Rep. Gowdy – ENFORCE the Law Act – VIDEOS (Must see)

By Scott W. Winchell

Yesterday we witnessed a seminal moment take place in the House of Representatives that all Americans need to take seriously. We are at a critical point defined best as a Constitutional Crisis because the rule-of-law is being replaced by the rule-of-man, the definition of tyranny.

As Congressmen Trey Gowdy (R-SC) states in the videos below, we need to look at what is happening minus the labels of party and ideology. The issue at hand; the “ENFORCE The Law Act of 2014,” seeks to give the House ‘standing’ before the courts to defend its powers as assigned by our founders in the Constitution.

To defend these powers from being usurped by another branch of the government in our co-equal, three-branch system of governance is of the utmost importance for all Representatives and Senators. After all, they are the voice of the people in the House, and the voice of the several states in the Senate. Our voice should never be diminished by an executive.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, defends his bill.
Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, defends his bill.

In his ‘Floor Speech’ he cites instances where the President, a Senator at the time, made statements about the previous administration’s so-called grab for power.

In those statements, then Senator Obama called upon the courts for remedy to stop the perceived power-grab of the Bush Administration.

Now that he is President, there is an obvious leap in the opposite direction and the House seeks to force the President to “faithfully execute the laws” he swore to uphold and defend.

The IJReview said this:

We’ve finally gotten to the point where Congress had to pass a law to make sure that the laws they pass are enforced.

In a speech that Representative Trey Gowdy really shouldn’t have had to make, he explains angrily to the Congress what its job is, and to Obama what his job is. Members were heard to applaud as he reached the crescendo.

Five Democrats joined Republicans in passing a bill that directs Obama to follows the laws – clearing the House by a 233 to 181 vote.

Now the White House is vowing to veto the bill should it pass the Senate on the same grounds. They claim it usurps the power of the Executive branch. This adds up to a Constitutional Crisis indeed. However, we at SUA do not believe for one moment that the Senate will pass it, but the ‘bell has been rung.’

Whatever Harry Reid does now will likely only varnish his reputation for being the worst Majority Leader of the Senate in modern times in terms of constitutionality, class, ethics, professionalism, and esprit de corps of the once most ‘deliberative body on the planet.’

Bridget Johnson at PJ Media wrote the following:

The White House issued veto threats on Wednesday for a pair of bills reining in executive overreach that debuted and were debated on the House floor.

The Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law (ENFORCE the Law) Act of 2014 puts in place a procedure that would expedite the ability of the House or Senate to sue the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws.

Obama Delivers his 2014 State of the Union Speech
Obama Delivers his 2014 State of the Union Speech

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former prosecutor who introduced the bill, said a three-judge panel at the federal district court level followed by direct appeal to the Supreme Court is necessary so that the president can’t stall litigation until his term is up.

The Office of Management and Budget said in the veto threat that it “strongly opposes” the bill “because it violates the separation of powers by purporting to permit the Congress to challenge in court the exercise by the President of one of his core constitutional functions – taking care that Federal laws are faithfully executed.”

“Congress ordinarily has the power to define the bounds of the Executive Branch’s enforcement authority under particular statutes, and persons who claim to be harmed by the Executive Branch’s actions may challenge them as inconsistent with the governing statute,” the veto threat continues.

“But the power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations. Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.” (Read the rest here.)

Please read the rest of her great article, but as is sometimes best, watch the videos and judge for yourself. There are two speeches to watch, the first is his introduction, and the second is his defense of the bill. Both are around five minutes long, but it is a great ten minutes total that explains in clear language what the problems are, and what the remedy is according to his seasoned, experienced view as a former prosecutor.

More from Bridget Johnson at PJ Media:

On the House floor, Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said the intent of Gowdy’s bill is to “abolish the powers of the presidency because you disagree with policy.”

Isn’t it ironic, that the Representative from Texas describes Gowdy’s Bill in such a way yet she is the one who thinks the Constitution is 400 years old.  (From the Free Beacon)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) declared the U.S. Constitution to be 400 years old Wednesday on the House floor, which would mean it was signed in 1614.

“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not,” she said.

That would be seven years after Jamestown, Virginia became America’s first permanent English settlement.

We at SUA stand firmly along side constitutional scholars like Rep. Gowdy and hang our heads every time Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee tries to educate us. Texas must be very proud.

Rep. Gowdy’s Floor Speech on the ENFORCE the Law Act


The second speech ends on a note about what we pointed out after the 2014 State of the Union speech last month where the Democrats cheered as Obama said:

But America does not stand still, and neither will I. (Applause.) So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do. (Cheers, applause.)

Gowdy, and strict constitutionalists like SUA agree, it was unconscionable of the Democrats who rose and cheered as the President told them he intended to go around them. Why would they cheer about losing more of the co-equal branch’s power to the Executive?

Rep. Gowdy’s Defense of the ENFORCE the Law Act


The Double Edged Sword – S. 1867 – Detention, Material Support

By Denise Simon – SUA Research Director

The 2012 Defense Authorization Bill 1867 (See summary here) just passed by the Senate was burdened with oodles of appropriations including one very important section that will keep the Guantanamo Detention Center open indefinitely. However, this is in complete conflict with the White House and the Department of Justice, and virtually nullifies the Executive Order to close it signed by Obama soon after his inauguration. Though, it is curious that despite that E.O., Guantanamo is still intact. The veto pen is coming.

In addition to the Guantanamo issue, other sections are argued to be turning the Constitution on its ear. With the mere push of a voting button in the House and Senate, and the possible signature of the President it is argued that many civil liberties will be lost. Foremost among these is the interpretation that American citizens could be held without trial if they are deemed to be of material aid to terrorist organizations by the military. No lawyers, judges, or grand juries, just indefinite incarceration at Guantanamo.

Political action organizations across the political spectrum are in a complete dither over this bill because it contains so much gray area language or to some, lacks the proper language to define certain aspects. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, legal wranglers are claiming that Congress is deferring to the bench on too many issues.

Portions of this legislation of most concern for anyone paying attention are where it addresses the act of giving material or financial support to terror organizations and members. In recent years, there have in fact been several cases where American citizens were clearly guilty of these charges including John Walker Lindh, Anwar Al Walaki, Adam Gadahn, and Najibulla Zazi among many, many others.

Defense Appropriation Bill:

Consider for a moment the double edged sword this pending law represents with its many sections in question. It can on one hand be construed to be an extremely good tool for securing our nation, but at what sacrifice? Interestingly though, it may also become a very friendly legal tool to employ in a political fashion; one where certain actions recently taken by the administration could place them in legal jeopardy, and become a bludgeon to nail corrupt lawmakers and government employees in Washington DC.

Like most pieces of legislation, many lawmakers had not read the complete final version of the bills prior to voting and possibly would not have voted in the affirmative if they did. But all too often, naked ambition and/or political cowardice may have bred unintended consequences and this Defense Authorization Bill may just be a real blatant example. Those unintended and intended consequences may include the ability to take much stronger action on certain current administration personnel. To elaborate, let us begin with Eric Holder, Attorney General for the United States Justice Department.

Holder has a long history, along with many legal colleagues, where they have have provided counsel to terrorists around the world and those detained at Guantanamo, free to the inmate. Payment for counsel comes from donations or was provided pro-bono.

Covington and Burling is the law firm where Holder was a partner, and by giving that kind of aid, to non-citizen enemies of the USA, these new provisions could be construed to render future work in this regard as illegal. Holder’s old firm is a worldwide law firm, and works in partnership with many other law firms as well as the Center for Constitutional Rights, Sullivan & Cromwell, Manatt Phelps, American Constitution Society, Holland and Hurt among others. Are these firms now in jeopardy as well?


What is “material aid and support” as the letter of the law dictates?

From Legal Information Institute – US Code PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS § 2339A.

(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—

(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;


Then there are the narco-terrorism networks that are proven to be cavorting with Hezbollah, but are not formally listed on terror lists, yet Holder allowed arms to be sold and moved through the FBI and the DEA to members of these drug cartels. Many think Holder already broke existing laws and should already be out of office, and/or in prison over the Fast and Furious scandal. That operation was a boondoggle to say the least, and if this Bill is signed, activity that allows weapons to fall into the hands of these ‘terrorists’ in the future will arguably land many agents and administrators in jail.

Other actions, by other departments are similarly situated and acted in very questionable ways as well. Recently, key government officials gave aid and comfort to the enemy through the actions of their office. This includes people like our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton with Libyan Rebels

There is now ample evidence that she has spread money and support to the enemy, most notably to rebel Libyans who fought our troops in other lands under the al-Qaeda flag. Some may think that is a stretch, but it is definite aid and comfort to the enemy, regardless of political purpose according to the letter of the law, and certainly would be if this bill is signed. This is especially true since it did not have the blessing and approval of Congress or the White House.

  • Please note the Arms Export Control Act is the responsibility of the State Department.
  • The Taliban cannot be excluded either when it comes to the nefarious monetary policy of Hillary Clinton.
  • In the Middle East, the same quest and generosity is also applicable as Hillary Clinton giving money to the Palestinian Authority prisoners.

Moving to another facet of giving aid and comfort, we have the case of Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the United States Treasury. The Department of the Treasury in partnership with the State Department publishes the terror list and enforces or often chooses not to enforce the money transfers and global account restrictions through the Federal Reserve banks in coordination with the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.  Allowing domestic organizations and companies to wire money to foreign terror networks through any of the Federal Reserve banks occurs constantly and both Geithner and Bernanke are at the throttle controls by pacing, approving, and tracking these monies.

It should also be no surprise that the government runs a program called the Black Budget, which of course allocated money and spends it on missions and for causes that no one is supposed to know about. Congress allegedly does not have a hand in this cash cache but the dollars still move and countless agencies move it without full disclosure.  In addition, any member of the House or the Senate that is assigned to committees that have some oversight of government dollars in the aspect of foreign policy and national security vote to allocate and spend money as well, and often that lands in the hands of terror networks and members.

In summary, countless members of the United States government have a role in money distribution either by committee, by vote, and/or allocations that do not exempt them from the new concerns of this pending law under the 2012 Defense Authorization Act. Only the President and the Vice President can invoke Executive Privilege and in recent history it has been applied to those working at the White House, yet it has not been challenged that they get exemption from prosecution in regard to Border Agents or aiding and abetting known terror cells and members. If lawmakers want to play the game, it takes two to dance, and lawyers are available on both sides. We can use the same laws and rules to play as they use them as well.

Given the polar division of this country, embracing and using the U.S. Constitution to carry out laws and agendas, this pending law could and should work in our favor to force the will of the people upon the government as intended.  We are in the vortex of being victims of local and federal law being applied unlawfully against law-abiding citizens. The Defense Authorization Act clearly appears to have text that ups the ante once again on citizens.

We cannot forget that Federal employees are also citizens and should the un-intended consequences apply, and in fact are intended as a quiet mission, we may have yet a major lawful tool that could implicate Obama, Clinton, Holder, Geithner, and more by applying this law.  Legal scholars and courts may argue these aspects for a long time to come, but the very threat of their actions in financially supporting terrorists and networks, intentionally or otherwise may be a springboard to get their attention.

Key Links for additional reference:

  1. Named terror networks  
  2. American Jihad Terrorism, Congressional Report 
  3. Nigeria and Boko Harem
  4. Kerry Lugar aid to Haqqani conditions without conditions
Edited by Scott W. Winchell