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

NigelTufnel said:
Well, why'd you pose a hypothetical about a president not enforcing an assault weapons ban?
Click to expand...
Because I am asking questions to find out where peoples limits are, who would support this kind of thing, that other thing, etc.

I'm reasonably sure you will find that I mention that in the form of a question. Shall I go back and read the thread to you too? I don't think I have to. I know you can even find the posts where I directly stated that he hasn't stopped "enforcing" this law...
 
Good Luck said:
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.
Click to expand...


It is not only good enough for me, I think it is the appropriate thing to do absent exigent circumstances warranting a stay until the constitutionality is finally determined.
 
Damocles said:
Because I am asking questions to find out where peoples limits are, who would support this kind of thing, that other thing, etc.

I'm reasonably sure you will find that I mention that in the form of a question. Shall I go back and read the thread to you too? I don't think I have to. I know you can even find the posts where I directly stated that he hasn't stopped "enforcing" this law...
Click to expand...


Sure, go back and read the thread to me. I'd appreciate that.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, I admit I completely misunderstood what is going on.

1: Executing a law the president believes to be unconstitutional is appropriate since he does not have the standing to declare a law unconstitutional. However, if he has the official opinion that the law is unconstitutional, his oath to the constitution, IMO, demands he do SOMETHING other than wait for the courts. What if there is no current challenge to the law he believes is unconstitutional?

2: I have no problem with that. There is no defined duty on the executive branch to defend the constitutionality of a law against any challenges. After all, if they believe the law IS unconstitutional, would it not be a violation of their oath to the Constitution to attempt to defend it against a challenge? Quite the opposite, if the president believes a law is unconstitutional, and there is no current challenge to that law, then it should be incumbent on the president, in order to uphold his oath to the constitution, to issue the challenge himself.

3: Exactly. Or, no one will defend it, and the courts will have to decide the matter based on one argument only (it's happened before, but the other way) and their interpretation of the effect of the law in light of constitutional limits and protections.
 
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...

a stay request is good.....but not good enough. if the law is so unconstitutional on its face....do you really expect a president to enforce or defend it?
 
Yurt said:
a stay request is good.....but not good enough. if the law is so unconstitutional on its face....do you really expect a president to enforce or defend it?
Click to expand...
He expects him to take action agreeable to the constitution. In this case to bring a case to the SCOTUS and to request a stay so that he won't have to enforce it.

What do you think the President should do should the courts find it constitutional.
 
Yurt said:
a stay request is good.....but not good enough. if the law is so unconstitutional on its face....do you really expect a president to enforce or defend it?
Click to expand...
Not all constitutionality questions are that apparent. The president may hold the opinion that a law is unconstitutional, but that opinion has no legal nor constitutional authority. It is not the president's job, nor authority to unilaterally determine the constitutionality of a law.

In short, I expect the president to do his job, which includes NOT usurping unconstitutional authority, no matter what the provocation. Saying it is OK to violate the Constitution in order to uphold it is just plain silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top