Dr. Paul Gosar Calls President’s Abortion Deal Unconstitutional
FLAGSTAFF – Today, Dr. Paul Gosar called out President Obama for the unconstitutional Executive Order he used as a bargaining tool to persuade Democrats to vote for his national health care legislation.
“It is a disgrace when the President of the United States resorts to unconstitutional acts in order to pass legislation,” said Dr. Paul Gosar. “When his executive order is declared unconstitutional all Members of Congress who voted for nationalized health care, including Ann Kirpatrick, will have voted for federal funding of abortions. I am vehemently opposed to this legislation and the federal funding of abortions.”
Questions have started to surface whether the President can, by executive order, stop a lawfully authorized expenditure program enacted by Congress by an Executive Order. The most constitutional method for a President to strike a piece of legislation is by veto.
“President Obama should simply veto this provision if he truly does not want federal money to be used for abortions,” stated Dr. Paul Gosar.
BACKGROUND ON EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Executive Orders are temporary. The President can sign it today, and revoke it tomorrow. Indeed, upon taking office, President Obama revoked several executive orders signed by President Bush.
More importantly, Presidential Executive Orders have traditionally been used only in time of national emergency, such as President Lincoln's executive orders shutting down certain newspapers and suspending the right of habeus corpus for prisoners. President Roosevelt used an Executive Order to intern over 100,000 Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Assuming Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt acted constitutionally (many question whether they did) where is the national emergency here? This is a simple domestic policy issue. There is no war from a foreign country and there is no civil war and there is no emergency. In this circumstance, Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
So the question remains: Did Congressman Stupak and the other pro-live Democrats get duped? To be constitutional, Presidential Executive Orders have to be enacted pursuant to a provision of the Constitution or pursuant to a Congressional delegation of power, that is, from Congress to the President. Here, Obama's Executive Order purports to contravene Congressional intent, not further it. Again, the method to stop legislation is by veto, not Executive Order.
The U.S. Supreme Court overruled President Truman's use of the Executive Order (EO# 10340) in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952), whereby President Truman nationalized all the country's steel mills because that order "made law" as opposed to acting pursuant to law. Here, if Congress authorizes federally paid abortions, how can an Executive Order constitutionally countermand that law? And if it can, why have Congress at all?