House of Representatives Votes (Repubs Yes, Dems No) To Authorize Suing President Obama Over His Executive Orders Delaying/Temporarily Suspending Parts of "Obamacare" As Enacted
(July 30, 2014) -- As seen LIVE earlier today (July 30) on LBREPORT.com, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 225-201 on a near-party-line vote (tally here) to approve a House Repub-written resolution (text here) that now authorizes the House to sue President Obama over his actions in implementating, and not implementing parts of, the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare.") Using Presidential "Executive Orders," Presidenti Obama has granted "waivers" and/or delayed implementation of parts of the law [until after the 2014 election cycle.] The President's actions have infuriated Republicans who opposed the law from its inception but now want it enforced fully as written so voters will fully experience its mandatory provisions and hold Dems accountable who voted for those provisions.
During the 2012 election cycle, President Obama, and multiple Dems supporting him, repeatedly told voters [various formulations] that "if you like your health insurance, you can keep it," a claim that sizable groups of consumers have since learned isn't true for them and their families.
Local Dem Congressmembers Alan Lowenthal, Linda Sanchez and Janice Hahn voted "no" on the resolution challenging the President's actions. OC Repubs Dana Rohrabacher and Ed Royce voted "yes."
[Scroll down for further]
In floor debate on the underlying rule governing debate on the resolution, Cong. Hahn was among several House members who lined up, one by one, and moved that the House grant "unanimous consent" -- which obviously wasn't going to happen -- to consider a package of Dem bills (including raising the minimum wage.)
Each Dem recited a verbatim phrase that the Dem bills are "to jump start the middle class instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President." The Repub presiding speaker routinely denied each of the requests, one by one, and this process went on for about ten minutes before Dems abandoned it.
The vote on the resolution followed intense debate in which House Repubs charged that the President's actions are "inconsistent with [his] duties under the constitution" to enforce the country's laws. Several House Repubs accused the President of trying to exercise "king"-like powers that he doesn't have in waiving or temporarily suspending parts of the Dem-backed law [until after Nov. 2014 elections] that the law itself says "shall" take effect by certain dates [in 2013] and Repubs said they were upholding the constitution's separation of powers and powers that reside with the the legislative branch, not the President.
House Dems variously blasted the Repub action, called it a waste of time, a political stunt, said it had no legal merit and was an attempt to lay the groundwork for a future impeachment resolution. Some Dems affirmatively stated that the President had the right to take the actions that he's taken in what they called a "co-equal" branch of government. Republicans countered that Congress legislates while the President (Executive Branch) carries out what Congress legislates, not (as Dems charged) re-write the laws.
And so it went.
Apart from the obvious partisan issues, what took place was a worthy civics lesson on checks and balances and powers, in this case the power of Congress to enact laws vs. the power of the President to carry them out.
The House currently has a Repub majority after multiple Dem House members were voted out in the first election after a Dem-majority House and Senate enacted Obamacare. The Senate is currently in Dem majority hands with one third of its members of for election in November 2014...with some seats in especially fierce battles that could decide Dem or Repub control of that body. [If the House were to subsequently vote a bill of impeachment (as it did for President Clinton on other grounds), the impeachment trial would be held in the Senate.]
