# "...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501 "2013-08-17T17:25:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/1 "2013-08-17T17:25:33Z")
In [the Wall Street Journal of August 16th,](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579006594068764238.html?mod=hp_opinion) Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz offers up an op-ed on President Obama’s unilateral suspension of the employer mandate for Obamacare, and unfavorably compares it to Lincoln’s unilateral action in suspending the “Great Writ” during the Civil War. > [@](#): > > Lincoln’s order was legally dubious, but what he did next showed remarkable constitutional rectitude. On July 4, 1861, he delivered a solemn message to Congress, in which he did everything possible to square his action with the Constitution. In this message, he set forth the best possible constitutional arguments that he had unilateral power to suspend the writ. These arguments may have been wrong, but they were serious, and they were presented seriously, in good faith. > . > . > . > Contrast all of this with President Obama’s announcement that he is unilaterally suspending part of the Affordable Care Act. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama is a constitutional lawyer. And like Lincoln’s action, Mr. Obama’s was a unilateral executive suspension of the law. But in every other way, the president’s behavior could not have been more different from Lincoln’s. > > First, Lincoln’s action was at least arguably constitutional, while Mr. Obama’s is not. The Constitution has a provision for suspending habeas. It has no general provision for executive suspension of laws. English kings used to suspend laws, but the Framers rejected that practice: The president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” > > Second, Lincoln volunteered an articulate constitutional defense of his action. Mr. Obama seemed annoyed when the New York Times dared to ask him the constitutional question. When the reporter asked whether he had consulted with lawyers about the legality of the mandate’s delay, he declined to answer. The piece is pretty strongly against the legality of the President’s actions. I think it makes a good case that Obama’s actions are not, in fact, in line with a good-faith discharge of the duties of his office. If the law included a delay provision at the discretion of the President or the HHS Secretary, that would be quite different. But by doing what he’s doing – delaying the mandate in the face of a law with no provision for delay – he quite simply exceeds his authority. If you question this, then let me ask you: suppose things turned out differently and President Romney were in the White House right now. How would you react if, let’s say, the House repealed Obamacare but the Senate stayed in Democratic hands and didn’t… and President Romney announced he would simply delay the various mandates? How would you view that exercise of presidential power? ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/2 "2013-08-17T17:27:03Z")
> [@](#): > > he quite simply exceeds his authority. What are the limits on an Executive Order? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/3 "2013-08-17T17:35:16Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > What are the limits on an Executive Order? That’s a broad question, but it starts with a simple premise: In _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer_ 100 U.S. 1 (1952), the Supreme Court said that while an Executive Order can be used to implement the President’s authority, it cannot override law or make new law: > [@](#): > > We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation’s steel mills. The mill owners argue that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress, and not to the President. The Government’s position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production, and that, in meeting this grave emergency, the President was acting within the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. > . > . > . > The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand. So as a broad summary, the limits on Executive Orders are that they cannot contravene existing Congressional-created law. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/4 "2013-08-17T17:54:36Z")
…so the WSJ’s beef is that Obama isn’t implementing his socialist takeover of healthcare _fast enough_ for their liking? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/5 "2013-08-17T17:58:52Z")
Obama’s order suspends tax related reporting requirements. Seems that Bush issued several orders related to taxation. Why were those orders acceptable, if they were, while this one was not? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/6 "2013-08-17T17:59:11Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > …so the WSJ’s beef is that Obama isn’t implementing his socialist takeover of healthcare _fast enough_ for their liking? Well, this is one author, not the Journal’s editorial board. But the complaint is simply that the President’s actions are not within the scope of his powers. I wish to see abortion made illegal, but I’d still strongly object to a future President announcing that as an emergency measure to save unborn lives, all abortion facilities in the country must close. And my objection would stand even if someone flippantly characterized it as, “So the President is stopping abortion too quickly for your taste?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/7 "2013-08-17T18:05:35Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Obama’s order suspends tax related reporting requirements. > > Seems that Bush issued several orders related to taxation. > > Why were those orders acceptable, if they were, while this one was not? I can’t find any tax orders issued by Bush that do what Obama’s order does: without statutory authority, modify or ignore the extant law. But it’s possible I’m not finding the ones you’re thinking of. I find several orders relating to the establishment of a tax advisory commission, and then extending the period the commission has to report. Were those they? Or could you direct me to the orders that you find potentially problematic? ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/8 "2013-08-17T18:08:38Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > …so the WSJ’s beef is that Obama isn’t implementing his socialist takeover of healthcare _fast enough_ for their liking? You’re forgetting the rule. _Everything_ Obama does is by definition wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/9 "2013-08-17T18:13:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, this is one author, not the Journal’s editorial board. We respect the reporter’s constitutional right to express his opinion. Doesn’t mean we have to take him seriously. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/10 "2013-08-17T18:23:16Z")
The OP and the WSJ columnist must have (temporarily, and I’m sure earnestly in their zeal to defend against executive overreach) forgotten all history between the 16th and 44th presidential administrations, and must also be unfamiliar with how government works. The claim in the editorial is errant nonsense. (Or laughably transparent partisanship - shouldn’t the WSJ editorial board be _cheering_ delays in implementation of the hated Obamacare?) The Chief Executive has, by much precedent and custom, quite a bit of liberty in the details of program implementation, especially in terms of timetable and agency oversight. And please note, the “suspension” which so upsets the WSJ and so many conservative pundits is not a negation of the employer mandate, but a _change in the timing of its implementation_. Every administration has made decisions regarding the roll-out of new programmatic laws. This is, in fact, one of the unavoidable and foundational functions of the POTUS, at least as mandated to the position in the USC Article II Section 3 where it mentions that “[he] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Said execution of Laws (even the lower case kind) has never yet happened without management, and as mentioned earlier, all administrations have had to determine how and when to implement major changes to policy. That’s why executives exist, dear OP, in any organization. To make **executive** decisions, a function quite clearly _not_ given to the Congress, and not possible to write into a static law. If Congress has issues with the implementation, or notes unacceptable ambiguity with the requirements as written into law, they can take such legislative action as they deem suitable, including modifying the existing law or impeaching the President. It’s a sure bet no House Republican wants to take that first option, actual _governance_ being so icky and un-American to them all of a sudden. So good luck to them with the impeachment. God speed. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/11 "2013-08-17T18:28:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the law included a delay provision at the discretion of the President or the HHS Secretary, that would be quite different. It does. The White House isn’t suspending the mandate. It’s suspending the reporting requirement, and the HHS secretary, statutorily is the one who determines when businesses have to report. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/12 "2013-08-17T18:31:17Z")
I’ll agree that Obama’s no Lincoln. He is, quite frankly, a pretty mediocre President. But every time his opponents start pretending this is the apocalypse, they remind us why a mediocre President can still be the better alternative. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/13 "2013-08-17T18:52:56Z")
So, where does the quoted part come from, the “and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln”. And, when used in reference to The One, shouldn’t the “s” in “sir” be capitalized? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/14 "2013-08-17T19:09:30Z")
xenophon41 hit the nail on the head. It is now and always has been the executive’s prerogative to determine how the law and rules are to be implemented. Some, say for example under the administrations of certain republicans I could name, decided to de-emphasize enforcement of environmental laws or corporation regulatory laws. They defund the enforcement bureaus or tell the regulators to look the other way. No constitutional crisis was precipitated by such actions, and ought not be by Obama’s decisions now, Chicken-Little Republican statements to the contrary notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/15 "2013-08-17T19:37:58Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > xenophon41 hit the nail on the head. It is now and always has been the executive’s prerogative to determine how the law and rules are to be implemented. Some, say for example under the administrations of certain republicans I could name, decided to de-emphasize enforcement of environmental laws or corporation regulatory laws. They defund the enforcement bureaus or tell the regulators to look the other way. No constitutional crisis was precipitated by such actions, and ought not be by Obama’s decisions now, Chicken-Little Republican statements to the contrary notwithstanding. Would you care to answer my thought experiment about President Romney? ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/16 "2013-08-17T19:47:47Z")
BTW, how many days did that suspension of Habeus Corpus shave off the Civil War, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/17 "2013-08-17T19:48:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t find any tax orders issued by Bush that do what Obama’s order does: without statutory authority, modify or ignore the extant law. But it’s possible I’m not finding the ones you’re thinking of. I find several orders relating to the establishment of a tax advisory commission, and then extending the period the commission has to report. > > Were those they? Or could you direct me to the orders that you find potentially problematic? I have to apologize. When I went to do this search earlier, I thought I was just searching within Bush’s executive orders. I did not notice that the results turned up signing statements regarding tax related bills. As a result, I don’t know whether or not there are any similar executive orders. I wish that the author of the opinion piece had spent less time talking about Lincoln and habeus corpus, which is not especially relevant here. He did not even make clear that Obama’s order had to do with tax reporting requirements. I would have preferred to know more about the problems with Obama’s specific actions. Having said that, on principle, I did not support Bush’s use of signing statements that changed aspects of the bills he was signing. I similarly would be opposed to Obama’s tinkering, if the characterization of Obama’s actions given here is in any way reflective of the actual facts of the case. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/18 "2013-08-17T19:52:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Would you care to answer my thought experiment about President Romney? That’s _completely_ different. Had Romney been elected, he would have taken an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Even if he didn’t want to, he would have been legally and morally obligated. With Obama, it is not the same at all. He, ahh…well, um… Bush was much worse, and did all kinds of things that were bad, and if Obama does the same, then we are much better off because Obama is not nearly as bad. Also you are only objecting because Obama is black. So there. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/19 "2013-08-17T19:57:28Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > BTW, how many days did that suspension of Habeus Corpus shave off the Civil War, anyway? It’s impossible to say. If Maryland had been seized by Confederate forces, and Washington thus geographically isolated, it could have drastically turned the conflict. It was with this outcome in mind that Lincoln authorized martial law and Merryman was arrested thereby. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/20 "2013-08-17T20:00:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s impossible to say. If Maryland had been seized by Confederate forces, and Washington thus geographically isolated, it could have drastically turned the conflict. It was with this outcome in mind that Lincoln authorized martial law and Merryman was arrested thereby. What’s your take on post #11? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501.md?page=2)