Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT IS A GOOD IDEA
boblonsberry.com ^ | 08/05/14 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 08/05/2014 6:20:17 AM PDT by shortstop

The filing of a lawsuit against the president of the United States by the House of Representatives is an historic event which will clarify the legislative process defined by our Constitution. Those who denounce it as political posturing are afraid of losing it.

Those who see it as one party against the other don’t understand it.

Those who care about rule of law will embrace it.

In short, the suit asks the judicial branch to settle a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch, having to do with which is authorized by the Constitution to make and change law.

As you learned in school, the Constitution says that law is written in this country by a process arising in the legislative branch – the House and Senate. Each must introduce and pass a bill, the two bills must be reconciled and the reconciliation must be approved by both houses of Congress, and then the bill must go to the president. If he signs it, it becomes law.

That law is then considered inviolate, and it is the policy and procedure of the nation until such time as it is superseded by subsequent legislation.

That’s how it has always been.

Of late, however, in the ongoing back and forth between the branches, the executive branch has repeatedly and unilaterally made changes to law. By so doing, it has implicitly asserted that it has the authority to do so.

The basis for such authority is not readily apparent in the Constitution.

Which brings up the lawsuit.

Under the concept of judicial review arising from our Constitution, a dispute between the branches about powers and constitutional procedures should be decided by the judicial branch. It isn’t enough for the president to say he has the authority and the Congress to say he doesn’t, there must be a resolution.

That resolution is the federal courts.

Not as a matter political contention, but of constitutional clarification.

And it is foolish and naïve for politicians to see this in partisan terms.

Yes, it is Democrat President Barack Obama who is being sued, and who seems to have overstepped constitutional bounds. Yes, it is Republicans in the House of Representatives who are hauling the matter into federal court.

But this is about process, not party, and what the Democrat does today, which so angers the Republican, a Republican could do tomorrow, at great upset to the Democrat.

This isn’t about what team you’re on, it’s about who gets to make the law.

It’s about the presidential assertion that there is an executive authority to change law post-legislatively. The Congress can write law when legislation is proposed and reconciled. This new power, however, seems to claim for the president the right to change that law – thereby writing it anew – unilaterally and without review or approval of the Congress. It gives the president the power to dictate in lieu of the constitutional process to legislate.

That is actually huge.

And it must be challenged.

Because it must be either ratified or repudiated. There is currently no basis in law for this presidential power. It is pure fiat. Someone must determine whether it is legal or not, and that someone is the federal judiciary – ultimately possibly the Supreme Court.

All should welcome this suit.

Those who support the president in the assertion of these powers should expect victory and vindication. If the president is doing the right thing, the Supreme Court will back him up – right?

Those who oppose the president in the assertion of these powers should also expect success in the courts.

But both sides should expect the only thing that counts – a ruling that will settle the matter and honor the Constitution.

This is not disrespectful to Barack Obama or an assault on the Democratic Party. It is, rather, respectful of the Founding Fathers and a defense of the American Republic. No one can argue with that.

And no one can argue against the wisdom of a return to rule of law – that ancient friend of free men which asserts that law is supreme and may not be disregarded or enacted at the whim of one man. The law arises from the actions of the branch of government closest and most accountable to the people.

The Founders feared an imperial presidency, and crafted a Constitution to safeguard against it. The president’s powers are great but limited, and no single president can throw off those limits.

No matter who he is or what party he represents.

Both parties should be united in that belief.

And in advancing a lawsuit which asks the federal judiciary to remind us how law is made in this country, and what the proper balance is between the executive and legislative branches.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: congress; constitution; obama

1 posted on 08/05/2014 6:20:17 AM PDT by shortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shortstop

The author may have too much faith in a politicized judiciary. Many decisions today are made based upon the judges’ political views, not an impartial analysis of the law and Constitution. Why should this one be different?


2 posted on 08/05/2014 6:28:55 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
The problem I see with this is:

You Can't Trust The Courts!

All three branches are equal...equally corrupt.

3 posted on 08/05/2014 6:34:19 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Yes, well the plaintiffs in Marbury versus Madison probably thought so too.
4 posted on 08/05/2014 6:34:32 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

The Constitution isn’t dead yet but it is coughing up a lot of blood. Its time to at least get out a band-aid or styptic pencil.


5 posted on 08/05/2014 6:49:28 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Trust the courts?
Yagottabekiddingme!!

Impeachment is the real soulution—but that would take balls, now—wouldn’t it? Fat chance of that.


6 posted on 08/05/2014 6:53:57 AM PDT by Flintlock (Deport them ALLLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
The problem I see: YOU CAN'T TRUST THE COURTS

That's something I worry about. What's to stop the courts from ruling against constitutional powers the HOR has? It wouldn't be the first time.

7 posted on 08/05/2014 7:00:49 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shortstop; Lucky9teen; All

As long as the Republican Leaders in the US House refuse to hold Obama accountable and punish Obama, Obama will continue to cash in AND SPEND the endless supply of blank checks that Speaker Boehner freely gives Obama.

As long as Speaker Boehner refuses to punish Obama by appointing a Special Prosecutor, Obama will continue his very successful campaign to “Fundamentally Transform the United States of America.”

Boehner has cowardly chosen to shirk his Constitutional Duty by transferring his unique authority to the Courts, who then will quickly reject it due to ruling on it would be a Constitutional Violation of Separation of Powers.

Boehner may continue to make yet another do-nothing, fiery speech about “we must make sure that this never happens again,” to which the grateful members of the MUSLIM DEMOCRAT BROTHERHOOD Party will always say:

“OBAMA ACKBAR!”


8 posted on 08/05/2014 7:15:32 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

The useless Congress wouldn’t impeach him so they filed a lawsuit.

Craven cowards.


9 posted on 08/05/2014 7:32:21 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Who pays for Bambi’s lawyers?


10 posted on 08/05/2014 8:46:12 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

Does it suffer from ebola?


11 posted on 08/05/2014 8:47:18 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

There ya have it.


12 posted on 08/05/2014 8:49:28 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shortstop; Truth29; PoloSec
Uh, trust the branch which rewrote the Obamacare penalty into a tax?

This lawsuit illustrates how congress goes out of its way to have the executive and judiciary take the blame and electoral heat whenever possible.

13 posted on 08/05/2014 8:53:50 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
It's fraught with danger. I can see the court ruling in favor of the executive in several situations including:
14 posted on 08/05/2014 9:34:40 AM PDT by DannyTN (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson