Committee Hearing on Executive Action Rep.Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) used Article 2, section 3 of the US Constitution as a reference, when addressing the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, in a recent hearing concerning the President’s continued use of Executive actions. The Constitutional article states, “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” in which Goodlatte and other members of the committee voiced their concerns weren’t being represented by President Obama. The article, “Congress urged to challenge Obama’s executive actions” in The Washington Post Politics Weekly Edition, focuses on what was discussed at the House Judiciary Committee hearing that was held recently. The article reveals a Republican majority House dissatisfied with Obama and his political actions, while also giving some insight to expanded presidential power and Congress committees. The text book, The Challenge of Democracy, helps further analyze the lawmaking process, roles, separation of powers, and checks and balances between the legislative and Executive branch and why they’re important.
The Washington Post article explains how the House Judiciary Committee brought legal experts to the hearing to convey a message of “tough love” about the subject on “Enforcing the Presidents Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws” (Fahrenthold). The experts and scholars used examples of past incidences where President Obama altered the implementation of existing laws. One example used by the experts was Obama’s 2012 announcement that the US would not seek to deport some illegal immigrants that were brought into this country as children (Fahrenthold). While the US constitution states specific powers the President has, there are also powers that are not clearly specified. The Challenge of Democracy explains that presidential power has expanded as Presidents have exercised their specific constitutional responsibilities. Obama’s 2012 announcement the experts used as example shows the President issuing an executive order by modifying a law without the direct approval of Congress. Executive orders aren’t explicitly granted in the Constitution but many Presidents use them for what is best for the nation (Janda et al. 331). Although the article mainly focuses on the legal experts and House Republicans speaking negatively of Obama and his administration, it also discusses four new bills that are trying to be passed. The bills would ultimately limit the Presidents power to alter a law that is already in the books (Fahrenthold). Essentially, these bills are trying to be passed to assure that the US government continues to practice separation of power and checks and balances in which the framers of the Constitution had intended. Separation of powers protects liberty by ensuring all government power doesn’t fall onto a single person or group of people. Checks and balances is a structure for government that gives each individual branch control over the others (Janda et al. 64). Although these two principles are distinct, they are both necessary to make sure that one branch doesn’t take over the whole government. The experts and committee members fear the Executive branch is taking over and not exercising separation of powers and checks and balances effectively. In the article, Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University states at the hearing “If you want to stay relevant as an institution, I would suggest that you not stand idly and let the President take your power away”(Fahrenthold).
The article reflects some significant aspects of Congress and the power that lies in the committees. Since the majority of the article was written in detail to what happened at a House Judiciary Committee, it gives the reader some insight to committees and perhaps why they’re important. The House and Senate are divided into committees; to develop and use expertise in specific areas. Other members of Congress depend
