Posted on 01/12/2014 10:09:24 AM PST by Libloather
!
I think the good guys will win this one. The actions by Obama were outrageous. The appeals court ruling was simple, straightforward and obvious.
Not in Bizzarroworld.
If Bush did this the media would scream that we were on the road to a dictatorship. But since it’s Obama they’re worried that there are obstructions blocking the road to progress.
Regarding constitutionally undefined executive orders, please consider the following material which has been previously introduced on this message board.
To begin with, the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Constitution-ignoring presidents like Obama, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches. In my opinion this means that Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers. So executive branch executive orders cannot be law because only Congress has the constitutional authority to make laws.
Next, the suspicious thing about the hearings concerning the constitutionality of Obama's executive orders is the following. The Supreme Court had previously clarified, in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952, that executive orders don't have the force of law unless they are based on laws made by Congress.
Executive order
So the White House's claims that Obama's executive orders are a way to bypass Congress not only have no basis in constitutional law, but are probably intended to impress low-information voters who don't understand legislative, executive and judicial powers.
So not only does the referenced article wrongly give the impression that the Supreme Court is breaking new ground in testing the constitutionality of executive orders imo, but I question if activist justices are planning to ignore case precedent which clarifies that executive orders don't intrinsincly have the force of law so that they can argue that Obama's executive orders are constitutional.
After all, activist justices had wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had historically clarified that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes so that they could give the green light to unconstitutional federal Obamacare.
Are we having fun yet?
The crows know that he knows everything they’ve done all the way back to having an unpaid library fine in middle school. Once again, nothing will be done and he’ll add another free pass to his collection.
Excellent summary of the situation!
And because Obama has polarized the country, we will find that if Congress exercises its lawful authority, the Obama base will see that as obstructionist Republicans, rather than what it is: a destruction of our rule of law, which will eventually impact the Dems negatively as well as everyone else.
Meant to say the Obama actions are the destruction of the rule of law, not Congressional assertion of its constitutional prerogatives.
I think everyone knew what I meant. Still a little too early for me . . .
So if the SCOTUS says these recess appointments are unconstitutional, Obama simply ignores their ruling and thumbs his nose at the Constitution, NOTHING will happen. The RINOs would not even think about impeaching him and of course the Democrats will defend him no matter what. Obama has already trashed the Constitution and no one in Washington seems to care. Obama could declare himself dictator and the GOP would just whimper in the corner.
So if the SCOTUS says these recess appointments are unconstitutional, Obama simply ignores their ruling and thumbs his nose at the Constitution, NOTHING will happen.
Something I don’t know, do impeachment charges have to
originate in the Congress or could they be brought by
the Judiciary, to the congress?
The House brings charges by majority vote, the Senate holds the trial and votes to convict or acquit. A two-thirds vote in the Senate is necessary to convict. That’s it.
So the Judiciary could or could not go to congress
and say we believe what the President has done is
unconstitutional and feel that charges should be made?
Then I understand congress passing impeachment proceedings
to the Senate.
Because sitting presidents cannot be indicted, the most a grand jury could do would be to name the president as an unindicted co-conspirator, which is what a grand jury did to Nixon.
Thanks. Wasn’t sure.
Noel Canning is located in Yakima, WA.
The article referenced it Noel’s business as ‘Oregon-based’ so that relates to us.
If they reverse it will endanger the Constitution and finalize the destruction of the republic.
Spot on. The Legislature can delegate the authority to the executive to investigate and formulate laws, but only the Legislature can pass laws. Only then do they have the “force of law” which is executed by the Executive Branch. It’s time to dismantle the Executive legislation via agency regulation and rules making.
I’d also like to see an end to all administrative law. It too is an unconstitutional usurpation of the judicial function by the executive. We have courts of law, we don’t need executive courts of law, no matter how “convenient”.
Wrong. He’d force a Constitutional crisis if he did that. Commerce is the business of America. He’d lose in court after court and his lawlessness would be public. He won’t ignore this ruling no matter what.
That’s why the treachery, if any, will occur at the level of SCOTUS just like with the idiotic ACA ruling.
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.