Obama's Attempt to be the SCOTUS, could it have ramifications?
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Congress has no specific authority to bring or defend cases in front of the SCOTUS and no department under their control has the lawyers to do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#Powers_of_Congress
There is no portion of Congress specifically delineated for this purpose. They have the power to remove from office both judges and executive officers as well as their own members, but not one to usurp the power of the Justice Department of the Executive branch and to take its place.
I believe they could argue their side, as citizen groups with standing could, but they don't have the power to bring the case forward.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
friend of the court briefs are only to bolster a position or argument, not to plead a case.
How does it open the door any wider than it was already open? This door was opened by the framers of the Constitution and has been as open as the Congress's power to make law, or the judicaries power to interperate those laws.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
obama did not open the door...its been open for well over a hundred years
Which would make more sense if it wasn't as rare as the law school professor said it was in that story in another thread.
It's inane to pretend that signing statements are the same thing, etc. It really isn't. This is bringing something forward that is quite different.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
it is rare and should remain rare. i don't recall saying that signing statements are the same thing.
The door has always been open.
And Obama is enforcing the law (to the extent that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act requires or calls for "enforcement" by the executive of any kind). However, if it is challenged in court the DOJ is not arguing that it is constitutional.
Read the thread. You don't know what you are talking about and make it clear with this post here. Catch up then give an educated opinion based on what I have said in the thread rather than what you are assuming about me because of the title. You will find a post from me that will likely change your mind. Until you do that, you really have nothing to say because everything you say to or about me is in ignorance. You should have done that earlier when I first suggested it, I'm not here to hold your hand all the time or to read the board to you so you don't keep doing this.
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.
Why would this incidence make a difference? Its been going on for a long time? Obama is not the first, in fact many argue this type of decision making was what was intended by the framers when they gave the Executitive branch the power to enforce the law.
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.
Good point, but it works the other way, he has promised to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not necessarly the laws passed by Congress.
So if the President belives a law passed by Congress is Unconstitutional that president should be required to defend that law in the Supreme Court?
Silly
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.
That is silly, the president is REQUIRED to decide where to expend resources, and defending a law that he chooses not to defend, is not by any stretch of the imagination a compulsary portion of the job.
Pittafull understanding of presidental powers, or silly gyrations to justify criticizing a president you dont like.
Yes, future presidents will have that power, AND nothing Presidnet Obama did or has done will change that.