The House lawsuit: Necessary & proper
Democrats have turned up the reverb on their talking points echo machine now that the GOP-led U.S. House has voted to file a lawsuit against President Obama for exceeding his constitutional authority.
The White House taunted Republicans, promising more “executive action,” not bothering to mention that the lawsuit will target Mr. Obama's extra-constitutional suspension of key ObamaCare provisions. Before the vote, Obama, attempting to deflect attention away from his lawlessness, implored Republicans to “stop just hatin' all the time.”
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ever the astute fundraiser, called the lawsuit a precursor to the impeachment that it isn't. But then she unintentionally spoke a questioning truth: “Why would you sue somebody unless you want to prove something?”
Indeed. As former Justice Department official David Rivkin and Florida International University constitutional scholar Elizabeth Price Foley wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “The lawsuit is necessary to protect the Constitution's separation of powers, a core means of protecting individual liberty. Without a judicial check on unbounded executive power to suspend the law, this president and all who follow him will have a powerful new weapon to destroy political accountability and democracy itself.”
Here's to the courts restoring both.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Sunday pops
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Radar searches: Get a warrant
- U.N. Watch: Somalia aid sieve