|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
The Daily Signal
Can the House
of Representatives Sue Obama for Not Executing the Law?
Elizabeth Slattery
July 28, 2014
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the
courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of
constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess
Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s
Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, believes he has the key to reining
in the executive branch: suing President Barack Obama for not
faithfully executing the law. But while Obama has repeatedly waived
requirements of laws or chosen not to enforce them against whole
categories of offenders, there’s a legal requirement known as
“standing” that may stop Boehner in his tracks.
As John Malcolm and I detail in this Heritage paper, standing is a
constitutional requirement for all lawsuits, including suits filed
against the executive branch by private citizens, individual members of
Congress, or an entire chamber of Congress. In essence, the standing
requirement means that Boehner must be able to show that Obama’s
failure to faithfully execute the law actually harms the House of
Representatives, leaving it little recourse without court intervention.
Courts are generally reluctant to become referees in disputes between
members of Congress and the executive branch when it would force them
to police the limits of coequal branches’ powers. In such a case, it’s
better for the political branches to work out their differences on
their own—and Congress has tools such as appropriations and impeachment
to deal with an obstinate president.
For this reason, most successful lawsuits have been filed by private
parties that suffered a demonstrable economic injury. A steel company
challenged President Harry Truman’s attempt to nationalize American
steel mills. After members of Congress failed in their lawsuit
challenging the Line Item Veto Act, New York City and a group of
businesses got the Act overturned. And recently, a bottling company
brought down Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor
Relations Board.
Boehner has laid out a plan for suing Obama and other executive branch
officials for their failure to fully implement Obamacare. You may be
wondering why the party that has tried to defund and repeal Obamacare
would sue to get the administration to fully implement that same law.
The answer is pretty simple: the president’s failure to implement the
law “squelches any opportunity to have a robust, political debate about
[its] workability,” as law professor Elizabeth Price Foley pointed out.
Boehner argues that the House can sue (as an institution) if there are
no private parties who can sue, there is harm being done to the general
welfare and faithful execution of the laws, and no legislative remedies
exist. Late last week the House Rules Committee approved a resolution
that would authorize such a lawsuit.
Boehner will face an uphill battle in this lawsuit. But critics should
not be so quick to dismiss this case. The administration and many
others claimed suits challenging Obamacare’s “individual mandate” under
the Commerce Clause were laughable and lacked any merit. (Recall
then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded, “Are you serious?” to someone
asking about Congress’s power to enact the individual mandate.)
But ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed that the individual mandate
could not be justified under the Commerce Clause, and instead turned
the mandate into a tax to uphold it. Boehner’s lawsuit may also
surprise its critics.
Read this and other articles with links at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
