If you do nothing about lawlessness, there is no law.

Via Fox News:

Washington Republicans on Sunday restated their argument that President Obama has violated the Constitution by using executive orders to alter the Affordable Care Act, but acknowledged they likely have no recourse or ability to stop another incident.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told “Fox News Sunday” that congressional Republicans think the president abused the government’s separation of powers by using the executive orders to sidestep Congress and delay the law’s employer mandate.

However, he said critics would have a tough time winning in court because Congress lacks the so-called “legal standing” to present the case and they would have a “tough time” finding somebody hurt enough by the delays to be a good plaintiff.

The president knows this is wrong,” said Lee, among the most outspoken ObamaCare critics. “What gives him the ability to rewrite the law?” [ed. - your failure to do anything in response].

Last week the president, for the second time in about seven months, delayed the employer mandate, which requires medium- and large-sized businesses to offer insurance to employers.

The original Jan. 1, 2014, start for the mandate, which requires businesses with 50 to 99 full-time employees to offer the insurance or face a tax penalty, was delayed in July for one year. On Monday, Obama delayed it until 2016.

Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., defended the president’s actions Sunday, telling “Fox News” that Obama is “making sure laws are written and executed” to help Americans.

He also said that if Obama’s actions “were against the Constitution somebody would have sued him by now.” [ed.- there are multiple lawsuits wending their way through courts now].

Obama has used executive order less than modern U.S. presidents — 167 times so far, compared to 238 for President Carter and 256 for President Reagan.

Still, Lee called Obama’s actions “a shameless act, a shameless power grab.”

http://weaselzippers.us/174254-republica...an-do-about-it/

Zitat

---

However, he said critics would have a tough time winning in court because Congress lacks the so-called “legal standing” to present the case and they would have a “tough time” finding somebody hurt enough by the delays to be a good plaintiff.

---

So a crime isn't a crime if no one personally is hurt? Swell.

I'd like to pose a completely hypothetical situation to others on the board - to help others understand my viewpoint as to where I think we've arrived in 2014 USA - and exactly the kind of demagogue we're dealing with in Zero.

(with the first sentence, you'll see why it's hypothetical)

Suppose we had an opposition party. Suppose further that this opposition party finally found its spine, and held impeachment hearings. Now, let's really go to fantasy land and imagine that Zero is convicted (choose any one of his many un-Constitutional acts). Now comes the time to remove him from office.

What would happen. Would he leave peacefully - of have to be physically escorted from the WH?

I say he would not only refuse to leave (without physical force), but he would milk the situation for all it's worth. He would call his lapdogs in the media to ensure it was covered in all its glory.

He would destroy the country.

That's what we're dealing with.

Pure trash.

When pressed by the BOR in their infamous Super Bowl Sunday dog-and-pony show, King Zero the First compared himself to Nixon (it think the question had something to do with how far left Zero thought he was)

While I'm no Nixon fan - his "wage and price controls" and general expansion of government makes his "conservative" credentials laughable - he (with all his flaws) had ten times the character and honor of Zero.

I cite two examples - the first, in 1960, occurred when he lost a controversial election to JFK. There was credible evidence of vote fraud in Illinois, Texas, and other states - states that ended up in the democrat column. (Democrat vote fraud?? Imagine that!!).

Nixon could have - probably should have - challenged that election. But he didn't - as he stated at the time he did not want to put the country through the potential turmoil.

And then, in '74 when the so-called smoking gun Watergate tape came out and impeachment hearings loomed, Nixon resigned the presidency rather that put the country through a long trial. (One thing to note about that time - Senator Goldwater and several other Republicans made the so-called "long walk" to the WH to convince Nixon that impeachment was imminent, and that he should put the country first and resign). Can anyone - ANYONE - imagine the likes of Reid, Durbin or Schumner actually putting country above Party and making such a walk?)

No, Zero is certainly NOT a Nixon.

Nixon had more character and honor in his little finger . . .