“The rule of law can be wiped out in one misguided, however well-intentioned, generation.” William T.Gossett
In the latest example of a disturbing trend, this week the Obama administration announced that it would entertain the granting of waivers to states desiring to ignore the core principle of the Welfare reform enacted during the Clinton presidency; that being the work requirement. In 1996 the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families bill was passed. Known simply as “Welfare Reform”, it incentivized the states to create “welfare to work” programs to help transition people from government dependency to productive financial independence. The principle behind it was that able-bodied individuals should not make welfare a career choice, and that they should be required to at least be moving toward a path that would lead to financial self sufficiency. The states quickly found loopholes in the statute claiming such activities as journaling, bed rest, motivational reading, or helping friends and family with household tasks or errands fulfilled the “work requirement” in the legislation. In 2005, over the objections of then Senator Obama, Congress closed a lot of those loopholes. Now, following similar actions on drug law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and immigration law enforcement, the Obama administration has put the country on notice that it will not necessarily enforce a law it doesn’t like.
Let’s face it, law enforcement always prioritizes what laws it sees fit to treat with preferred importance, but this goes far beyond that. This moves the rule of law into the realm of “legislated suggestions”. If a law does not meet with the President’s approval, he will informally veto that law, and that type of veto cannot be overturned. That is a prerogative normally not associated with the role of president, but more often exercised by emperors and dictators. Lest you think I am overstating the administration’s intent, consider the words of Deputy Attorney General Anita Bath explaining that a comprehensive review of Federal laws is underway to determine which laws the administration wants enforced:
“Be assured that this President, unlike previous Presidents, will not enforce laws just because Congress passed them. Any law that President Obama or his cabinet considers unconstitutional, poorly conceived, unfortunate or misguided will not be supported. This President will not be swayed by public opinion, court rulings or Congressional dictates. The American people hired him to change America fundamentally, and in order to do that he must act independently and with great courage.”
While I do not begrudge any President the right to criticize or disagree with any law, it is ultimately his constitutional duty to enforce that law until it is overturned. If Congress desires to remain a co-equal branch of the Federal government, they will need to use the power of the purse to put a halt to this usurpation of power by the Executive branch. There is no humility in an administration that believes it is the final authority for determining the validity of all laws. In such an administration there are no laws, only orders and edicts.
IMHO: Hope and Change was a great slogan for a campaign, but if Ms. Bath’s proclamation is an accurate representation of what President Obama meant by changing America fundamentally, then the dream of Hope and Change is looking more like a nightmare, and I think it might be time to wake up. The virtual veto of laws the administration rejects is outrageous, and resembles more the actions of a third world dictator than the constitutionally defined role of the President of the United States. After the first Constitutional Convention Ben Franklin was asked what form of Government had been created for the country. His response was, “A republic, if you can keep it”. Republics are ever at the peril of dissolving into tyranny, even in one generation. If Congress, and ultimately the people, permit this to continue “Hail to the Chief” may soon need to be replaced with “Hail Caesar”.
