What took them so long? That branch of Government that somehow has forgotten how to govern ...
House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama
by Andrew Rafferty and Alex Moe -- November 21 2014
NBC's Chris Jansing contributed to this report.
[...]
"Time after time, the president has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress. That's not the way our system of government was designed to work,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action."
The suit, filed against the heads of Health and Human Services and Treasury Department, is centered on the White House decision to delay the employer mandate of the health care law and accuses the administration of unlawfully giving $175 billion to insurance companies.
[...]
Republicans say the suit is necessary to protect the Constitution.
Oh really ... Do you mean that "
separations of powers" thing?
Or the fact that the duly-elected Executive of the United States has historically given the Agencies of Government their immediate goals, and centers of focus -- during each Administration?
Executive Orders: Washington - Obama
compiled by Gerhard Peters -- The American Presidency Project -- ucsb.edu
Do you mean those breaches of Constitutional authority, Mr Boehner?
Here are a few more "boring" Constitutional and Historical details on power of the President to issue "Executive Orders" ...
Executive Orders: The Power of the President’s Pen
Posted on December 11, 2008 by Articles
Written by: Kirk Strohman
Researched by: Casey E. Sanders
Edited by: Daniel Kwak
Managing Editor: Mary Anne Nash
[...]
Generally, executive orders don’t get much public visibility. Yet, they represent a significant authority for the president to manage the executive branch departments and agencies – both in organization and policy. Because a president acts alone when signing an executive order, the system has room for potential abuse. Congress and the courts can stop presidents that go too far, but history shows that this rarely happens. Most often, it is up to future presidents to reverse or adjust the policies of executive orders he or she doesn’t agree with. In a time where the current administration has pushed executive power to its furthest, executive orders are a legal tool the public should take notice of.
Article II: Power to the POTUS
An executive order (E.O.) is one type of a presidential directive. Article II of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t mention executive orders, but it does provide an expansive mandate in stating that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President….” This is a broad grant of power and is the basis for presidents’ power to invoke executive orders. The orders are laws of “of general applicability and legal effect.” The term “executive order” was not a part of the political lexicon until 1862, when such orders where formalized by a counting system beginning with “1” (President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 on October 31, 2008). A signed order is published in the Federal Register and generally remains in effect until superseded by another order, although some orders are written to expire at a prescribed time.
[...]
What is an Executive Order?
thisnation.com
[...]
A Brief History and Examples
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).
Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.
[...]
Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. [...] When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.
[...]
In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. [...]
Funny that the current GOP suit
focuses on the technicalities of the ACA and methodologies of the IRS --
when it's the Republican anger at the EO on Immigration enforcement policies, that has caused the fleckless GOP to file suit.
What is the GOP's plan on Immigration enforcement by the way -- besides the much quoted policy of their last standard bearer: "Self-Deportation"?
If that is the extent of GOP's "legislative intent" -- then the INS really does need some "Executive Directions" for what to focus on, given their limited resources, and diverse missions.
Or we could wait for those fictional 'emperor powers' of the Speaker of the House -- to finally magically appear ... and somehow they manage to "Pass a Bill." GOP Poison-wells, and Poison-pills, notwithstanding.