[sheikdetailfeather]

Go Mark!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Boehner? Cantor? Ryan?

LOL

[Howie66]

I wish that Dr. Levin would run for President.

He would straighten this country out in the same manner that President Reagan did.

[KC Burke]

Resolution aren’t legislation and do not have the power of law. Can it lay the ground work for impeachment, a little I suppose, but who imagines our Senate, even with a new composition, will ever show guts to convict.

[Sgt_Schultze]

At least with Mark’s suggestion, should it prevail, the position of the House will be made apparent in any court action that might transpire.

[null and void]

Excuse me????

[BillyBoy]

>> He says they should pass a resolution declaring null and void all presidential acts that are unconstitutional. <<

Okay, sounds good, but who exactly determines the criteria for the acts being "unconstitutional"?

Is it Congress? (which means the RATs in the Senate could retroactively claim every executive order that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan ever declared was "unconstitutional" and now nullified immediately.)

Is it SCOTUS? (which would make this proposal unnecessary, as they have already had the power to nullify things they declare "unconstitutional" since Marbury vs. Madison.)

Is it Mark Levin himself? (most likely, but good luck arguing that Congress should nullify laws based on what Mark Levin said about them on his talk show)

[chris37]

Yes, they should, but I don’t need them to.

The entire government is null and void.

[philetus]

I thought unconstitutional laws already were null and void?

[crz]

Mark is for nullification by the congress but not the states? The states created this government and should nullify. It is the states job, and they can do that by badgering their elected congressman and senators to do it. If not, then it is left to the states.

[Vendome]

Ping-a-ling!!!

[IronJack]

they won’t use the power of the purse to reign in this president,

REIN in. The phrase is REIN IN. As in what you do to an unruly jackass who is fighting the bridle.

[FluffyTexan]

What would this actually change?

If an executive order is believed to be unconstitutional it can already be challenged. If the court reviews it and finds it wanting then it is null and void.

If I read this correctly then they mention the House deciding if an order is constitutional or not. Wouldn't that just be unfairly snatching constitutional review from the courts?

I'm fairly certain I wouldn't want a (D) House deciding if Obama’s executive orders were constitutional without a court review.