I'm not sure how old this article is but I was looking up the topic and came across it, liked it and thought I'd post it here... ************* Eric Holder’s speech on the enforcement of mandatory minimum sentences is the latest installment in a long line of ways the Obama administration has attempted to side step Congress. Holder asked the American Bar Association to use their prosecutorial discretion to reduce the frequency of filing charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes. This is a large diversion from the normal policy of prosecutors going for the highest provable offense. This administrative “request” to not enforce certain laws based on policy priorities is not the first, nor is it the most troubling. When the Obama Administration decided to delay the employer mandate section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), it was in direct conflict with the text of Section 1513(d) which states, “The Amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” Shall is a word that carries some serious legal weight. It does not mean that the Administration will do its best or take it under advisement. It means that the provision is completely mandatory. <snip> With Obama’s ever present rhetoric about the ineptitude of Congress, this selective enforcement of the law is even more troubling. In one speech Obama said, “So where I can act on my own, I’m going to act on my own. I won’t wait for Congress.” In another speech he stated, “We’re going to do everything we can, with or without Congress.” Judging by his track record, he has a very broad definition of what he can do without Congress. Unless Congress, the Judiciary, and the people of America push back, the position of president will continue to accrue power antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution.
******************* Christianity teaches to share what we have earned, the "cheerful giver" model. Christianity: It's mine but I choose to give away Socialism: What's yours should be mine
ZitatThe line of separation gets even fuzzier when you consider the “unitary executive theory” used by President George W. Bush and increasingly embraced by the Obama administration. Under this theory, executive power is exclusively reserved to the president. Therefore, any attempt to limit the president’s control over the executive branch is unconstitutional. The theory claims the executive has full authority over foreign relations, military affairs, national security, intelligence policy, presidential appointment, and full supervisory powers over the agencies of the executive branch.
Presidential signing statements used extensively by both Bush and Obama implement this theory and are texts explaining the president’s view on legislation he is signing into law. They clarify any ambiguity in the law and identify any parts of the bill that the president believes to be unconstitutional. Some argue that Bush used these statements in similar ways to the line item veto, ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York. Under the Bush administration, parts of laws that the president found unconstitutional under the framework of unitary executive theory were ignored.
The Obama administration has taken this further in two ways. First, instead of only using these legal justifications on laws being signed in by the current administration, the Obama administration has made rulings on laws signed under previous administrations, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). President Obama instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending section 3 of DOMA because they deemed it unconstitutional. Secondly, the Obama administration seems to be using this selective enforcement for pure policy reasons, without any unconstitutional justification. This can be seen in the unilateral administrative changes to PPACA implementation.