Now why, do you think, would a column like this one make the heir apparent at our local monopoly newspaper uncomfortable?
Here's a hint from the conclusion:
The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush's so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reasons of mere policy -- the reason for every Obama violation listed above.
Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what's left of the law?
Perhaps Blethen doesn't want you to read that column (and others like it) because it might make you think politically incorrect thoughts. And such thoughts are almost never welcome at the Seattle Times.Posted by Jim Miller at August 16, 2013 05:27 AM | Email This