Regardless of where a person stands politically on the issue of suing President Obama over his failure to execute the law, these facts are not in dispute: the 2010 Affordable Care Act required that the employer mandate take effect at the start of this year. It did not. That is a violation of the law.
Again, no one is disputing this. However, the political Left is making the argument that House Speaker John Boehner does not have the right to sue President Obama in court with the argument that “standing” doctrine does not apply. This is a legal requirement that plaintiffs must prove that they were directly harmed by the actions of the defendant.
That is an interesting take on the subject of faithfully executing the law. Aside from the fact that the Left would have thrown a fit had President George W. Bush eschewed executing select laws claiming his actions were above legal reproach because they didn’t harm anyone, it is problematic in and of itself. Does the sitting president have the right to arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce and when to enforce them?
At what point does he have to obey the law because he is bound to do so like everyone else? Is he in fact above the law?
His supporters are unwittingly making the case that he is indeed just that: above the law. While both sides can make the case for the applicability of the “standing” doctrine, President Obama violated the law as presently constituted. That simple fact is the basis of the Boehner lawsuit.