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 ...
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.
HUH?
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.
.
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.