Sometimes it’s worth taking a step back and taking a big picture look at what is really going on.
In the space of a few days, Democrats in Wisconsin and Indiana fled their state capitals rather than allow the democratic process to work.
Now, President Obama is declaring a federal law unconstitutional rather than respect the fact that the democratic process has already worked.
The Constitution is not silent on President Obama’s actions. Article II, Section I spells out the presidential oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Barack H. Obama took that oath — twice — on January 20, 2009. Article II, Section III is clear on the president’s relationship to US law.
[The president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
There’s nothing in there about the president faithfully executing only the laws with which he agrees. It says nothing about the president or his attorney general being vested with the power of judicial review. That power belongs to the courts.
This president and his party have gone over the cliff into lawlessness. At this point, I wouldn’t put impeachment off the table for discussion. The president is intentionally stoking a constitutional crisis, while his party fosters anarchy in the states. These acts cannot stand.
More: Stanley Kurtz–
This is a political move designed to distract attention from debates on public-sector unions and the budget that are not going the president’s way. It’s also a departure from Obama’s fundamental strategy of downplaying social issues and foreign policy so as to build a broad-based coalition around issues of economic populism. That was the approach of Obama’s organizing mentors, and I argue in Radical-in-Chief that Obama has adopted it for himself.
For Obama to risk that broader strategy now is a sign of weakness. I suggested the other day in “Obama’s Wisconsin Bind” that having unpopular public-sector unions as the face of his coalition might force him into aggressive but risky efforts to shore up a broader-based movement of the Left.