WASHINGTON - Constitutional lawyers backing a planned House Republican lawsuit against President Barack Obama told a congressional committee Wednesday that the action is justified because Obama has exceeded his powers in carrying out his health care law.
Attorneys allied with Democrats in opposing the election-year suit said it's the GOP that's going too far by trying to resolve a political dispute by handing the question to the courts to decide.
The lawyers appeared Wednesday before the House Rules Committee, which is considering Republican-written legislation authorizing the House to file the lawsuit. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he wants to take the legal action because Republicans believe Obama went too far when he delayed the health care law's requirement that many employers provide health coverage for their workers.
In recent months, Republicans have attacked Obama for taking actions like having the Environmental Protection Agency curb emissions from coal-fired power plants, raising the minimum wage for federal contractors and blocking the deportation of children illegally brought into the U.S. by their parents. GOP lawmakers say their lawsuit is simply an attempt to defend Congress' powers against a president who they say has made a habit of acting unilaterally to carry out his personal policy preferences.
"This is not a political issue. This is not an issue that should pit Republicans against Democrats," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, the Rules Committee chairman.
"Any person interested in our Constitution and our brilliant system of separation of powers should be worried about what is currently happening in our country," Sessions said.
Democrats mocked the legal action as a purely political exercise that is doomed to failure but aimed at appeasing conservatives who want to see Obama impeached. The Rules committee's top Democrat, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, called it "preposterous" and noted that in effect Republicans are filing suit over a delay in a part of a law that every GOP lawmaker opposed and that the House has voted about 50 times to repeal or pare back.
"This is a partisan political stunt timed to peak in the House of Representatives in November, right as the midterm elections are happening," Slaughter said. "The House majority is suing the president simply for doing his job."
The House is expected to vote on the resolution allowing the chamber to file a lawsuit before it leaves for its August recess.
On Wednesday, each party invited a pair of law professors to testify and defend their positions.
"You not only have a right but a deep obligation to protect" Congress powers, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who was invited by Republicans to testify, told the committee. "It is not a political question when this body goes to court and says the president has exceeded his authority."
Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University, disputed Democratic claims that the lawsuit was invalid in the first place because Obama has not infringed on Congress' powers to pass laws. She said Republicans have "an excellent chance" of winning a dispute over the meaning of the constitutional provision that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
That was countered by attorney Simon Lazarus of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a Democratic witness who said the Constitution gives presidents authority to make reasonable and needed adjustments as laws are translated into government action.
"Exercising presidential judgment in carrying out laws into execution is precisely what the Constitution requires," said Lazarus. He said GOP claims that Obama has exceeded his powers "import the Constitution into what are, in reality, political and policy debates."
Attorney Walter Dellinger warned that having the courts settle disputes when the president doesn't administer a law the way the House wants "would be an unprecedented aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary."
"Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected branches of government should be rejected," Dellinger said.