Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues said so eloquently during last week's Judiciary markup on this bill, that the majority's attempts to turn routine exercises of Presidential discretion into constitutional violations is nothing but a show and a pretext to attack the President of the United States.

The hearing we had reminded me of a Woody Allen saying in a movie called Bananas. Acting as Fielding Mellish, he said this is ``a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.'' That is what this bill is, that is what that hearing was, and that is what this proceeding is.

H.R. 4138 would establish a process by which one House of Congress could sue the President when it determines the President failed to faithfully execute a law--one House, not two Houses. They talk about the separation of powers.

The separation of powers is executive and legislative, and legislative is Senate and House. The House originates spending bills, and the Senate confirms judges and things like that.

There was some discussion yesterday, and the chairman brought up a situation where the Senate went to the court on an issue concerning some appointments, which the Senate had exclusive jurisdiction on, but it is when they had exclusive jurisdiction.

In situations where there is a bill passed and the Senate and the House coshare equally, unless the Senate and the House both want to act, it is not separation of powers; it is one House trying to act as a star Chamber to take down the President of the United States.

This bill would, if enacted, represent a massive upending of the carefully calibrated separation of powers of our Constitution--one House, not the two Houses of Congress acting.

One of the gentleman who tried to defend this law in Rules Committee talked about something in Florida. Well, Florida, whatever they have got, they have got some kind of situation; but that was a quo warranto action where the Governor was acting beyond his authority, ultra vires.

It wasn't where the President is acting within his authority in his discretion and determining what is the best way to act, a difference between taking action and not taking action and taking action you are authorized not to take and taking action you are authorized to take. They didn't defend their position once correctly.

Congress lacks the standing to sue, and Mr. Conyers has brought that up. Standing requirements are necessary. Also, by drafting Federal Courts into deciding what are essentially political questions, the bill further upsets that separation of powers.

Questions about when and how to implement and enforce laws are within the President's discretion as the Take Care Clause makes clear. It is the President's duty alone to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not the courts' and not Congress'. The courts rightly avoid involving themselves of disputes between the branches on questions of how law is executed. This bill flies in the face of such.

Ultimately, though, this bill and the larger debate surrounding it have nothing to do with the finer points of constitutional law. That is a red herring. It is a part of a broader attempt by Republicans to delegitimize anything that this President, Barack Obama, does.

Here, the majority complains, among other things, about the fact the President delayed implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, like the employer mandates for medium and large businesses. The Rolling Stones had a song, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you get what you need.

With the Affordable Care Act, they got what they wanted and what the President thought the country needed. Now, they are against it, holding the President up to ridicule and claiming it is the process, even though they are in agreement with the substance.

In Yiddish, that is called chutzpah; in law, it is called estoppel. In a Congress, it is called not being able to take yes for an answer.

I find it odd that this is what they choose to emphasize, that this President is acting in an allegedly unconstitutional way to undermine his own signature legislation.

It shows the depths of what Dana Milbank referred to as Obama derangement syndrome, where the President's opponents are so determined to thwart him, they will say anything, including reversing their own long-held views, if they believe doing so will weaken his stature.

This is unfortunate because President Obama has led where this Republican House has failed on immigration reform, on financial reform, on environmental protection, on the minimum wage, and, yes, on health care.

The thanks President Obama gets from this majority for his efforts to implement and enforce the laws as thoughtfully as he could is to be accused of violating the Constitution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source