TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

The House lawsuit: Necessary & proper

Daily Photo Galleries

Thursday, July 31, 2014, 8:55 p.m.
 

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

Most-Read Editorials

  1. Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
  2. An independent Scotland? Think again
  3. Greensburg Tuesday takes
  4. Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
  5. Drilling laws: Your rights
  6. Ban felon-lobbyists? A better idea
  7. Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
  8. U.N. Watch: The aid ingrates
  9. A misdialed number suggests a criminal conspiracy in the IRS scandal
  10. Saturday essay: Saving Catalpa
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.