Faithful John Boehner To Faithless Barack Obama: Checkmate? (interesting read)

forbes.com ^ | 7/25/14 | Ralph Benko

[cotton1706]

House Speaker John Boehner’s proposed lawsuit against Barack Obama is causing a great deal of chatter in Washington. Political stunt, as Obama has called it? Or, maybe, checkmate, Obama?

There is a quiet gap in the U.S. Constitution. There is no explicit mechanism to discipline a president who fails to carry out his Constitutional duties. This gap sat there, barely noticed, for centuries. Barack Obama, apparently, noticed it. He is exploiting it. That exploitation is a serious departure from Constitutional principle … whether or not one supports his policies, whether one is a progressive or conservative.

John Boehner now is mobilizing a Congressional lawsuit to put a stop to it. This is not about Obama “doing his job.” This is about Obama not doing his job and, indeed, deviating, flagrantly, from an explicit Constitutional duty.

Although the Supreme Court is loathe to arbitrate between the political branches, this is not that. This is about the president adhering to the Constitution. There are reasons to believe that the Supreme Court may see this president as in flagrant Constitutional dereliction.

The Constitution requires the president to take a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, before taking office:

“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution sets forth, at Article One, section 3, a presidential obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

[MaxMax]

And Boehner as the culpable stooge in the scheme.

The story says there's a Gap in the Constitution, well, where? The Constitution is
explicitly clear on how to deal with POTUS when he breaks his oath.

In fact, the House can defund everything once his oath has been ignored and
all his powers can also be taken away.

So where in the hell is this Gap? The real Gap in between Boehner' ears
because he Also is not abiding by his sworn OATH of office!

So impeach Obama, then Biden gets sworn in. Will Biden also continue their master plan?
Ok, impeach that POS also. What's the Problem?

[Kenny]

The process has just started and out of the box 33%-45% of Americans are in favor of President Obama’s impeachment and removal from office. The number will get higher as time goes on.

So sad that we have to wait for the poll numbers to percolate before we can act. Truly mob rule.

What's even sadder is that those poll numbers may never get high enough to push the policrooks into action. So then we can never stop a rogue President because the polls didn't justify it.

[Norseman]

The key point left out of the article is what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in Boehner’s favor.

What’s the remedy?

Unless the lawsuit involves a specific injury to Congress, apart from just failing to execute the laws faithfully, I don’t see a remedy, so Boehner will have to get specific.

For example, all of the unilateral changes to Obamacare could be the issue. Boehner would have to argue that Obama wasn’t executing the law properly, and that the law should become effective as written.

Presumably, the court could then order that all of Obama’s rewritings of the law were unconstitutional and must be voided.

Similarly, if Obama’s not implementing immigration law as written (and no doubt he’s not) and if that were made an issue, the court could rule that his implementations were not in the law and were therefore unconstitutionally authorized.

Boehner, contrary to what appears to be the majority opinion in here, is no dummy, and he knows both the politics, and how the system works, so I wouldn’t write off his effort as a waste of time just yet.

But the author of the article surely failed to get to the main point, which is what is to be the remedy if Boehner’s suit is successful in the Supreme Court.

[DaxtonBrown]

The Constitution sets forth, at Article One, section 3, a presidential obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Bwahahahaha!

[Miles the Slasher]

What remedy from the court does Boehner seek? The court cannot do anything - even if it agrees.

[Political Junkie Too]

Similarly, if Obama’s not implementing immigration law as written (and no doubt he’s not) and if that were made an issue, the court could rule that his implementations were not in the law and were therefore unconstitutionally authorized.

So take your last point as an example. If the remedy were that the Supreme Court rules that Obama's soft amnesty of Dreamers, children, and others was unconstitutional and voided, thereby making them illegal again, would Boehner really want to do that? I thought he wanted the opposite.

-PJ

[Norseman]

So, you think Boehner wants the border overrun and Honduran children shipped directly here? Guess he shouldn’t make that a point in his lawsuit then, but I doubt that’s what he wants.

If we’re going to grant amnesty in any form, and we will because some form of amnesty will pass overwhelmingly in a GOP-controlled Congress next year, it needs to be done legally. That’s the point.

The question is whether or not a lawsuit brought directly to the Supreme Court, and upheld, can direct it to be done legally. Or do you just want to talk about amnesty?

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm afraid that anything that Boehner tries to do will be usurped by Pelosi and the MSM to paint Boehner and Republicans as hostile to Hispanics. They are desperate to control the message for the upcoming 2014 mid-term elections.

I think anything he does will be used against him in the court of public opinion by ruthless Democrats.

-PJ

[mc5cents]

Greg Gutfeld calls for Obama’s impeachment almost every night on Red Eye. The have a segment entitled IMproving PEACHes for MEN Today. And he often asks the panelists if the question at hand is reason to impeach Obama. It is great stuff. DVR Red Eye like I do. It is a good show.

[Norseman]

You’re assuming that the lawsuit will address immigration. I was just citing that as an example. I doubt it will because it could blow back on the GOP for the reason you state.

Fortunately, he’s rewritten enough laws, particularly Obamacare, that there’s plenty of material to choose from.

[Political Junkie Too]

I agree. Focusing the lawsuit on immigration would be a 3rd rail for Boehner. It's just that immigration has been one of Obama's biggest abuses of power.

That leaves Obama's rewriting of Obamacare, which is dicier because Congress wrote a lot of discretion of the Secretary into the law. Still, there is plenty there regarding employer and individual mandates being waived for some but not others, wholesale exemptions to politically connected groups, the federal subsidy, etc., to focus on there.

Then there is also the EPA regulatory abuses, shutting down coal and oil production, the IRS abuses, now the Patent office abusing the Redskins, and on and on.

-PJ

[Jim Noble]

THAT would be significant. But I think Holder’s leaving anyway and the House would then have no power to charge

Not entirely right.

The Senate can impose two penalties upon conviction. One, removal from office, is moot after a resignation. But the second, a lifetime disqualification from "any office of trust or profit under the united States" can be imposed on any one at any time.

[Agamemnon]

AND, MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, they point out that the HOUSE is NOT “CONGRESS”. CONGRESS is the House PLUS the Senate - and, right now, we are SURE Harry Reid will not sign onto this.

I am warming to the lawsuit approach, where before I was as skeptical as Levin and Napolitano.

It is "out of the box" thinking for sure.

What if USSC considers the Congress the legitimately aggrieved party, and a President has to give an account as to the Constitutionality of his actions in every case?

Not bad.

The nub of the matter is not a matter of “misuse” of executive power. It’s a matter of failing to carry out an unequivocal Constitutional directive. A Supreme Court refusal to give Congress standing for this this would say, by implication, that a president blatantly can ignore his Constitutional duty faithfully to carry out the laws. That implication would be certain to be exploited by future presidents of both parties. This is a subtle “design flaw” that only the Supreme Court can cure.

Might Congress some day be able to remove a President on a simple majority vote on the basis of dereliction of Constitutional duty and fidelity?

Now flip it around -- what's good for the goose, so to speak. What if the Executive Branch turns around and requires the same thing of Congress, and the Courts mandate that everything Congress does and spends money on must have it's basis found stated in Constitutional authority?

Before you know it, we're all reading the Constitution and it is a meaningful document once again.

I'm still not 100% on board and I think it needs a little noodling to make it practical as well as Constitutional, but imagine the possibilities for imposing Constitutional discipline on rogue government.

FReegards!

[ZULU]

What are you saying makes sense, but I still have a lot of trouble trusting Boehner.

[rdcbn]

Greg Gutfield is a national treasure

[itsahoot]

And if the “charge” is frivolous and wouldn’t stand up to a senate trial, then it’s a waste of effort.

But the charges are not frivolous, are they. Boehner's law suit on the other hand is just silly.

[itsahoot]

and the Courts mandate that everything Congress does and spends money on must have it's basis found stated in Constitutional authority?

Remember when the Republicans recaptured the House and promised that every spending bill must contain the Constitutional authority to justify it? Most freepers know more about the Constitution than their congressman, but they do not get invited to the same parties.