Obama's Attempt to be the SCOTUS, could it have ramifications?

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Let's say that Billy-Bob runs against and defeats Obama in the next election.

Could Billy-Bob use this precedent to say, "I think ObamaCare is unconstitutional, therefore any challenge to the law will receive no defense from my administration?"

Could Billy-Bob use this precedent to say, "I think that CO2 regulations set by the EPA are unconstitutional, any challenge to that law will receive no defense from my administration?"

Would Billy-Bob receive the pass from the media that this President is getting?
 
The answer to your questions depends entirely on if Billy-Bob is A messiah. He's not THE messiah, but if he's A messiah, sure, he could get some leeway.....
 
The answer to your questions depends entirely on if Billy-Bob is A messiah. He's not THE messiah, but if he's A messiah, sure, he could get some leeway.....
Do you think an administration should simply reject whatever law they wish?
 
I think that they have a right to choose whether or not to defend any particular law. Prudence and good governance would dictate that this not be done in a partisan nature but... that's unlikely.
 
Let's say that Billy-Bob runs against and defeats Obama in the next election.

Could Billy-Bob use this precedent to say, "I think ObamaCare is unconstitutional, therefore any challenge to the law will receive no defense from my administration?"

Could Billy-Bob use this precedent to say, "I think that CO2 regulations set by the EPA are unconstitutional, any challenge to that law will receive no defense from my administration?"

Would Billy-Bob receive the pass from the media that this President is getting?

Or how about If Bush or any conservative president had refused to fight a state or local municipality that refused to allow abortions? We all know Bush personally objected to abortions.
 
No. But do you think Obama is the 1st President to reject legal authority?
He is the first to use it solely for partisan reasons. Did you know that this is one of the charges that got the first impeached President impeached?
 
He is the first to use it solely for partisan reasons. Did you know that this is one of the charges that got the first impeached President impeached?

It doesn't matter what the reasons are; he's not the 1st to use it. He's not setting a precedent.

Someone could make an argument that these are not "partisan" reasons, as well; to many, this is a human right issue. Is there a party that's against human rights?
 
No. But do you think Obama is the 1st President to reject legal authority?


Yes...

It doesn't matter what the reasons are; he's not the 1st to use it. He's not setting a precedent.


I'm listening...

Someone could make an argument that these are not "partisan" reasons, as well; to many, this is a human right issue. Is there a party that's against human rights?



The reason is irrelevant...the President cannot pick and choose what laws he will recognize...
 
Several federal judges, the top people in the Dept of Justice, and Obama believe the Defense of Marriage law is unconstitutional.

He took an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution. If he were to enforce a law that he and his legal people believe to be unconstitutional, wouldn't he be violating his oath?
 
damo...you posted in the other thread....did you just happen to "miss" my post?

First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).

Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Memorial of Captain Meigs, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 462, 469-70 (1860) (asserting that the President need not enforce a statute purporting to appoint an officer); see also annotations of attached Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Moreover, as we discuss more fully below, numerous Presidents have provided advance notice of their intention not to enforce specific statutory requirements that they have viewed as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983) (noting that Presidents often sign legislation containing constitutionally objectionable provisions and indicate that they will not comply with those provisions).

...

. The President's office and authority are created and bounded by the Constitution; he is required to act within its terms. Put somewhat differently, in serving as the executive created by the Constitution, the President is required to act in accordance with the laws -- including the Constitution, which takes precedence over other forms of law. This obligation is reflected in the Take Care Clause and in the President's oath of office.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

pubs are acting like this has never been done before....and no one has yet to answer my question about how can the president defend the constitution by defending an unconstitutional law.....
 
Several federal judges, the top people in the Dept of Justice, and Obama believe the Defense of Marriage law is unconstitutional.

He took an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution. If he were to enforce a law that he and his legal people believe to be unconstitutional, wouldn't he be violating his oath?

exactly....i posited that this morning and no responses so far
 
Several federal judges, the top people in the Dept of Justice, and Obama believe the Defense of Marriage law is unconstitutional.

He took an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution. If he were to enforce a law that he and his legal people believe to be unconstitutional, wouldn't he be violating his oath?

NO- Like I asked, Bush, believed abortion to be unconstitutional. Tell me what if he refused to pursue states or municipalities who refused to provide them?
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what the reasons are; he's not the 1st to use it. He's not setting a precedent.

Someone could make an argument that these are not "partisan" reasons, as well; to many, this is a human right issue. Is there a party that's against human rights?
:rolleyes:

Pretending that this is no partisan stance is about the weakest piece of crap I've ever seen you attempt here on this board. And that is saying something.

If this action is "allowable" without objection, and even supported, by only one side of the political aisle then it is partisan.

Expect it to become the regular practice of each new President to simply ignore laws like this, the earlier the better after election due to the short memories of the electorate.

And it matters. I do not want every president elected from now on to give themselves a power not enumerated in the constitution and selectively pick and choose which laws to uphold.
 
damo...you posted in the other thread....did you just happen to "miss" my post?


http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

pubs are acting like this has never been done before....and no one has yet to answer my question about how can the president defend the constitution by defending an unconstitutional law.....
I've never suggested it was never done before, I simply pointed out one historical precedent. The first President to be impeached was actually charged with doing exactly that.

However, it is a question that I am asking here, not an opinion giving.

Should the next President simply pick out laws they do not like and start ignoring them?
 
Several federal judges, the top people in the Dept of Justice, and Obama believe the Defense of Marriage law is unconstitutional.

He took an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution. If he were to enforce a law that he and his legal people believe to be unconstitutional, wouldn't he be violating his oath?
Of course he would....he is not the judge of what is or is not constitutional....

He is the UPHOLD the Constitution as is....not how he would like it to be.
 
NO- Like I asked Bush believed abortion to be unconstitutional. Tell me what if he refused to pursue states or municipalities who refused to provide them?

not a proper analogy as SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter. here, SCOTUS has not ruled. not only does precedent allow him to not defend unconstitutional laws, it has been the practice of this country for over a hundred years.
 
Back
Top