On the recordDecember 4, 2014
We are hearing a lot of feigned outrage from the other side, but I want to point out a few things. Number one, it was the President himself who said, over 20 times, why this action is illegal. I would invite the Democrats to read his remarks. There are over 20 different instances of it. Number two, they talk about prosecutorial discretion, and this is okay, but as I understand it, you have that discretion when you run out of money and maybe you can't implement a finer point of a law, something that you are prosecuting. It doesn't mean you change the law. I would invite the Democrats who think that we disproportionately pick on this President, I would invite them to look at the 1950s case during the Truman administration in which President Truman nationalized the steel business by executive order in order to avoid a strike. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found on a 6-3 vote that you could not change the law of such magnitude by executive order, and that was not a case of picking on poor little old Harry Truman. It was a case of standing up for the United States Constitution. I would also like to invite the Democrats to look at the lawsuit that 17 States have now joined in saying that the President has violated article II, section 3, the part of the Constitution that talks about taking care to execute the laws, which this President seems to think is a pick-and-choose operation run out of his political office.…
