bribed with a $3 bill

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 22, 2010

In order to persuade reluctant Democrats to endorse his favored health-care reform bill, President Obama promised to issue an executive order stipulating that the legislation does not allow for funding of abortion. Readers who are not familiar with the American form of government might wonder how much authority such a presidential order would have. 

Readers who are familiar with the American form of government know that such an executive order would have no binding force whatsoever. 

Under the terms of the US Constitution-- a document with which most legislators are evidently unfamiliar-- Congress has the power to legislate. The President does not. If the legislation passed by Congress allows for funding of abortion, and the President declines to provide that funding, then he is violating the terms of the legislation. Sooner or later someone will challenge the presidential order in court, and the court will rule that the intent of Congress takes preference. 

So what was the intent of Congress in passing this legislation? Here's a hint: In order to convince a few recalcitrant Democrats that the bill didn't provide for abortion funding, President Obama was obliged to promise this executive order. Clearly that promise was not contained in the legislation itself. 

If the legislation itself blocked abortion funding, the presidential promise would have been meaningless and unnecessary. As things stand, the promise was still meaningless-- but apparently necessary, to give venal legislators an excuse for deserting their own promises.