[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2893-2894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to challenge this body, and I hope 
that my message is well received. This Nation was founded on the rules 
of the Constitution, not the opinions of Republicans and Democrats. Our 
decisions are judged in the light of the traditions of the past and the 
precedent that it sets for the future and the future generation.
  Mr. Speaker, according to our Constitution, a President cannot pick 
and choose which parts of the law he prefers. The executive branch does 
not write the law nor choose the law. It enforces the law. The basic 
function of every President is to enforce the law. Every executive 
branch agency has its foundation in a short and clear statement from 
the Constitution stating this: He--that means the President--shall take 
care that the law be faithfully executed.
  A President can petition for laws to be changed. He can complain 
about a law. He can encourage passage of new law. But he cannot just 
ignore the law or write new law. Only the courts can

[[Page 2894]]

throw out a law, and only Congress can write a law. The President and 
the Department of Justice cannot unilaterally decide not to enforce the 
Defense of Marriage Act.
  For decades, the Congress has been donating their constitutional 
powers to the executive branch by giving increased rulemaking authority 
to the different agencies. Our agencies now write rules that look more 
like legislation than regulation. We have allowed people to serve in 
``Cabinet lite'' level positions without Senate approval. We have 
exponentially increased the budget for White House staff. And now the 
President wants to set a new precedent that he alone can determine 
which laws he likes and he does not like. With this action, the 
President has invented a retroactive veto on all previous Presidents 
and all previous congressional acts.
  It is ultimately ironic that the executive branch states that several 
lower courts have rejected the Defense of Marriage Act as 
unconstitutional, so they are accepting the lower court rulings over a 
higher court. In the past year, the health care law was ruled 
unconstitutional, but the Federal Government is pressing forward. The 
administration was instructed by the courts to lift the drilling 
moratorium in the gulf, but they stalled.

                              {time}  1110

  It is apparent that this administration is bent on placing its 
political preferences ahead of the courts, ahead of the legislative 
branch, and the majority of the American people.
  Both parties need to understand the precedent that's being set by the 
President's choosing to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. My 
Democrat friends should imagine for a moment, what if when a Republican 
President takes the oath and he instructs HHS and all other agencies 
not to enforce ObamaCare, though it's the law of the land, because some 
lower court rejected it? They would be outraged, rightfully so, because 
currently it is the law of the land. A President cannot just 
unilaterally throw it aside.
  Before this conversation is spun as a partisan issue, let me remind 
everyone, though, that the Defense of Marriage Act passed the House and 
the Senate by a wide bipartisan majority and was signed into law by a 
Democrat President. This is not only a slap in the face to our 
constitutional system; it is a slap to Republicans and Democrats who 
expressed the will of their districts and States on an issue that has 
been settled in law.
  The people spoke through Congress, and one person, even a President, 
cannot undermine the will of the people. At least not in the America 
that I grew up in.
  I do not think we will fully understand the implications of this 
action if we allow it to stand. We must not act partisan now and regret 
it later. This is not the way to deal with the gay marriage debate, for 
the President to just sweep it aside and say, ``I will not enforce the 
law.''
  Many in this Chamber are well aware of my traditional view of 
marriage and my Biblical world view. I am unashamed of my personal 
faith in Jesus Christ. I believe that words have meaning, though, and 
that the meaning of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The 
Defense of Marriage Act codified that definition in law, representing 
the belief of a majority of Americans.
  This issue is well beyond faith, though, or a social issue or even a 
political issue. Marriage is now not only the center of a national 
debate, it's now the center of a constitutional debate.
  Weeks ago some members of the press suggested that Republicans would 
ignore the budget and focus on social issues. I find it ironic now that 
the President has submitted a budget that will raise the national debt 
to $26 trillion, by his own numbers, and he has decided to change the 
national debate from fiscal issues to social issues and gay marriage.
  As a Congress, we cannot demand of the executive branch, which is a 
coequal branch of government. But I believe we must require the 
executive branch to fulfill its oath of office and constitutional 
requirement to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

                          ____________________