If lawmakers object to Sessions' Cole decision, they should amend our laws
Members of the U.S. House fell over each other during the Obama administration calling on the executive branch to enforce the law. After all, the Constitution tells us that Congress makes the law while the executive branch enforces the law.
So naturally, House members sounded the alarm when President Obama’s EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, expanding the scope of the Clean Air Act, to advance the war on coal.
And then we raised a red flag when the president’s deferred action programs deviated from the letter of the law on immigration.
And of course, we argued that the Waters of the U.S. regulation went beyond the scope of the Clean Water Rule.
And then delays of the employer mandate and numerous other Obamacare tweaks made it impossible for anyone to prepare for the onslaught of changes ushered in by the new health care law, which members of Congress duly reminded Americans.
And then the president’s Department of Justice issued guidance to federal prosecutors to decline enforcing the full scope of federal marijuana laws. Many House members, again, cried foul — we are a country of laws, after all.
And so, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Obama-era guidance, enabling DOJ prosecutors to fully enforce federal law relating to marijuana, you would think that House members would rejoice. Finally, a president and attorney general who follow the letter of the law.
But instead, many of my colleagues have condemned the attorney general’s actions, eager to toss aside basic constitutional principles simply because they disagree with the impact of adhering to the laws passed by Congress.
We should not selectively enforce laws in this country. The rule of law assures fairness and equitable treatment while providing certainty and consistency. A law cannot be enforced in one state but not another