brings an extreme leftist ideology to the executive branch. Whether he or other leftists like it or not, that ideology is still rejected by half of the citizenry. Sure he won the election in 2008, and incredibly, was re-elected in 2012, but that does NOT give him a mandate to "go it alone." As Turley correctly points out, our "democratic architecture" demands compromise, demands advice and consent.

I truly am surprised and disappointed that more Democrat congressional leaders and Democrat senators aren't more concerned about Obama's imperial presidency. Why do they not try to reign him in, to get him to propose programs that have a chance of passing the congress. Instead they fall back on the well-worn talking point that it's all about "obstructionism." Comically, they used that same talking point even during Obama's first two years, when he had veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate.

The president's whining about congress' "obstructionism" is unseemly -- it is his job to work toward a common ground. Over the past 50 years LBJ and Clinton did it with considerable success. Why is Obama incapable of similar actions?

Instead he ridicules and demonizes his opposition to an extent that has never occurred in my lifetime. He, and he alone, has created an atmosphere in which negotiation is difficult or impossible.

With a president who has decided to enforce the law selectively, discard those elements of the constitution that don't fit his needs, and continually work to divide rather than unite the nation, I, for one, am perfectly satisfied if his final two years accomplish nothing. If fact, based on almost 6 years of failure in virtually every importance aspect of our nation's endeavors, accomplishing nothing can be viewed as a success—one of the very few this president has achieved.