We saw it Monday on immigration: "Obama said Monday he was frustrated with congressional inaction on immigration reform and planned to act alone because of “the failure of the House Republicans to pass a darn bill.”"
We've seen it before on a huge number of issues; the minimum wage, carbon emissions, "gender identity discrimination", appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (where the Supreme Court just this week smacked down the administration for being too cute by half), and many other issues. If Congress doesn't do what the President wants, the President will just go ahead and do it anyway.
The trouble is, nothing compels the House or the Senate to take up the topics the President wants them to take up. That's the heart of the principle of separation of powers; the two houses of Congress enact the laws, the President signs and enforces them. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he will or will not enforce, nor does he get to make up laws that he wishes the Congress had enacted. Congress has the option to not vote on bills. It's their call.
There is a remedy for a do-nothing Congress; of course. Vote in a new one.
Democrats and Obama don't like the fact that the Republican-led House of Representatives isn't doing what Obama wants? Vote the bums out! It means you'll have to wait until the next election, but that's the mechanism our Federal Constitutional system has, and it's the one that the President swore an oath to protect and defend.
And we've seen that very mechanism work fine before. Like the 2010 mid-term elections, where the Democrats lost control of the House and lost their filibuster-proof lock on the Senate. The people didn't like the job the Congress was doing, and it changed the composition of the Congress. That's the way things are supposed to work.
Elections have consequences. Someone not too long ago made that very point in the wake of having won an election. I wonder who it was?
Yes, elections have consequences. Including elections that put Republicans in power. You don't get your own way just because you want something.
Or, if you really wanted to jump on Congress to do something, why not push Harry Reid, the head of the Democrat-controlled Senate, to put forth a budget? It's one of the few things the Senate is Constitutionally required to do, and it's something Harry Reid hasn't managed in 4 years. In fact, the House has passed 4 times as many bills as the Senate. Want to blame a do-nothing Congress? Blame the Democrat Senate.
* Not in the number of executive actions that the President has taken, but in their scope and in the way they are used to undermine and ignore bills enacted by Congress and signed into law. That is unprecedented.