Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
willpwilson 908
An outbreak of lawlessness 5000+ Share to Facebook Share on
Sat Nov 30, 2013 08:07
50.132.86.200

An outbreak of lawlessness By Charles Krauthammer, Published: November 28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-democrats-outbreak-of-lawlessness/2013/11/28/3184b6f2-579b-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?hpid=z3 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/charles-krauthammer/2011/02/24/ADJkW7B_page.html -http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_90x60/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/11/27/Editorial-Opinion/Images/03960077.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Staff-Bio/Images/charles-krauthammer-114x80.png
An outbreak of lawlessness
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/05/07/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/toles05082013.jpg
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: November 28 E-mail the writer
For all the gnashing of teeth over the lack of comity and civility in Washington, the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of political norms, legislative and constitutional.

Such as the one just spectacularly blown up in the Senate. To get three judges onto a coveted circuit court, frustrated Democrats abolished the filibuster for executive appointments and (non-Supreme Court) judicial nominations.

Charles Krauthammer Krauthammer writes a politics column that runs on Fridays.
Archive @krauthammerFacebookRSS

What Obama didn’t know: The many controversies that the White House says the president was kept in the dark about.

The problem is not the change itself. It’s fine that a president staffing his administration should need 51 votes rather than 60. Doing so for judicial appointments, which are for life, is a bit dicier. Nonetheless, for about 200 years the filibuster was nearly unknown in blocking judicial nominees. So we are really just returning to an earlier norm.

The violence to political norms here consisted in how that change was executed. By brute force — a near party-line vote of 52 to 48 . This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.

What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.

As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.

Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.

The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.

That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

Remember how for months Democrats denounced Republicans for daring to vote to defund or postpone Obamacare? Saboteurs! Terrorists! How dare you alter “the law of the land.”

This was nonsense from the beginning. Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed — and have been (see Prohibition).

After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e. in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat.

Nor is this the first time. The president wakes up one day and decides to unilaterally suspend the employer mandate, a naked invasion of Congress’s exclusive legislative prerogative, enshrined in Article I. Not a word from the Democrats. Nor now regarding the blatant usurpation of trying to restore canceled policies that violate explicit Obamacare coverage requirements.

And worse. When Congress tried to make Obama’s “fix” legal — i.e., through legislation — he opposed it. He even said he would veto it. Imagine: vetoing the very bill that would legally enact his own illegal fix.

At rallies, Obama routinely says he has important things to do and he’s not going to wait for Congress. Well, amending a statute after it’s been duly enacted is something a president may not do without Congress. It’s a gross violation of his Article II duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

A Senate with no rules. A president without boundaries. One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care Web site are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.

Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Read more about this topic: The Post’s View: After filibuster vote, both parties will face nasty ‘nuclear’ fallout

Eugene Robinson: Democrats were forced to go ‘nuclear’
Jennifer Rubin: Republicans should return the favor when in power
Jonathan Bernstein:A significant change to how the nation is governed
Dana Milbank: The Democrats’ naked power grab
Charles Krauthammer: Can Obama write his own laws?

The_Voice_of_Reason
11/28/2013 4:16 PM PST
The basis of law in the US is the constitution, where in the constitution is the filibuster? Oh, that's right, it isn't part of the constitution. It was an informal rule proposed so that if truly contentious issues arose then the minority party could have a last course of action ... until it was abused by the Republicans (only 23 nominees were filibustered to that "coveted district court" in the history of the senate ... 20 of them were during Obama's term ... and no reason was stated for any of the filibusters) - remember, the Republicans gave us a tenured Arkansas judge who stated that pregnancy during rape was as common as "snowfall in Miami", the Democrats objected and filibustered him, Bush Jr simply renominated him and the Democrats allowed a vote.

If any of the actions of President Obama are unconstitutional, I'm sure that they would be challenged (given that republican nut cases filed 49 separate lawsuits about his birthplace).

When will the republican whining stop?

jeffz1
11/28/2013 4:27 PM PST
It was originally put in place to prevent the majority from calling snap votes while the minority was out of town. In the way the filabuster was meant to be used it was simply a delaying tactic to allow the minority to assemple its troops and get them all back to Washington in the event of an important vote. It was never meant to be used as a block on nominees or legislation. The changes made by the Dems still allow for a 30 hour speech and delay by the minority on nominees so the ability to tie up the Senate is still there and the new rules are much more in line with the origininal intent.

kronzypantz
11/28/2013 4:47 PM PST
Well then, since liberals have now become stricter interpreters of the constitution than Republicans, Im sure they will have no problem with Republicans changing the rules to repeal the ACA if they get a 51 seat majority in the Senate, since the rules are made up things of no importance, found no where in the Constitution. And then both sides can go back and forth for a few decades passing and repealing partisan laws by slim majorities, and none of this would have ever originated with this congress and president.

  • VA - OBAMA CARE ON STEROIDSWilliam Mount, Fri Nov 29 14:57
    For those of you who think Obama Care is the greatest thing since sliced bread please consider the following: Blackmail at the Seattle VA. 1) Introduction: Today we followed a 100% physically... more
    • An outbreak of lawlessness 5000+ Share to Facebook Share on — willpwilson 908, Sat Nov 30 08:07
    • BLACKMAIL AT THE SEATTLE VAWilliam Mount, Fri Nov 29 15:11
      I have seen this over and over again: 1) "Participate in our study or we will not treat you." Dr Brad Anawalt, around 2006, Endocrinology, VA Seattle. 2) "Tell no one or you will be arrested, your... more
Click here to receive daily updates