Does Ignoring The Constitution Invalidate Obama's Oath And Thus His Right To Hold Office?

I can't really say what it is that has prevented Congress from taking real action against Obama's trampling of the Constitution, but it is now very clear that he has no intention of abiding by his oath, which raises in my mind the question whether he should be permitted to continue to serve.

Here is how Constitutional Law professor and former applellate judge Michael McConnell sees it:

President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II's use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that "the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal."

To make sure that American presidents could not resurrect a similar prerogative, the Framers of the Constitution made the faithful enforcement of the law a constitutional duty.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has suspended the operation of statutes by executive decree, but it is the most barefaced.

Republican opponents of ObamaCare might say that the suspension of the employer mandate is such good policy that there's no need to worry about constitutionality. But if the president can dispense with laws, and parts of laws, when he disagrees with them, the implications for constitutional government are dire. [Wall Street Journal]

There is truly a matter of constitutional significance in standing by and permitting Obama to avoid the duty imposed by his oath of office.  It sets a dangerous precedent.  Congress should act swiftly to stop this abuse or the future of our republic could forever be changed by their inaction.

Comments

[Bill Adkins]

It's not congress' role to determine constitutionality. They can bitch and moan, but it's the courts that make that decision.