Of all the things that ought to receive widespread bipartisan support, the basic expectation that it is the job of Congress to pass law and the job of the President to enforce it should be near the top of the list. But Trey Gowdy’s ENFORCE the Law Act (H.R. 4138), which grants either House of Congress, or both, standing to bring civil suit against the President or agency heads within the Executive Branch for failure to enforce binding law, passed the House recently 233-181, with all 181 no votes coming from Democrats.

To what, we must wonder, could they have found objectionable? It is indeed the proper role of the Executive Branch to execute laws – it’s even in the name! It is, likewise, perfectly fitting to ask the Judicial Branch to adjudicate dispute between the other two. And it’s well within the power of Congress to establish the proper juridiction and procedures for such.

As Rep. Growdy highlights in the beginning of his speech above regarding the act, President Obama was once deeply concerned about the balance of federal power and the need for the Executive Branch to both enforce the law as well as not operate outside its bounds. He even endorsed the idea of turning to the courts to resolve interbranch disputes. That was important to Senator Obama, but now President Obama is threatening to veto it on the erroneous grounds that it “violates the separation of powers.” In typical Newspeak fashion, the claim is exactly the opposite of the truth. But he can put his pen down, as Harry Reid is likely to exercise his iron grip on the Senate to ensure once again that nothing useful gets done under his watch.

As Rep. Growdy also covered in his speech, process matters. The Founders spent a lot of time and effort on establishing a specific process for government because they understood it to be vitally important to the success of the American experiment. Since that time the Executive Branch has expanded immensely and systematically worked, through Presidencies of both parties – to undermine that process. Their is no rational argument beyond a naked desire for power and to be without accountability for the President to oppose additional oversight of the Executive Branch’s most basic and fundamental responsibility – enforcement of the law – or for other members of his party to stand in way of its passage.

Nick Gillespie, “Are Social Cons Saving Liberalism? Roger L. Simon Thinks So, Sees Libertarian Shift as Future of Conservatives, GOP:”

Any energy coming from Republicans these days is because of the large failure of Barack Obama and liberal Democrats’ political agenda and because of the libertarian wing of the GOP and its focus on civil liberties, foreign policy, and fiscal rectitude. It’s not because cultural warriors are getting the vapors over the gays or drugs or the need to triple defense spending.

Ilya Shapiro, “IRS Illegally Expands Obamacare:”

Cato and the Pacific Research Institute have now filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs on their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. While it is manifestly the province of the judiciary to say “what the law is,” where the law’s text leaves no question as to its meaning—as is the case here with the phrase “established by the State”—it is neither right nor proper for a court to replace the laws passed by Congress with those of its own invention or the invention of civil servants. If Congress wants to extend the tax credit beyond the terms of the Affordable Care Act, it can do so by passing new legislation. The only reason for executive-branch officials not to go back to Congress for clarification, and instead legislate by fiat, is to bypass the democratic process, thereby undermining constitutional separation of powers.

Todd Zywicki, “Dionne v. Hayek:”

So why is central planning not only unwise, but dangerous to liberty? This is Hayek’s key insight that escapes Dionne… Hayek’s great insight was that moving economic decision-making from individual decision-making through the market to collective decision-making through the state does not eliminate the economic problem. The reality of economics is still present: scarce resources and unlimited wants. The only question is “Who decides?” Do you decide for yourself (through markets) or does someone else decide for you (through politics)?

Doug Bandow, “Free the Inside Traders:”

Objectively, the insider trading ban makes no sense.  It creates an arcane distinction between “non-public” and “public” information.  It presumes that investors should possess equal information and never know more than anyone else.

It punishes traders for seeking to gain information known to some people but not to everyone.  It inhibits people from acting on and markets from reacting to the latest information.

Does anyone remember when President Obama  met with Republicans in 2013 to press for bipartisan reform and simplification of the tax code? What about when the minimum wage was raised to $9 an hour? Or how about when he cut red tape on new oil and gas development? I hope no one does, because none of these things happened despite each being featured in President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address.

When George Washington delivered the first State of the Union in 1790, it took just 833 words. Last year’s SOTU took President Obama a whopping 6,800 words, just short of one hour’s worth of oration. Among modern Presidents, he’s the most verbose besides Bill Clinton. Thomas Jefferson didn’t even bother showing up (there’s no requirement in the Constitution that a President “give to Congress information of the State of the Union” in person) in 1801, and the nation survived just fine for more than a century before Woodrow Wilson finally revived the practice.

When President Obama delivers his speech for 2014, it will no doubt be filled with grand calls for reform and sweeping changes to the nation that he has administered for the last 5 years. Yet little if any of what he prescribes is likely to happen in the coming year.

The dirty secret of the presidency is that presidents have far less say over what happens then they or the media let on, and truly ought to have even less. Other than serving as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the president is really just an administrator, or glorified bureaucrat. Congress makes the law and holds the ultimate power over the direction of the nation; the president in turn carries it out. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

Presidents have political power, to be sure, and can influence the actions of Congress through various means. But most presidents have enough political capital to push just one or two major initiatives per term. The rest of the time is spent in a largely reactionary capacity, responding to unexpected events as they happen.

Pundits and politicos love the State of the Union, as it’s a chance to ply their craft with greater public attention than usual. If you’re into that sort of thing, I’d highly recommend following the live blog from the Cato Institute with analysis from their numerous experts. But if you are just curious as to what to expect for the coming year, I wouldn’t bother. The 2014 State of the Union address will be largely the same as that of 2013, 2012, 2011..etc. – full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing of import about what will really happen in the year that follows.