Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case dealing with the EPA regulation of carbon dioxide. It is a complicated decision with all sorts of partial dissents, concurrences and other factors that make the holding less than clear. One part of the decision, however, was decided by a unanimous court. The justices ruled that the numerical thresholds set by Congress before a permit is required from the EPA cannot be altered by administrative action as the EPA tried to do. Indeed, here is the key sentence on that point:
The power to execute the laws does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.
In all of the recent Supreme Court decisions, this is BY FAR the single most important sentence. Just think about it. It means that if a law like Obamacare sets January 1, 2014 for the effective date for the employer mandate, the president cannot just change that date because the date in the law turns out not to work well. It means that if a law like the immigration statutes require the deportation of illegal aliens no matter what their ages, the president cannot change that law to exempt those under 21 because the president contends that the old law did not work in practice. It means that if any federal law sets a particular requirement or rule, no member of the executive branch -- from the president down to a clerk -- can alter that requirement or rule even if he or she thinks the requirement or rule just does not work.
More and more over the last two years, president Obama has been ignoring federal laws. First it was with regard to Obamacare where Obama ordered the variance from the text of the law over 20 separate times. That lawless behavior spread to many other places. Right now, we have a president who only enforces the law as he wants it to be, not as it actually is.
The Supreme Court has now made clear, once again, that such lawless behavior cannot be allowed. Let's see if Obama is listening (and if he even cares.)
The power to execute the laws does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.
In all of the recent Supreme Court decisions, this is BY FAR the single most important sentence. Just think about it. It means that if a law like Obamacare sets January 1, 2014 for the effective date for the employer mandate, the president cannot just change that date because the date in the law turns out not to work well. It means that if a law like the immigration statutes require the deportation of illegal aliens no matter what their ages, the president cannot change that law to exempt those under 21 because the president contends that the old law did not work in practice. It means that if any federal law sets a particular requirement or rule, no member of the executive branch -- from the president down to a clerk -- can alter that requirement or rule even if he or she thinks the requirement or rule just does not work.
More and more over the last two years, president Obama has been ignoring federal laws. First it was with regard to Obamacare where Obama ordered the variance from the text of the law over 20 separate times. That lawless behavior spread to many other places. Right now, we have a president who only enforces the law as he wants it to be, not as it actually is.
The Supreme Court has now made clear, once again, that such lawless behavior cannot be allowed. Let's see if Obama is listening (and if he even cares.)
2 comments:
So, who is going to police these issues AND How will they hold the perpetrators accountable/responsible? Sounds like BS to me, placating Congress with words.
This is anything but BS. It means that the Supreme Court is likely going to uphold the challenges brought against the various illegal actions taken by Obama. This starts with the next big Obamacare decision about whether or not state exchanges can be stretched to include the federal exchange. If the court sticks to the language of the law, it will be the death of Obamacare.
Post a Comment