Skip to comments.George F. Will: Stopping a lawless president
Posted on 06/21/2014 6:13:59 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
What philosopher Harvey Mansfield calls taming the prince making executive power compatible with democracys abhorrence of arbitrary power has been a perennial problem of modern politics. It is now more urgent in the United States than at any time since the Founders, having rebelled against George IIIs unfettered exercise of royal prerogative, stipulated that presidents shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity and qualitatively different.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In before beating up on George. He makes the argument in favor of the House authorizing a law suit against the executive branch instead of impeachment. A lot of members of Congress (most of their staffers) read George so its worth reading.
Yes. It's very informative.
Congress is generally keen on finding ways to pass its duty and responsibility to others. Calling on the courts is a perennial favorite approach. And the president can just as well figure ways to duck around court orders, as he finds ways to duck around statutes.
Thanks for the info!
All y’all ping to this post !
Lawsuit sounds interesting..... takes fewer congresspeople than impeachment. May have the same results.
So why should we expend one tax dollar, an ounce of our energy, impeaching this Boobamba creep?
Prosecution is a good way----telling him to "get out" is another.....maybe changing the WH locks (he'd never figure that one out).
We should also consider that every flop he makes impacts on Hillary's candidacy....and that's a good thing.
If I were as talented as Mark Twain, I could write something like the following about George Will:
Will writes as though many years ago he purchased a large number of 4+ syllable words, and he feels he must use them all often so he gets his money’s worth.
Anybody who uses the word “supine” more than once in a newspaper column is just begging for a wedgie.
Why should Americans believe Congress can get the Judicial branch to reign in a traitorous and terrorist executive regime, when Congress is to gutless to do what they should be doing?
And if it were to be successful, or at least partially successful in restraining the White House, what's to keep that tactic from being used by a DemonicRat-controlled Congress to attack a patriotic president?
Lawless president. Spineless congress.
Frankly, the fact that you had to ‘get in before the beating....’ confirms what George Will has been all along.
I don’t need a bow-tied elitist who makes his living pumping out words and blathering pseudo-intelligently on Sunday TV now about a lawless President?
Where has George been? Where was he the first four years of Obama? Where was he up until now? Waiting until the last two years to jump on a bandwagon that so so many of us have pulled for YEARS!. All those years when George, and Charles and all of the rest of the token conservatives on Sunday TV sat there talking about Obama as Legitimate President, Obama as some sort of Well-meaning, but misguided CINC, and every other vein of conversation that just reeked of appeasement, equivocation and submission.
George is too late the ‘hero’. That was won last week when Cantor was banished by his constituents and a lowly academic with no political experience.
The fact is that Will, Kraut and all the rest don’t know jack. They know their rarified little political utopia of DC where even they have a role, even if it is the loyal-but-not-too-vocal opposition.
I don’t need to read what he has to say (although I did this one). He’s just now doing his cramming for the exam final, but that was last Tuesday.
“Lawsuit sounds interesting..... takes fewer congresspeople than impeachment. May have the same results.”.....
Don’t you still have to get some “unbiased” judge to allow the law suit to go forward? Good luck with that!
Yep, the will still get the “same results”.
Will makes a case for trying a strategy if for no other reason than to say, “OK we gave it a shot”. I’m glad that he at least agrees that Øbozo needs to be reined in.
Equally illustrative are the comments at the link. The left does not care if Øbozo has gone full renegade. They don’t care how many laws he breaks or lives he destroys. They are cheering him on not because he is doing anything right or advancing anything they care about (he isn’t) but because he hates the right and he is using (abusing) his office to punish us.
Soapbox / ballot box / ammo box.
We’ve tried the first two....
I very much like your conclusion. I’m gonna rip it off! :o)
MSM completely missed the catastrophic 12 point Cantor loss
They did not miss, they purposely ignored. Events that don’t support their agenda are supressed. The MSM is nothing but a liberal propaganda machine.
On occasion facts do creep into their “reporting” but its usually by accident. The MSM is totally corrupt.
Never use a Latinate word where an Anglo-Saxon one would do the job.
Here’s an idea. Use Sunday talk shows and every other opportunity to get in front of a camera to forcefully make the case against this president. Go after the networks for underreporting as well.
I am bewildered by the inaction of congress.
This is just george will’s attempt to be relevant. He and the rest of the go-alongs inside the beltway of WDC are such butt-kissers. They know the TEA party has passed them by and made nthem obviously irrelevant. They know they are feckless and co-conspirators to the decline of America by these commie thugs in the Clown Prince nobama administration. But...they probably still get invited to Georgetown cocktail parties. So life is good.
Thank you, it’s actually a very old concept that (unlike Will’s proposal) has proven “tried and true” LOL
Eight Commandments of the Liberal Left
Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking
Thou shall not allow any member to question the group's inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions
Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions
Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose
Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments
Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view
Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members
Thou shalt appoint mind guards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions
I’m shocked —SHOCKED!— that a communist has no regard for the Constitution.
Agree. After all, bow ties aren’t cheap.
It just seems pathetic to me that all it takes is a little TV makeup, airtime, a weekly paycheck, a DC Condo, and a few cocktail parties and some fake camaraderie with liberal zealot pundits to sit back for YEARS and watch this country’s end talking about it as an impotent mental exercise of no consequence..
I was listening to Levin last night, and he mentioned that he has had success in taking rogue agencies to court. As an example, he sued the EPA at the end of the Clinton regime, forcing them to refrain from destroying computerized records, in a situation analogous to the IRS scandal.
But I don't think Boehner is talking to Mark.
Bingo. Congress shirk its law making duties to the executive branch a long time ago. It was done so Congress could take credit for the good laws/regulation, and give blame for the bad laws/regulation.
Take for instance the EPA. The real scoundrels concerning this rogue outfit is Congress! A few paragraphs of carefully worded law could reign in this runaway bureaucracy. Done.
And yes I blame Bush for this. He had both Houses yet did not reign in these maverick agencies. He gave them more power by default or overtly. He even gave us more government.
George Will is Kevin Bacon in "Animal House."
The basic problem with that kind of legal action by a legislative body is that it automatically acknowledges that the legislature's clear authority would be subject to the whims of the judicial branch of government. Nothing can be further from the truth here in the U.S. A legislative body that files a lawsuit to deal with abuses of executive power is nothing more than a bunch of cowards and should cease to exist.
Every executive abuse that George Will can contemplate in this administration is carried out by executive branch appointees whose offices are subject to Federal funding that can only be authorized by Congress.
The problem the U.S. is facing right now isn't an abusive executive branch of government: it's a legislative branch that is perfectly comfortable with the arrangement.
They've already had an opportunity; instead of taking a stand, they punted.
The difference there is that Levin wasn't taking legal action against these rogue agencies on behalf of CONGRESS. LOL.
Sadly, most of the comments on this article at the WAPO site are stating that it does not matter how lawless “he” is, because of those who went before him. And, because the commenters agree with the laws he is not enforcing, it is ok to not enforce. Everyday I feel like I do not recognize the country I live in any more, where laws do not apply to everyone and no one has the courage to hold people accountable for not doing their jobs.
And, everyday that border is open, the population who is willing to “vote themselves the bank” instead of producing is increasing and those producing and paying the way will LOSE.
The RINOs are simply careerists, bought and sold by the corporations which have decided to ally with the government against their competitors.
The role of the RINOs is to dissipate the energy of the true opposition to the communists and fascists: the Tea Party.
The RINOs are as much our enemy as the communists in elected office and the media.
We can thank Ted Cruz for exposing them for what they are.
It’s useful to remember that this sort of abuse of Presidential power has happened twice before in our history, in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. In both cases, their abuses were tolerated in part because we were involved in a war. When the war ended, much of the excesses were rolled back.
In Roosevelt’s case, the Supreme Court intervened to check Presidential power, but Roosevelt countered by threatening to pack the Court and they were intimidated from taking further action. World War II had the effect of restoring some balance, but the power and reach of the Federal Government have been the lasting legacy of Roosevelt’s overreach.
We are facing the same sort of overreach and are in the process of expanding the Federal Government’s power and reach yet again. The closely divided Congress has proven an ineffective counter and the Courts have largely stayed on the sidelines except where liberals on the bench have chosen to intervene on Obama’s side. If we don’t act soon, the Judiciary will become even more liberal and that avenue will be closed. That day is very near.
I am not so sure a congressional lawsuit against the President is a valid approach. The court can refuse to hear such a lawsuit for the simple reason that impeachment and conviction in the Senate is the process specified in the Constitution.
In other words, the courts can express “What jurisdiction do we have over your complaint? Why involve us? You have the power and authority in Congress to dispense with this.”
It is understandable why some in Congress want to avoid impeachment but taking it to the Court would be shirking responsibility and burdening another government body that has no authority in such matters.
Obama knows that the people, the press, and even the republican congress are not going to seriously challenge him on anything. Even the two men who ran for office against him couldn't muster the courage to take him to task in a serious way.
We no longer have any meaningful values as a nation, and George Will isn't really any different (Mr. Low-Voltage Atheist). Obama is actually admired even by those who know what he is doing is wrong and destructive simply for the reason that he is less of a spineless, scheming jellyfish who won't stand up for anything than his political opponents like Boehner and McConnell.
Calling on the courts is the only current congressional remedy.
Given the snail like pace of the courts, there is no real remedy that is in accordance with law.
Of course is there is no law, the situation becomes simpler
Taking agencies to court actually works, especially when they are operating outside of their statutory mandate. Regulatory agencies are another tool Congress uses to duck accountability. “We didn’t make the rules, we just created an agency to do that.” But the courts can and do “clarify” what powers an agency has. Not always the way we would like, e.g., Courts deciding that CO2 is a pollutant in the atmosphere, so within EPA regulatory power.
Like your handle, “Math Geek ‘e’”!! Are you irrational? ;-)
I'll have to listen to him again, but can't they do both?
As far as I can tell, their options are:
1) Hold ineffectual hearings.
2) Take them to court (per Mark. OK, I don't understand how this works.)
3) Appoint a special prosecutor, which Holder will never do.
4) Defund agencies, i.e., resulting in a "scary" gov't shutdown.
It seems like 2 & 4 are the only effective means at their disposal. They're chicken sh--, so they won't do 4. So all that's left is option 2.
Your example just make the point that SCOTUS is a political branch, not a judicial branch.
We have a political system of government, of which the Judicial Branch is a part. The question is the extent that the Judiciary and the Presidency impinge on the role of the Legislative Branch.
So the House has already passed a bill that would give expedited judicial action on a lawsuit filed by Congress in specific instances when the executive branch is lawless (basically). But that bill will be killed by the Senate and foreign enemy combatant in the White House.
Is Will saying that the House by itself can authorize a lawsuit brought forward by the House as a whole, which should meet the already-existing criteria for “standing”?
I think Will does a good job of identifying the legal conundrum we’re in.
There should be no excuse for the Senate to block the House bill. Somehow we’ve got to get over this idea that we just have to accept that democrats are lawless and will always get away with it. Tom Daschle received so much static from his constituents that he actually went against the democrat agenda on abortion and (gasp!) represented his constituents. That should not be a rare thing; it should be the norm.
And we need to be engaging the constituents who keep electing lawless SOB’s - turning the question back on them, as to whether the Constitution’s protections (separation of powers, checks and balances, and Constitutional governance) should really be negated by judicial interpretation that it’s “nobody’s business” if government is lawless. If the Constitution’s requirements can never actually be followed, the Constitution has effectively been nullified by judicial fiat. And we need to be asking the east and west coasts if that’s really what they support. Because the crooks they keep electing are totally lawless because of that judicial fiat.
And I say we should bus the whole dang bunch of illegals that have invaded TX into the east coast and California before we ask these questions.
You don't sue the renegade CEO. You fire him. And if you are chickensh!t, then you don't belong on the board of directors.
I seem to remember hearing about a case like this in the last few weeks. The first guy on the board of directors to get voted off the board by the shareholders was named Eric Cantor.
ambiens calor tyrannus
What if Congress votes this or that and the State Governors do not enforce?
This would require Xongress to vote in a new temporary leader and break the hold by the Feds. Pure and simple.
We are indeed too late for impeachment or votes of no confidence.
I guess that's what Mark was saying. I'd like to see him behind a microphone, discussing his lawsuit on TV. I'm now holding my breath waiting for McConnell and Boehner to call him.
I think the idea is that they sue the IRS. Or somebody sues the IRS. Mark's foundation had success against the EPA, so there is precedent.
When a BoD fires a CEO, the CEO gets a lawyer and threatens litigation against the company and the directors. So, the rationale for firing the CEO is put “on trial”, if the matter is not settled prior to the lawsuit being filed or adjudicated.
Even if the matter is settled, the back and forth between the company’s lawyers and the ex-CEO’s lawyers resembles a trial with claims and counter-claims flying every which way.
Donald Trumps’ “You’re Fired!” is total fantasy in our litigious society.
I like Will’s plan because it allows the conservatives to say that they are NOT impeaching BHO, just clarifying some of his executive actions, similar to the way Democrat claims of Executive Privilege have been settled by the Courts.
We’re somewhere between stage two and stage three.
Impeach the lawless bastard. We can put up with a president Biden for a few years.