Skip to comments.Why not even Congress can sue the administration over unconstitutional executive actions
Posted on 02/09/2014 8:16:49 AM PST by Rusty0604
What happens if a president refuses to take care that the laws be faithfully executed as required by Article II of the Constitution? The Framers assumed that neither Congress nor the courts would tolerate such usurpation.
But what if none of these checks and balances works? Americans may soon find out.
First, courts have limited ability to check a presidents failure to execute. The primary obstacle is standing, a doctrine that requires a plaintiff to have a concrete, personal injury in order to sue. Citizens cant file generic lawsuits to enforce the Constitution; they must prove that the government has harmed them in a personal, palpable way.
When a president delays or exempts people from a law so-called benevolent suspensions who has standing to sue him? Generally, no one.
Even when a congressional majority agrees with the president and passes a law the president signs, theres little confidence he will faithfully execute the law as written. Sadly, in the Washington of 2014, partisanship trumps constitutional principles. While President Obamas pattern of failing to execute laws is serious, the ability of courts and Congress to stop him is shockingly limited. The Framers relied on the other branches of government to jealously guard Congresss prerogative to make laws and the presidents duty to faithfully execute those laws. Unfortunately, the Framers may have been wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The three branches, any more, are in collusion in seeking vastly expanded federal powers. Which leaves it to We the People to vote out those who pursue such.
“When a president delays or exempts people from a law so-called benevolent suspensions who has standing to sue him? Generally, no one”
How about the people who must follow that law when others subject to its verbage are simple excused from following it? This troglodyte argues that the president can simply wave his hand and exempt his friends from income taxes,, and that those who must still pay cannot sue?
Partisanship trumps constitutional principles.
No kidding it’s been going on for years now time to change it by the vote.
Just impeach him. Make sure it’s a popular issue like gun control. I don’t think O is that dumb.
And along that line, what about allowing illegals to stay and get jobs when so many citizens are out of work? I guess a person would have to prove that they were not hired only because an illegal was chosen instead. Hard to prove in court.
I don’t think anybody has the stones to impeach him remember he’s from Chicago and they have many IOU’s and dirty laundry to expose.
Your name will be on the contract with your signature or your brains.It’s how they play the game.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
None of this is how it worked during Watergate, when after a two year battering and constant televised Democrat theatricals, Nixon stopped fighting. Democrats used this sham for massive electrical gains in the 1974 elections. The judiciary thwarted Nixon at every turn.
Terms like “the imperial presidency,” “above the law” and “Watergate” itself originated with a hyper partisan media, who swore they would use the same zeal to investigate Democrat lawlessness in office. The public believed it.
Now they are completely disinterested in the lawless king we all face. He is their king and they are quite pleased. But some of us remember what these hellish hyenas did and said on the way to hypocrisy.
Yes, they can.
Writ of Mandamus: (Latin: "we command") -- A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, Municipal Corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.
The Supreme Court can issue a writ compelling the chief executive to carry out the duties for which he was elected. The citizens would first have to petition the Court, then the Court would have to agree to issue the writ.
But if this is a nation of laws, then the highest authority in the land (second only to The People) is the Judiciary. In the instance of an administration as lawless as this one, it falls on the Supreme Court to act as the check against untrammeled executive authority. If that fails, we are forced to our final resort.
I have lost faith in the Supreme Court. In fact, in reading history I’m not sure I should have ever had faith in it.
There is the Federal Family, then there is the rest of us great unwashed.
” Democrats used this sham for massive electrical gains in the 1974 elections.”
That is just shocking! 8^)
|Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000||Receipts & Pledges to-date: $38,752|
|Woo hoo!! And the first 45% is in!! Thank you all very much!!|
The House of Representatives, which is within the Legislative Branch, constitutionally controls the purse strings of government. That’s how the Executive and Judicial Branches can be kept in check. Unfortunately, a majority of the current crop of representatives don’t seem to have the gravitas or desire to use the power granted them by the Constitution.
Impeach the little islamist and get it over with.
As usual, the thread is lost in the weeds pontificating over tangential issues.
The cure to executive orders not allowed under the Constitution and to executive orders plainly in defiance of laws passed by the congress, is for the house to get some guts and deny or withdraw funding.
Except that it requires the ruling class to put country over personal gain. That is the really hard part.
And Roberts is in the Regime's pocket. It will come down to final options.
From the article:
Even when a congressional majority agrees with the president and passes a law the president signs, theres little confidence he will faithfully execute the law as written. Why pass comprehensive immigration reform, for example, if it includes tight border security or deportation measures with which the president disagrees and may ignore?
LIMBAUGH: Constitutional Crisis Is VERY REAL
Video 7 Minutes
If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they dont think that itll matter because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean thats a breach of serious proportion. That is a constitutional challenge and crisis that is very real, that nobody apparently has the courage to do anything about, because of the presidents race.
Agreed however almost every day a citizen is killed or victimized by a "dreamer" or an illegal alien who has already been ordered deported but is still walking around because of the administrations willful refusal to enforce the law.
That constitutes standing, but other than awarding monetary damages I don't see how the courts could compel the administration to start enforcing the law.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The power of the purse is the biggest power of government and it resides largely in the House. Unfortunately, the House has abrogated much of their power through entitlements language that prohibits the Congress from unfunding this vote buying. But, the House still has power of discretionary spending and this money is used to fund the Executive Branch. The House can and should attack these criminals where it hurts most, in the accounts that they use to enjoy their many perks at public expense. Airplanes - gone. Limousines - gone. White House entertainments - gone.
The list of possibilities is endless. Reduce the budgets of the EPA, HHS, DOL, the IRS, DOJ, and all of the other Obama Crime Family operations. They will squeal like stuck pigs of course, but it will be such a sweet sound.
I suspect this was first discussed by nobama’s goons and handlers two years ago.
They would not have tried this if they thought Congress or the courts could prevail.
Impeachment is a remedy. But:
- Probably won’t happen because of the race card.
- The House could impeach nobama but the Senate, as presently constructed, would not convict, leaving nobama to continue his lawless ways.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
Impeach and remove
"The only real security of liberty, in any country, is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. That power which created the government can destroy it. Should the government, on trial, be found to want amendments, those amendments can be made in a regular method, in a mode prescribed by the Constitution itself [...]. We have [this] watchfulness of the people, which I hope will never be found wanting." - James Iredell - Elliot, 4:130
His is an interesting story, available here.
(Excerpted portions below)
"When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 proposed the federal Constitution, Iredell was its foremost advocate in North Carolina. He inaugurated the first public movement in the state in favor of the document and wrote extensively in hopes of creating a new government.
"In particular, he responded to Virginias George Masons eleven objections to the Constitution and gained national attention in doing so. A Norfolk printer, for example, shelved other political tracts in 1788 to publish Iredells Answers. The essay preceded 49 of the 85 essays that constitute the Federalist Papers and appears to have been widely distributed.
. . . .
"When North Carolina finally ratified the document at its second convention (1789), Iredell was widely considered the intellectual general of the Federalists victory.
"For Iredells ratification efforts, President George Washington rewarded the North Carolinian with an appointment to the original U.S. Supreme Court, where he served for almost a decade. . . . During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Iredell closely dealt with Presidents Washington and John Adams and offered vigorous and partisan support for their administrations. He also chronicled important events and personalities."
Donna Kelly and Lang Baradell, The Papers of James Iredell, Vol. III, 1784-1789 (Raleigh, 2003); Don Higginbothom, ed., The Papers of James Iredell 2 Vols. (Raleigh, 1976); Griffith J. McRee, ed., Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, 2 Vols. (New York, 1857-58); Willis P. Whichard, Justice James Iredell (Durham, 2000).
By Willis P. Whichard, Former Associate Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court (1986-1998) and former Dean of Campbell University School of Law (1999-2006)
What about a general strike that just starved out all tax collection for what, a day? A week? A month?
That way even the supposed Purse-string-holding - too weak kneed RINO opposition party couldn't get in the way.
There is however, the power of the public square. Put him on trial like they did with Bill Clinton and let the public hear every dirty detail of Obama and his rat gang. We may not be able to impeach him but we can give him some serious body blows.
What if everyone changed their W-4 to 99 exemptions for a month?
Elections have consequences. The American people had better wake up and work for the vote!
The only way those "final options" will have any moral authority is if we can argue, as did the Founders, that we have exhausted all legitimate means at our disposal to secure a hearing for our grievances:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
If this administration refuses to acknowledge its subordination to the rule of law, and the constraints placed upon it by our chartering documents, then it is not OUR government any longer, and we owe it no allegiance.
Isn’t there a writ that can be filed with the court that addresses this directly (failure to perform official duties). If the writ is not obeyed, then there is contempt of the court that follows.
Writ of mandamus?
If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they dont think that itll matter because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean thats a breach of serious proportion.
The 17th amendment enabled all of this. Our once proud senate of the states, the world's most deliberative body is the sorry rubber stamp of a tyrant. The careful design of our framers is collapsing. Marx cannot be grafted onto Madison much longer.
Then we get back to the argument about 'standing'. Who has standing? How to we petition the Executive branch for a redress of grievances?
We The People have no standing as has been decided in courts during the birth certificate fiascoes.
Will the Tea Party align with a contingent of lawyers and go at it that way?
I more agree with your closing statement.
We don't petition the Executive. We petition the Judiciary. But a Writ of Mandamus only affects a LOWER body, and since this is the chief executive we're talking about, the only court of superior jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. We petition them; we don't have to prove "standing." We are the public affected by the executive's failure to act as he's sworn to do. We are, in effect, his bosses.
The damage done to our society by a rogue president isn't confined to actual impacts, although there are many of those and they are egregious. If such a man can't be constrained by the rule of law and by the limits imposed on him by the documents that define his position, then he must be deposed by other means.
I don't think even odumbo wants THAT.
We're not out of options ... yet.
In effect, yes. But, you seem to forget how things are working these days. Constitutional limits, parameters and considerations are 'out the window'.
An impeachment trial could (should) make a crimes public, that would be the value.
Granted. But how do we motivate the ball-less RINOs to draft the articles?
2 words. Second Amendment.
We should try first to starve the beast before we start with the pitchforks and tar and feathers. If that all fails shooting should commence at will, but God help us right from the start.
” I guess a person would have to prove that they were not hired only because an illegal was chosen instead.”
I was forced to close a 57 year old business or violate a bunch of labor laws and union contracts because of illegals, would that count?
Unfortunately, 5 minutes after my post a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone destroyed my bedroom... My cache of feathers, stockpiled in rectangular cotton fabric sacks at the head of my bed, were destroyed.