Why not even Congress can sue the administration over unconstitutional executive actions

Daily Caller ^ | 02/07/2014 | Elizabeth Price Foley

[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.

[familyop]

"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.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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.

[IronJack]

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.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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'.

[little jeremiah]

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

[upchuck]

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

[Rodamala]

2 words. Second Amendment.

[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

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.

[dalereed]

” 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?

[Rodamala]

...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.