Republicans suggest resolution condemning Obama for violating Constitution
January 29, 2014
During the State of the Union, Obama made it abundantly clear Congress and the American people are irrelevant. Early on in the address, Obama threatened to rule by supreme diktat. “Whenever and wherever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that is what I am going to do,” he said, trashing the principles of constitutional government.
“I’ll act on my own,” he declared.
Texas Republican Steve Stockman walked out of the SOTU early on. “I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” Stockman said. “This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense.”
Other House Republicans chimed in. “Unfortunately, what I heard from President Obama tonight was hostility toward our foundational principles, condescension toward a co-equal branch of government, and a general aversion to common sense and bipartisanship,” said Rep. Raúl Labrador of Idaho.
“The president’s attempt to intimidate Congress by abusing executive power demonstrates a serious unwillingness to work with the coequal legislative branch of government,” Republican Rep. Gregg Harper of Mississippi added.
“This threat that the president is going to run the government with an ink pen and executive orders, we’ve never had a president with that level of audacity and that level of contempt for his own oath of office,” Rep. Steve King said prior to Obama’s address. The Iowa congressman said “it’s Congress’s job to pass the laws. He knows that. And we need to take our oath seriously and defend the Constitution.”
He based his comments on remarks made by White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, who said that “rather than sit and wait for Congress to take action, we’re going to go ahead and roll out on our own, using the president’s authority.”
King told CNN “this Congress should lay out the violations that the president has had. And there are many.” He said a resolution may be brought to the House floor disapproving Obama’s behavior and “that lists all of his constitutional violations, or at least the clearest ones – there are very many, I don’t know that if we’d ever get to all,” he said.
Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota also suggested action against the president. “If he wants to move forward with this unilateral activity, he better be prepared for the lawsuit that the United States Congress will bring to him,” she said. “He may think he’s king, he may declare he’s a king, but that’s not what he is under the constitution.”
A majority of Republicans, however, are cool to the idea of impeachment. “Out of the nearly 280 Republican lawmakers conducting town halls during the August  recess, the Left found four who discussed impeachment, none of whom advocated for it,” writes Andrew Stiles. He said “the GOP has no appetite for seriously pursuing impeachment.”
In December, King criticized fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee for refusing to say the word. He said impeachment is “the word that we don’t like to say in this committee, and I’m not about to utter here in this particular hearing.”
In the Democrat controlled Senate there is even less of an appetite to discuss impeachment. “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate,” noted Rep. Blake Farenthold, a Texas Republican.
During a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee in December, Republicans enumerated actions Obama has taken that exceed his authority.
“Examples included bombing Libya without congressional authorization,”The Columbus Dispatch reported, “delaying implementation of some provisions of Obamacare; waiving immigration restrictions to enable children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States; easing federal drug enforcement in states that have legalized the medicinal or recreational use of marijuana; ending mandatory-minimum prison sentences for some drug offenses; and permitting the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize conservative organizations’ applications for non-profit, tax-exempt status.”