Here's yur rule of law

Backfire “ Excerpts from Why the President's ObamaCare Maneuver May Backfire Whatever the reason, the president does not have the power to stop the implementation of a law. If there is one bedrock constitutional legal principle, it is that the president must "faithfully execute" federal statutes. He cannot suspend laws he dislikes on policy grounds or because he fears their political consequences. This not only comports with what the founders intended and prescribed in our founding documents and constitution, it makes sense to anyone who attended school before, say, 1992. But, having said that the Journal blithely states— Mr. Obama, however, has made a habit of exercising an unlawful suspending power, refusing to enforce selected federal laws, including various provisions of the immigration laws against young, undocumented aliens; work requirements enacted as part of the 1996 federal welfare reform law; and the testing accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law. One might expect the next lines to describe Obama's upcoming Impeachment trial in the Senate; but no—so much for "bedrock principle" One key problem with suspension power—aside from the fact that it destroys the balance of power between the two political branches—is that, when skillfully exercised, it sidelines the judiciary. The Constitution requires that a party commencing litigation must have what is commonly called "standing," i.e., the party must have suffered or will suffer a legal injury that a court can redress. A determined president can head off litigation by effectively rewriting federal statutes in ways that do not create individual injuries so no party has standing. So, he can't ignore the constitution, but does; and now, instead of reading about his impending removal, we get wailers in hair shirts. WTF? What really caught my eye of course (if you know me) is the " must have what is commonly called "standing" part.  Like everything else in law these days, this rule is subject to a purely political interpretation.  The best current example being the, oh, 965 lawsuits filed against Obama for not having standing to become president— natural born citizenship!  Hell, there are good arguments made that he isn't even a naturalized citizen.   The federal courts, including the SCOTUS, have dismissed every suit on the grounds the plaintiff lacked standing.  Huh?   Every citizen of the United States has standing to show direct harm caused by this illegally seated poseur. A good many can cite mental anguish as well as monetary damages. As demonstrated then, this is what we're reduced to.  A rule of law that is subject to politically convenient application.  Even the WSJ finds it impossible to conduct a cogent examination of this man without getting caught up in double speak.  Am I wrong?  ”