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

Just and FYI, the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when he was acting as Solicitor General of the United States, refused to defend the FCC's policy concerning minority owned broadcast stations and instead argued that the policy violated the 14th Amendment. What the DOJ is doing here is pretty much the same thing.

It's not a common occurrence and I don't think it should be employed often, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional or wrong in all instances. Having said that, now that Obama has done it, I expect the next Republican president to do it as a matter of course, turning the rather rare occurrence into a commonly employed tool used to undermine laws the president finds objectionable, like Bush did with signing statements.
 
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455
 
bravo said:
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455
Click to expand...

gingrich is wrong. and so you are. why are you ignoring the scotus and prior presidential actions?
 
i noticed that no one has actually countered this:

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.
Click to expand...

i understand gingrich, bravo et al have their own opinions, but the above is the opinion of the former AG and opinions of scotus. i would be interested if someone could tell me, in light of the above, why you believe obama is violating the consitution and why does it amount to an impeachable offense?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so we're probably on the same agreement that the president can indeed decide to not enforce a law he feels is unconstitutional, but in doing so, congress can impeach him.
Click to expand...

yes. they can try. but you know as well as i, that all obama has to do, is bring the matter before scotus on this issue and he will win. at this point, obama is not guilty of violating the constitution.

like i said earlier....i would love it if the impeachment process is started on this issue....

1. obama is likely to succeed give supreme court precedent, which he can cite in the proceedings.

2. it will bring the gay marriage issue to the forefront. the issue needs to be dealth with once and for all. either the government gets out of marriage (preferably) and grants everyone a license or contract, or they need to recognize two homosexuals right to marry, given, homosexuality is not an illegal practice in this country.

3. impeachment proceedings will never happen over this. i give impeachment proceedings a .00001% chance of happening.
 
Yurt said:
apples/oranges

do you expect the president to defend a law that is unconstitutional? there is a reason we have 3 branches of government...
Click to expand...

What you're over looking: is that any law that is passed is constitutional, until it is declared unconstitutional.
 
Yurt said:
yes. they can try. but you know as well as i, that all obama has to do, is bring the matter before scotus on this issue and he will win. at this point, obama is not guilty of violating the constitution.

like i said earlier....i would love it if the impeachment process is started on this issue....

1. obama is likely to succeed give supreme court precedent, which he can cite in the proceedings.

2. it will bring the gay marriage issue to the forefront. the issue needs to be dealth with once and for all. either the government gets out of marriage (preferably) and grants everyone a license or contract, or they need to recognize two homosexuals right to marry, given, homosexuality is not an illegal practice in this country.

3. impeachment proceedings will never happen over this. i give impeachment proceedings a .00001% chance of happening.
Click to expand...

didn't we just agree that the SCOTUS has no authority over impeachment? after all, it is a check and balance, right?
 
Yurt said:
so if congress passes a law that all jews are to be exterminated, then the president must enforce that law.....right?
Click to expand...

When and if that happens, then it's part of the discussion.
Until then; it's just another attempt on your part, to try and build a strawman to help support your asinine position.

Please do try and stay in the here and now, instead of running down nonexistant side roads.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
When and if that happens, then it's part of the discussion.
Until then; it's just another attempt on your part, to try and build a strawman to help support your asinine position.

Please do try and stay in the here and now, instead of running down nonexistant side roads.
Click to expand...

its not a strawman....i never claimed anyone made that argument. if anything, it is the slippery slope argument, but in reality it is not. i'm just trying to find your threshold on what laws you expect the president to enforce.
 
Yurt said:
its not a strawman....i never claimed anyone made that argument. if anything, it is the slippery slope argument, but in reality it is not. i'm just trying to find your threshold on what laws you expect the president to enforce.
Click to expand...

But you want to live in the world of WHAT IF, while most everyone else is dealing with the WHAT IS.

The President is expected to uphold every law, until it has been determined that it is unconstitutional or the SCOTUS determine that it needs to be put on hold.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But you want to live in the world of WHAT IF, while most everyone else is dealing with the WHAT IS.

The President is expected to uphold every law, until it has been determined that it is unconstitutional or the SCOTUS determine that it needs to be put on hold.
Click to expand...

the president is NOT expected to uphold every law. scotus and prior presidential precedent says you're flat out wrong.

why can't you address the cases i put before? why can't you specifically address the former AG's opinion i put before you? this has nothing to do with "what if"....it has to do with reality.

that is why i asked you, if congress passes a law that says all jews need to be exterminated.....should the president uphold it? its a basic concept and its exactly why this great country has 3 branches of government. our 3 branches exist so congress cannot rule the country by merely passing a law. the executive branch has the enforcement power because we don't want congress having the ability to pass an unconstitutional law and then the ability to enforce it. that power lies with the executive branch, it is a CHECK on the legislative power. we have the judicial branch as a check on the legislative and executive branch.

thats the beauty of our constitution.
 
Yurt said:
the president is NOT expected to uphold every law. scotus and prior presidential precedent says you're flat out wrong.

why can't you address the cases i put before? why can't you specifically address the former AG's opinion i put before you? this has nothing to do with "what if"....it has to do with reality.

that is why i asked you, if congress passes a law that says all jews need to be exterminated.....should the president uphold it? its a basic concept and its exactly why this great country has 3 branches of government. our 3 branches exist so congress cannot rule the country by merely passing a law. the executive branch has the enforcement power because we don't want congress having the ability to pass an unconstitutional law and then the ability to enforce it. that power lies with the executive branch, it is a CHECK on the legislative power. we have the judicial branch as a check on the legislative and executive branch.

thats the beauty of our constitution.
Click to expand...

Your emo attempt to build a strawman has already been addressed; but you'll continue to bring it up, because you are obviously suffering from OCD.

Are you now going to start 5 or 6 new threads, in an attempt to gather even more attention.

Remove yourself from the world of WHAT IF and join the rest of humanity in the world of WHAT IS.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Your emo attempt to build a strawman has already been addressed; but you'll continue to bring it up, because you are obviously suffering from OCD.

Are you now going to start 5 or 6 new threads, in an attempt to gather even more attention.

Remove yourself from the world of WHAT IF and join the rest of humanity in the world of WHAT IS.
Click to expand...

you've lost it and obviously are incapable of sanely addressing a single point i made.....

enjoy yourself :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top