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 ...
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.
That simple.
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, 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.
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
Jefferson.
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, 4:130His 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)
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 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.
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.