REPORT: PRELIMINARY DECISION ON U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES’ LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS EXPECTED
by Sharon Rondeau
When it was first introduced, House Res. 442 had approximately 50 cosponsors. Five days later, it had 119 cosponsors, some of whom are no longer in Congress.
Rice’s intent was to file a lawsuit against Obama for allegedly violating his obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” contained in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. “…Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress,” Rice wrote on January 18, 2014.
One month later, MSNBC called the resolution “silly,” a “manufactured outrage” and a reaction to “an imaginary crisis” under the title of “‘STOP’ resolution gains GOP backing.”
Since that date, Rice has provided several updates on his website on the progress of the lawsuit, including an announcement that the House of Representatives voted to approve the lawsuit in July 2014 and that a hearing date of May 28, 2015 was set to hear oral argument as to whether or not the lower Congressional chamber had the standing to sue.
On July 24, 2014, The Heritage Foundation published an essay opining that suing “Obama for his unilateral actions will be an uphill battle.” Six days later, the measure was approved by all House Republicans except five, and no Democrats, as House Res. 676, concentrating on “the two executive orders Obama issued to delay the health insurance mandate for small businesses, a provision which was included in the 2010 health care law.”
In 2012, the Obama regime was sued by ICE agents over a “switch” in immigration policy through “a directive” which the agents claimed violated federal law and the authority of Congress.
That same month, CBS News quoted a College of William & Mary law professor as having said that even if Obama was not enforcing the law, “individuals just aren’t harmed — at least not in a concrete way” as a result. Family members of those murdered by illegal aliens during the Obama years might disagree, given that the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws has reportedly been significantly diminished since 2009.
Obama’s reaction to the House lawsuit was to call it “a stunt.”
In a newsletter published on Sunday, Rice provided an update on the status of the case, stating that “the lawsuit has the potential to reset the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch to that outlined in the Constitution and return balance to our government.”
The mainstream media does not appear to have covered the suit widely beyond its inception last summer. While several attorneys declined to represent the plaintiffs, well-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed to do so three days before Obama announced his planned executive actions proposing to allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country under certain conditions.
“It is a great honor to represent the House of Representatives. We are prepared to litigate this matter as far as necessary. The question presented by this lawsuit is whether we will live in a system of shared and equal powers, as required by our Constitution, or whether we will continue to see the rise of a dominant Executive with sweeping unilateral powers. That is a question worthy of review and resolution in our federal courts,” Turley wrote in his announcement to serve as lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the case.
Rice’s full statement from the newsletter on the status of the lawsuit reads:
Do you remember the STOP Resolution?
President Obama has frequently overstepped the limits placed on the executive branch by the Constitution. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Unfortunately, President Obama has chosen time and time again to ignore some of the laws written by Congress.
Last year, a lawsuit was filed by the House of Representatives against President Obama for unilaterally changing Obamacare, and the ruling on whether this suit has standing is expected to be decided in the next few weeks. This lawsuit is based off of similar legislation that I introduced in December of 2013, the STOP Resolution, which calls for the House to institute legal action to require the President to comply with the law. After a majority of the Republican majority supported the resolution, House leadership filed a case, listing one of the claims in the STOP Resolution. The lawsuit has the potential to reset the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch to that outlined in the Constitution and return balance to our government. I am optimistic that the federal district court will conclude that this argument does, in fact, have standing.
This week, the Los Angeles Times published an article titled House lawsuit against Obama is turning into a real problem for the president, which discusses how the lawsuit is gaining steam. Click HERE to read the article.
Other than those quoting from and providing commentary relative to The Los Angeles Times’s article, this writer was unable to find any mainstream media covering the lawsuit currently, on which The Times reported U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer is expected to soon render a decision on the government’s motion to dismiss.
While the House has pursued the challenge of Obama’s alleged executive overreach under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, no member of Congress has expressed a desire to probe his constitutional qualifications as set forth in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the same document requiring the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen.” Similarly, Congress failed to launch an investigation into the reported forgeries of Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form by the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse first revealed on March 1, 2012.
The media has also failed to investigate the claims.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, who commissioned the posse’s investigation nearly four years ago, has been instructed by a federal judge not to deploy deputies with the specific intention of enforcing federal immigration law within the county.
An aspect of a lawsuit currently at the U.S. Supreme Court filed by a former and current presidential candidate claiming financial injury from Obama’s alleged ineligible candidacy will be reviewed on September 28.
In June of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Obama’s several appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), said to have been made while the Senate was in recess, were unconstitutional.