ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014

The ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014 (H.R. 4138) is a bill that would give the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate both the standing to sue the President of the United States in a federal district court to clarify a federal law (that is, seek a declaratory judgment) in the event that the executive branch is not enforcing the law.[1][2] Under the bill, appeals to a court’s decisions could be reviewed directly by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014
Full titleTo protect the separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States by ensuring that the President takes care that the laws be faithfully executed, and for other purposes.
Colloquial name(s)Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014
Introduced in113th United States Congress
Introduced onMarch 4, 2014
Sponsored byRep. Trey Gowdy (R, SC-4)
Number of co-sponsors22
Effects and codifications
U.S.C. section(s) affected28 U.S.C. § 2284, 28 U.S.C. § 2202, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Agencies affectedSupreme Court of the United States, Executive Office of the President
Legislative history

The bill passed in the House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress.

Provisions of the bill

This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Research Service, a public domain source.[3]

The Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014 or the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014 would authorize either chamber of Congress, upon adoption of a resolution declaring that the President of the United States or any officer or employee of the United States has established or implemented a policy, practice, or procedure to refrain from enforcing, applying, following, or administering any federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law in violation of the constitutional requirement that the President faithfully execute the laws of the United States, to bring a civil action for a declaratory judgment to that effect.[3]

The bill would grant jurisdiction to a three-judge panel of a U.S. district court to hear such civil action and provides for an expedited direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[3]

Congressional Budget Office report

This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Budget Office, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 5, 2014. This is a public domain source.[1]

H.R. 4138 would authorize each chamber (through a resolution or joint resolution) to file a civil action in a federal district court to clarify a federal law (that is, seek a declaratory judgment). Under the bill, appeals to a court’s decisions could be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that implementing the legislation would have no significant impact on the federal budget because any amounts expended for court costs or litigation could also be spent under current law on similar activities. Enacting H.R. 4138 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.[1]

H.R. 4138 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.[1]

Procedural history

The Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014 or the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014 was introduced into the United States House of Representatives on March 4, 2014 by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R, SC-4).[4] The bill was referred to the United States House Committee on the Judiciary and the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. On March 7, 2014 it was reported alongside House Report 113-377. On March 7, 2014, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced that H.R. 4138 would be considered on March 12 or 13, 2014.[5] On March 12, 2014, the House voted in Roll Call Vote 124 to pass the bill 233-181.[4]

Despite its passage in the House, the bill was not expected to pass in the Senate.[2] On March 12, 2014, President Barack Obama announced that he would veto H.R. 4138 if it was sent to him.[6]

Debate and discussion

House Republicans argued that the bill was necessary because the Obama Administration refused to enforce the laws.[7] The Republicans pointed to changes and delays he'd made with regards to the ACA, his past decisions not to deport children of illegal immigrants, his uneven enforcement of marijuana laws, and his treatment of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which Republicans often claimed he had refused to enforce.[2][7] Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that "throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn't get his way." Majority Leader Eric Cantor said that "the president's dangerous search for expanded powers appears to be endless."[7]

gollark: They're probably being dumped into some big NSA data centre too, given PRISM.
gollark: There are thousands of people there who could have access to them!
gollark: Google is a big company!
gollark: Again, *why do you actually trust them*?
gollark: Also browser history and stuff.

See also

Notes/References
  1. "H.R. 4138 - CBO". Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  2. Kiefer, Francine (12 March 2014). "Can House Republicans make Obama enforce laws?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  3. "H.R. 4138 - Summary". United States Congress. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  4. "H.R. 4138 - All Actions". United States Congress. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  5. "Leader's Weekly Schedule - Week of March 10, 2014" (PDF). House Majority Leader's Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2014. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
  6. "Statement of Administrative Policy on H.R. 4138" (PDF). Executive Office of the President. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  7. Associated Press (12 March 2014). "House backs bill to sue president over laws". Washington Post. Retrieved 13 March 2014.

 This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Government.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.