Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why not even Congress can sue the administration over unconstitutional executive actions
Daily Caller ^ | 02/07/2014 | Elizabeth Price Foley

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 president’s 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 can’t 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, there’s little confidence he will faithfully execute the law as written. Sadly, in the Washington of 2014, partisanship trumps constitutional principles. While President Obama’s 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 Congress’s prerogative to make laws and the president’s duty to faithfully execute those laws. Unfortunately, the Framers may have been wrong.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/09/2014 8:16:49 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


2 posted on 02/09/2014 8:20:25 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

“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?


3 posted on 02/09/2014 8:21:54 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Partisanship trumps constitutional principles.

No kidding it’s been going on for years now time to change it by the vote.


4 posted on 02/09/2014 8:22:07 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
Richard Nixon resigned after being impeached for obstructing an investigation into the Watergate break-in, and using the IRS and other executive agencies to target political opponents.

HUH?

5 posted on 02/09/2014 8:24:04 AM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

Just impeach him. Make sure it’s a popular issue like gun control. I don’t think O is that dumb.


6 posted on 02/09/2014 8:24:11 AM PST by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

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.


7 posted on 02/09/2014 8:26:28 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

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.


8 posted on 02/09/2014 8:28:24 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
There is only one remedy for a lawless occupant of our White House, and it's in the hands of an equally lawless group:

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.

9 posted on 02/09/2014 8:29:45 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: missnry

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.


10 posted on 02/09/2014 8:32:10 AM PST by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
Citizens can’t file generic lawsuits to enforce the Constitution;

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.

11 posted on 02/09/2014 8:35:28 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

12 posted on 02/09/2014 8:36:43 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

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.


13 posted on 02/09/2014 8:39:35 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
When it comes to the law; we have jury nullification.
It looks now like we have Presidential nullification. -Tom
14 posted on 02/09/2014 8:41:52 AM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

There is the Federal Family, then there is the rest of us great unwashed.


15 posted on 02/09/2014 8:42:25 AM PST by TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

” Democrats used this sham for massive electrical gains in the 1974 elections.”

That is just shocking! 8^)


16 posted on 02/09/2014 8:45:22 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Keep FR Running

We need your help to keep the lights on.
FR is funded solely by contributions made by
liberty loving people who enjoy and use it.

Every donation counts no matter how big or small.
If you can donate $5, $10, $20, $100 or more,
it would be greatly appreciated.


Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!

Make a difference.

PLEASE Contribute Today!


Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $38,752
45%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 45% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Two Percent a day keeps the 404 away.

17 posted on 02/09/2014 8:51:24 AM PST by RedMDer (are sHappy with this, America? Make your voices heard. 2014 is just around the corner. ~ Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
impeach or utilize the 2nd amendment, our founders were clear on why and when either should be exercised
18 posted on 02/09/2014 8:59:57 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


19 posted on 02/09/2014 9:10:56 AM PST by lakecumberlandvet (Appeasement never works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

.


20 posted on 02/09/2014 9:14:33 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Impeach the little islamist and get it over with.


21 posted on 02/09/2014 9:20:16 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.

That simple.

Except that it requires the ruling class to put country over personal gain. That is the really hard part.


22 posted on 02/09/2014 9:21:25 AM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
...it falls on the Supreme Court to act as the check against untrammeled executive authority.

And Roberts is in the Regime's pocket. It will come down to final options.

23 posted on 02/09/2014 9:23:15 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604; Jacquerie

From the article:
Even when a congressional majority agrees with the president and passes a law the president signs, there’s 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
http://dailyrushbo.com/limbaugh-constitutional-crisis-is-very-real/

Video – 7 Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pipAPPvzS3E

If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they don’t think that it’ll matter because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean that’s 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 president’s race.


24 posted on 02/09/2014 9:24:18 AM PST by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
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.

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.

25 posted on 02/09/2014 9:28:58 AM PST by usurper (Liberals GET OFF MY LAWN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

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.


26 posted on 02/09/2014 9:34:27 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


27 posted on 02/09/2014 9:36:17 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


28 posted on 02/09/2014 9:38:02 AM PST by upchuck (Stop this abuse now! Get behind Convention of States: http://bit.ly/1ak1Iz9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...

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

29 posted on 02/09/2014 9:47:24 AM PST by Focault's Pendulum (I live in NJ....' Nuff said!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

Jefferson.


30 posted on 02/09/2014 9:47:49 AM PST by Focault's Pendulum (I live in NJ....' Nuff said!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Impeach and remove


31 posted on 02/09/2014 9:49:35 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
James Iredell was instrumental in ratification efforts in the State of North Carolina on behalf of the 1787 Constitution. President Washington appointed him to the first Supreme Court, where he served for a decade.
"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 Virginia’s George Mason’s 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 Iredell’s “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 Iredell’s 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."

Sources:
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)


32 posted on 02/09/2014 10:13:07 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
Isn't there another way besides bullets or massive gatherings of civil unrest? Wasn't an effective tool general strikes in the switch from communism in Poland?

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.

33 posted on 02/09/2014 10:30:02 AM PST by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


34 posted on 02/09/2014 10:40:52 AM PST by rwoodward ("god, guns and more ammo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?

What if everyone changed their W-4 to 99 exemptions for a month?


35 posted on 02/09/2014 10:43:42 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Elections have consequences. The American people had better wake up and work for the vote!


36 posted on 02/09/2014 10:53:43 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
It will come down to final options.

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.

37 posted on 02/09/2014 10:54:55 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

38 posted on 02/09/2014 10:57:22 AM PST by Manic_Episode (F the Whigs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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?


39 posted on 02/09/2014 11:00:02 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
That's so true. We are in the midst of a horrible constitutional crisis, our reps no longer write the laws we live under. It is more than enough justification to take more positive measures against our oppressors.

If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they don’t think that it’ll matter because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean that’s 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.

40 posted on 02/09/2014 11:33:15 AM PST by Jacquerie (Your sovereignty has been stolen. Reclaim it. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
"Wasn't an effective tool general strikes in the switch from communism in Poland?"

Yes, and political folks in both parties are terrified of the mere thought. Also read about Vaclav Havel and nonpolitical politics.

But you know that the economy is already being sucked dry by the aforementioned folks and will get much worse. Become more frugal, more self-sufficient, and learn to produce something useful as a hobby for now. Home energy production and savings are most important.


41 posted on 02/09/2014 12:06:02 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
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:

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.

42 posted on 02/09/2014 1:02:58 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
How to we petition the Executive branch for a redress of grievances?

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.

43 posted on 02/09/2014 1:54:00 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
We are, in effect, his bosses.

In effect, yes. But, you seem to forget how things are working these days. Constitutional limits, parameters and considerations are 'out the window'.

44 posted on 02/09/2014 2:57:49 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

An impeachment trial could (should) make a crimes public, that would be the value.


45 posted on 02/09/2014 4:23:41 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Granted. But how do we motivate the ball-less RINOs to draft the articles?


46 posted on 02/09/2014 4:32:12 PM PST by upchuck (Stop this abuse now! Get behind Convention of States: http://bit.ly/1ak1Iz9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

2 words. Second Amendment.


47 posted on 02/09/2014 5:21:57 PM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
Although what you say is truly a player in this situation; "2 words. Second Amendment.", I can't see how that is more than a political threat or worse, a police state mandate.

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.

48 posted on 02/09/2014 6:57:40 PM PST by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

” 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?


49 posted on 02/09/2014 7:03:39 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
...before we start with the pitchforks and tar and feathers.

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.

50 posted on 02/10/2014 4:36:33 AM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson