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

[NOVA]

really........what if congress passed a law encroaching on the executive authority?

The the SCOTUS would be called in to render a verdict.
WTF do you think their job is.???

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I know that he disliked and disagreed with abortions. But I am not aware that he, or his legal staff, thought it was actually unconstitutional.

If so, then I would have to consider him not enforcing the laws as protecting the constitution.

However, other gov't entities could still prosecute or pursue states or municipalities who refused to allow them. Just as congress can allocate money for the legal opposition to gay marriages.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I've never suggested it was never done before, I simply pointed out one of the 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?

the first president was not impeached doing what obama is doing.

first off....this isn't simply a matter of "do not like". obama's admin have actually given reasons. if their belief is that to defend such a law violates the constitution, then no, his duty is first and foremost to the constitution.

do you disagree with this? that is why there are 3 branches of government.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The the SCOTUS would be called in to render a verdict.
WTF do you think their job is.???

and scotus has said, the president can IGNORE those laws before they are adjudicated unconstitutional

the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional

next

 

[Damocles]

its already been passed by clinton...now obama is president and he is charged with defending the constitution, which is the highest law in the land. higher than congressional laws.

You asked about Congress passing a law now, not this one.

IMO, he should bring it before the SCOTUS himself if he believes the law to be unconstitutional. It is clear he has standing, and administration of any law has costs.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Obama personally disagrees with gay marriage. But he believes (and numerous high ranking legal scholars agree) that it is uncosntitutional.

 

[Damocles]

and scotus has said, the president can IGNORE those laws before they are adjudicated unconstitutional



next

No, only 4 justices have ever spoken on the matter at all. While they did say what you list here, that is hardly the entire Court.

 

[NOVA]

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.

You talk like a ass....the SC does not rule on every law passed by congress...

The law enacted IS THE FUCKIN' LAW until someone claims otherwise....

Even then, it still is the law until the SC rules otherwise....

 

[Damocles]

Obama personally disagrees with gay marriage. But he believes (and numerous high ranking legal scholars agree) that it is uncosntitutional.

Obama doesn't really personally disagree with gay marriage, that is poll driven nonsense.

I personally agree with it, however still believe the President should get a ruling rather than take hold of powers not enumerated to the President in the constitution.

In this case he is attempting to "punt"... I understand that. However, I fully expect the use of this rare circumstance to increase in the future. Each new President will choose to "punt" in the same way.

He isn't "ignoring" the law. It is still in place. He just won't provide any lawyers to argue the government's side when it is brought before courts.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, only 4 justices have ever spoken on the matter at all. While they did say what you list here, that is hardly the entire Court.

are you claiming that the decision is not valid? holds no precedent?

even if dicta....that dicta speaks volumes.

you would have the president of the united states of america defend or prosecute an unconstitutional law, simply because the legislative branch passed said law. it is irrelevant whether a prior president signed off on the law.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You talk like a ass....the SC does not rule on every law passed by congress...

The law enacted IS THE FUCKIN' LAW until someone claims otherwise....

Even then, it still is the law until the SC rules otherwise....

you talk like a moron who doesn't know history or judicial precedent.

it may be the "law"....but if the law is unconstitutional on its face....fuck it...google it and learn something

you're so smart

 

[Damocles]

are you claiming that the decision is not valid? holds no precedent?

even if dicta....that dicta speaks volumes.

you would have the president of the united states of america defend or prosecute an unconstitutional law, simply because the legislative branch passed said law. it is irrelevant whether a prior president signed off on the law.

No. I am asking if you think future Presidents may use that, until now, rare "power" in the future and if it may be to the detriment of such things as ObamaCare, and other things that people cheering this may not like.

First, he isn't "ignoring" the law, he simply chooses not to defend it. Had he attempted to "strike it down" without authority it would be quite different.

 

[NOVA]

The Obama healthcare crap is an example...

It passed and was considered THE LAW,,,until

the law was challenged and now it is deemed unconstitutional by SOME judges....;

It will now go to the SCOTUS for FINAL disposition....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No. I am asking if you think future Presidents may use that, until now, rare "power" in the future and if it may be to the detriment of such things as ObamaCare, and other things that people cheering this may not like.

until "rare"...damo....it is still rare...obama using it one time does not all of a sudden make it not rare. please.

and yes. i support the executive choosing to NOT defend or prosecute a law that they deem unconstitutional. that is why states give prosecutors discretion. i'm fairly certain the same holds true for the federal government. if obama's admin doesn't defend or prosecute, then they can be sued. just like in california when newsom allowed gay marriage. he was the executive and said....grant the gay marriages. he was sued. the courts (as is their proper role) put a kabosh on that.

 

[NOVA]

Obama doesn't really personally disagree with gay marriage, that is poll driven nonsense.

I personally agree with it, however still believe the President should get a ruling rather than take hold of powers not enumerated to the President in the constitution.

In this case he is attempting to "punt"... I understand that. However, I fully expect the use of this rare circumstance to increase in the future. Each new President will choose to "punt" in the same way.

He isn't "ignoring" the law. It is still in place. He just won't provide any lawyers to argue the government's side when it is brought before courts.

Which is NOT ADHERING TO THE OATH HE TOOK to become President...
His oath is to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION as it is ...not how he thinks it should be...
they ought to impeach his ass tomorrow.

'

 

[NOVA]

to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION means to use AFFIRMATIVE ACTION .....it doesn;t mean to be a freakin' spectator with your thumb up your ass like a typical politician...

 

[Damocles]

until "rare"...damo....it is still rare...obama using it one time does not all of a sudden make it not rare. please.

and yes. i support the executive choosing to NOT defend or prosecute a law that they deem unconstitutional. that is why states give prosecutors discretion. i'm fairly certain the same holds true for the federal government. if obama's admin doesn't defend or prosecute, then they can be sued. just like in california when newsom allowed gay marriage. he was the executive and said....grant the gay marriages. he was sued. the courts (as is their proper role) put a kabosh on that.

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.

 

[Onceler]

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.

A lot of that equation is going to depend on the "will of the people." Obamacare could face challenges of course, on a variety of levels (as it does now). But, it could also become very entrenched very quickly, and change the dynamics of what you're talking about.

Certainly, no President would use this kind of strategy on 3rd rails like Medicare, or SS. If Obamacare becomes something many either like to have, or depend on, it gets a lot trickier...

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I don't see how this is any different then the SCOTUS deciding which cases it will and will not hear. The president has determined that defending this particular law is not a good use of it's time. It could be for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the cost of defense, especially if he believes the court will overturn the law regardless of his administration defending it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I don't see how this is any different then the SCOTUS deciding which cases it will and will not hear. The president has determined that defending this particular law is not a good use of it's time. It could be for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the cost of defense, especially if he believes the court will overturn the law regardless of his administration defending it.

its a good analogy capt....but the executive branch does not get petitions for certiorari

there is a huge difference if you examine the different roles our brances play. when scotus denies cert, they don't make an express opinion, however, they essentially let the lower court (be it app. or dist.) ruling stand. so there was an adjudication. often times cert will be denied because not enough app. cts. have ruled one way or the other. its more complex than that...but i just wanted to point out, the executive branch does not have that power.

they are to enforce the laws. and if those laws conflict with constitution, they do not have to enforce them.