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

Damocles said:
I'm thinking it may not be as rare any longer.

I'm not arguing that he "can't" do this, I'm stating that I think it may cause his own plans problems, and that he probably should think it through a bit more before doing such things. If ObamaCare doesn't get a ruling from the SCOTUS during his Presidency I see the next guy using it almost immediately. Until now is my prediction.

I think you are missing the question for the forest of "law" and the awesome "precedent" of ignoring supposedly unconstitutional law. First, he isn't ignoring this law, it is still in place.
Click to expand...

I would not call it rare, and this precident aint going to stop the next guy from trying it should he choose.

I suspect the next guy will be a liberal democrat, so I doubt he will try it on HealthCare. I also suspect that the hart of America knows the HeathCare Bill is MUCH better than where we were with HeathCare that not defending the law would be a very unpopular position to take.
 
Damocles said:
Well, as owner part of my posts are solely an attempt to get people to be active. ;)

Sometimes I'll title it in one way. However, my questions made it clear where I was going. At least I thought they did.

Do you think a Conservative elected in 2012 might simply decide not to defend ObamaCare?
Click to expand...

You have attacked me in the past for producing provocative titles to posts. I dont see how being owner makes that any different.
 
Jarod said:
Thats what every president has done going way back. How, when and where to enforce Federal law is the pervew of the President provided for by the Constitution. When Jackson was impeached, almost all historians agree, it was for political reasons on trumped up charges that everyone knew were not valid.
Click to expand...
Which still doesn't answer my question, and no... this wasn't done by "every President for time immemorial".. This in particular, according to Law Professors is a rare thing.
 
Jarod said:
Ok, I read the entire thread, nothing changed my origional position.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less about your personal opinion about me personally which is so far all you have offered. I do wonder why everybody who has avoided answering the question is an Obama supporter.

Should the President, not "has the President", not "is there Precedent", not "can you pretend that this isn't rare"... can you just answer the question?
 
Ill make it as clear as I can, YES. This is part of the presidents job, to use his legitatmate power, (or not use it as the case may be) to obtain the results he judges are right for the nation's well being.
 
Jarod said:
Ill make it as clear as I can, YES. This is part of the presidents job, to use his legitatmate power, (or not use it as the case may be) to obtain the results he judges are right for the nation's well being.
Click to expand...
Article II, section 3:
"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
Note the phraseology. That description of presidential duties does NOT leave room for the president to decide WHICH laws to enforce. "he SHALL take Care that THE LAWS (ie: all of them, not just the ones he agrees with) be faithfully executed..."

It is NOT the president's authority to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. He has the authority to challenge a law, in the courts, should he question its constitutionality. And if a president suspects a law to be unconstitutional, I would expect him challenge it in the courts. But it is and always has been the COURTS which have the granted authority to make the actual determination whether a law is constitutional. Making that determination himself violates the separation of powers.

The president has veto power over laws proposed during his incumbency, and that is the ONLY direct constitutional authority granted the president over which of our laws should be enforced.
 
Good Luck said:
Article II, section 3:
"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
Note the phraseology. That description of presidential duties does NOT leave room for the president to decide WHICH laws to enforce. "he SHALL take Care that THE LAWS (ie: all of them, not just the ones he agrees with) be faithfully executed..."

It is NOT the president's authority to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. He has the authority to challenge a law, in the courts, should he question its constitutionality. And if a president suspects a law to be unconstitutional, I would expect him challenge it in the courts. But it is and always has been the COURTS which have the granted authority to make the actual determination whether a law is constitutional. Making that determination himself violates the separation of powers.

The president has veto power over laws proposed during his incumbency, and that is the ONLY direct constitutional authority granted the president over which of our laws should be enforced.
Click to expand...

A. The president is not failing to exicute a law by failing to argueing its constitutationality.

B. The President is not determining a laws constitutitionality by failing to argueing its Consitiutionality.

C. You may have had a point when the Bush Justice Department failed to prosecute any antitrust cases, and settled for nothing the Microsoft antitrust case.
 
Good Luck said:
Article II, section 3:
"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
Note the phraseology. That description of presidential duties does NOT leave room for the president to decide WHICH laws to enforce. "he SHALL take Care that THE LAWS (ie: all of them, not just the ones he agrees with) be faithfully executed..."

It is NOT the president's authority to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. He has the authority to challenge a law, in the courts, should he question its constitutionality. And if a president suspects a law to be unconstitutional, I would expect him challenge it in the courts. But it is and always has been the COURTS which have the granted authority to make the actual determination whether a law is constitutional. Making that determination himself violates the separation of powers.

The president has veto power over laws proposed during his incumbency, and that is the ONLY direct constitutional authority granted the president over which of our laws should be enforced.
Click to expand...

thats a key word you're overlooking. i would expect any president who is sworn to defend the constitution to not enforce an unconstitutional law. the constitution is the highest law in the land. if a president does not enforce a law, he can be sued. there are checks and balances for this and this is why we have 3 branches of government and why it is the executive branch, not the legislative branch, who enforces laws. if the legislative branch ever managed to pass a law making slavery legal again, while overriding the president's veto power, i would expect the president to not defend that law. would you?
 
Yurt said:
thats a key word you're overlooking. i would expect any president who is sworn to defend the constitution to not enforce an unconstitutional law. the constitution is the highest law in the land. if a president does not enforce a law, he can be sued. there are checks and balances for this and this is why we have 3 branches of government and why it is the executive branch, not the legislative branch, who enforces laws. if the legislative branch ever managed to pass a law making slavery legal again, while overriding the president's veto power, i would expect the president to not defend that law. would you?
Click to expand...
I would expect, as I said quite clearly, that a president would challenge any law he believes to be unconstitutional. THAT is within the authority granted him by the Constitution. When challenging a law, the president can and should ask for a court stay on the law, just as you and I would need to do. That would fulfill his duty to uphold the constitution both from a standpoint of not having to enforce an unconstitutional law, and his defined duties with respect to executing the law.
 
Good Luck said:
I would expect, as I said quite clearly, that a president would challenge any law he believes to be unconstitutional. THAT is within the authority granted him by the Constitution. When challenging a law, the president can and should ask for a court stay on the law, just as you and I would need to do. That would fulfill his duty to uphold the constitution both from a standpoint of not having to enforce an unconstitutional law, and his defined duties with respect to executing the law.
Click to expand...


Or the president could just do what Obama is doing and execute the law until the courts find that it is unconstitutional.
 
Jarod said:
A. The president is not failing to exicute a law by failing to argueing its constitutationality.

B. The President is not determining a laws constitutitionality by failing to argueing its Consitiutionality.

C. You may have had a point when the Bush Justice Department failed to prosecute any antitrust cases, and settled for nothing the Microsoft antitrust case.
Click to expand...
You make zero sense here.

We are talking about a president stating the intention to refuse to execute (ie: enforce) a law because he thinks it is not constitutional.

Right attitude, wrong method.

The president has the constitutional obligation to execute faithfully all laws. That is a defined duty of the executive branch of government. He also has the duty to uphold the Constitution itself. In circumstances when the president believes the latter (which is also the more important) is in conflict with the former, he needs to take action. But it is NOT his authority to make the absolute determination as to whether a law is constitutional or not. His belief on the constitutionality has no legal or constitutional bearing. That authority lies only with the court, and therefore it is incumbent on the president to challenge the law in the courts, NOT to make a statement about refusing to enforce it.
 
Several times I have stated that:

1. He is still executing the law (what he can "execute" that is).
2. He is only instructing people not to defend the law.
3. Others will defend the law, if they can show standing.

What I have seen in the thread:

1. People say that it is okay for the President to ignore the "shall take care that laws are faithfully executed" part of the Constitution in order to "uphold" it.
2. People say that every President has done this particular thing.

Number 1. Is not okay, one cannot uphold something without first following it. The President should veto it, and if he is overruled he will have to execute it until the courts rule on its constitutionality.
Number 2. Isn't true.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Or the president could just do what Obama is doing and execute the law until the courts find that it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
That may be good enough for you.

My expectation is, if the president believes a law to be unconstitutional, he should ask the courts for a stay from enforcing it until it's standing has been properly determined.

Now, if the president has no official opinion on the constitutionality of a law, but is aware it is being challenged, then, yes, enforcing it while waiting for the courts would be appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top