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)
Making yourself intimately familiar with our Constitution (Article 1) would answer that question for you. get a copy and read it. It’s all lined out in very plain English.
It would be a swell gesture but whether Congress can combat executive orders or not the House can’t do it by itself and any act of Congress could be vetoed anyway.
I would like to see clear limits drawn for executive power but don’t hold your breath that it will ever happen.
I'd say that it's irrelevant.
Nothing is unconstitutional until someone stands up and opposes it.
So far, Obama seems to be the only one willing to declare what is doable and what is not. Obama went so far as to declare that the Congress was in recess, when both the House and the Senate declared otherwise.
The Congress' response was to go to court. Levin is demanding that Congress be more assertive -- no, be just as assertive as Obama and declare for themselves what the outcomes will be, just as Obama has ceded to himself to do.
There is a logic to it. If Congress is co-equal, then anything that Obama declares he can do, Congress can declare too. If Obama says that he can raise federal minimum wages on his own, the House can declare that they forbid it.
The problem today is that Obama is bold and audacious, and the House is not.
-PJ