On Executive Authority and Unconstitutional laws

BenNatuf

Limit Authority
Jan 7, 2011
1,640
123
48
Charlotte, NC
For those who believe the President MUST enforce all written laws until a court tells him otherwise, This thread is not about DOMA. I posted this as argument in another thread regarding the decision to not defend DOMA. I thought the subject of Executive authority in this area deserved a thread irregardless of DOMA, so this thread ain't about that, and it ain't about Obama. It's about the nature of Executive Authority and its limits.

Courts reccognized a long time ago that the President enforcing laws which are anethema to the constitution would be a violation of his oathe. Yes, courts do determine the constitutionality of statutes... once they get to them. Prior to that the administration must enforce them, and in order to do that they must interpret them, and in the course of doing that, if they cannot reconcile them with the constitution they should ignore them.

Consider an obvious contradiction.

The Congress of the united states once again overrun by progressives in the spirit of early 20th century progressives like Wilson passes a law mandating the reduction of the killer gas CO2. As a part of the statute they declare the executive must take illegal immigrants when caught and provide them as slave labor to construct windmills and solar farms to facilitate saving the planet. (unlikely as that may be... they could)

The new GOP President, a lover of freedom, liberty and individual rights, vetos. (as he can)

The liberal fascist congress then overrides his veto (as they can)

Is it now a law the President must enforce?

Obviously NOT, it is clearly unconstitutional and the President is bound by oathe (which you'll find in the constitution) to defend the constitution, not legal nullities which are anethema to it.

The finding in marbury is that ALL departments, agencies and courts MUST consider laws which are anethema to the constituion as void. IOW a law which is anethema to the constitution is not and never was actually a law as the constitution itself nullifies them, not the courts. It does not say the departments and agencies should enforce legal nullities until a court tells them not to... it says to consider them void. Period.

Moving along, suppose some giant Krupp industries type corporation (GE perhaps) sues the federal government for the President's failure to enforce the law which harms their business by not providing them with slaves to construct windmills and solar farms making them more competitive with evil big coal. Should the President and AG now defend the law? If so, the giant corporation wins by default. Obviously the answer is no, the President and AG should defend the constitution.

Suppose the district court rules in their favor because the district judge is an environmental whacko activists who cares more about propping up the green movement than he does the constitution (say Van Jones was appointed and thinks slave labor is every bit as good as prison labor - again, as unlikely as it seems its possible)

Should the President aquiesce and enforce the law until the case moves on? Obviously not, his duty is to the constitution, not the courts.

Suppose now the appelate court full of obamabots in the ninth circuit screws the pooch royally yet again and interprets the clause "except as punishment for crime" as justification for the statute and decides the law is a reasonable exercize of power under the clean air act to reduce the killer polutant CO2, completely ignoring the "cruel and inhuman" aspect and affirms the lower courts ruling.

Should the President now throw in the towel and enforce the law? No, not if he's worth a shit.

Now the case goes to the SCOTUS which is over run by O'Fascialist Obama appointees in the mold of Kagan and Sotomayor who find it a reasonable exercize of governmental authority deciding that the real cruel and inhuman thing to do would be to leave these poor undocumented workers at the mercy of evil big business coporate executives who will take advantage of them by paying them less than scale, and that nanny state government is the best place to ensure their happiness, productivity, and contributions to society. They, according to their activist penchants, put in requirements like "no chaining after the shift is done" and "lobster on fridays" to show how caring and benefficient we are.

Should the President now enforce the law?

Likely? No. Plausible? No. Possible under our system? Yes.

the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument
Note that all departments are "bound by the instrument", not by the courts. And that it is not solely courts which are bound. In fact, in Marbury, the courts were upholding the Presidents decission to NOT ENFORCE the law.

The Presidents duty is to the constitution, not the Courts. The courts duty is to the constitution, not the law. Courts do not make laws unconstitutional, the constitution does, as such an unconstituional law is void when its written.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Last edited:
Surely, with all the people who constantly rail on about how the president has no authority to act on his belief of a laws unconstitutionality by not enforcing it someone can tell me why in the example provided the president would be required to take illegal aliens as slaves against his knowledge of its unconstitutionality.
 
Last edited:
OK, for all of you who argued Bush could not choose which laws or parts of laws he would enforce, in your mind you may replace the O'Fascialist congress with an evil GOP corporatist congress and replace the President with an enlightenned progressive seeking social justice. Also replace the Clean air act with an "energy resource act" and make the windmills and solar farms, coal mines and oil rigs. Instead of Kagan and Sotomayor use neanderthallike Scalia and Thomas, lastly, instead of Van Jones insert John Bolton.

Did I hit on everything you hate so you can debate properly?
 
You're confusing legal and ethical duty.
No I'm not. The President's legal duty is to uphold the constitution. The courts have consistantly upheld the presidents not enforcing laws he finds unconstitutional, in fact, in every case I know of where its been tested the courts have agreed the offending statute was unconstitutional. They have even upheld a President signing a law with unconstitutional provisions and refusing to enforce those unconstitutional provisions, again agreeing that the provisions were unconstitutional. Thats the way the sytem works.
 
The president doesnt get to interpret the constitution last I checked thats the Judicial Branch. Something Obviously unconstitutional does not exist untill they say it does.
 
Would you care to give examples?
Marbury v Madison
Myers v United States

Both were instances where the conngress had passed a law regarding the dismissal of presidential appointments and the President refused to obey it. In both instances the courts found that the laws were indeed unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson went so far as to defy the courts themselves and refused to obey a decission they made against him. There are miriad examples of president's using this power, and in almost every case the courts upheld the Presidents determination. marbury did more than declare the courts authority to deem laws unconstitutional in applying them, it also declared the executives authority in refusing to enforce them

the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument
Void, as in never existed in the first place, not rescinded as in when we say so. And it applies to ALL departments, not just the courts.

Is the presidents determination final?

no.

the courts get a bite of the apple, which the President may aquiesce to (in fact if they find the law constitutional and he deems it could be according to their application, he then should enforce it) or he may believe them wrong and stick to his guns. Then the congress gets a bite of the apple and can impeach, the people have the final say as they can refuse re-election to either the offending president or the offending congress. checks and ballances.
 
The president doesnt get to interpret the constitution last I checked thats the Judicial Branch. Something Obviously unconstitutional does not exist untill they say it does.
false. Courts do not make laws unconstitutional, the constitution does. The courts merely apply it. A law that is repugnant to the constitution is unconstituional when its written.

Also the idea that courts "interpret" the law is bogus, what courts do is apply the law based on the interpretive arguments of the parties before them. The executive in enforcing the law must first interpret it to discern its meaning, and most court cases are not about the court interpreting anything, they are the courts adjudicating the executive branches interpretation.
 
"John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!" Still the President risks impeachment.
 
The president doesnt get to interpret the constitution last I checked thats the Judicial Branch. Something Obviously unconstitutional does not exist untill they say it does.
false. Courts do not make laws unconstitutional, the constitution does. The courts merely apply it. A law that is repugnant to the constitution is unconstituional when its written.

Also the idea that courts "interpret" the law is bogus, what courts do is apply the law based on the interpretive arguments of the parties before them. The executive in enforcing the law must first interpret it to discern its meaning, and most court cases are not about the court interpreting anything, they are the courts adjudicating the executive branches interpretation.

How can the constitution make laws unconstitutional when it can not speak for itself?
 
"John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!" Still the President risks impeachment.
Yes, that would be the check on him using this authority. That would be why Presidents use it so sparingly, but when they have, the courts have generally agreed with him.
 
The president doesnt get to interpret the constitution last I checked thats the Judicial Branch. Something Obviously unconstitutional does not exist untill they say it does.
false. Courts do not make laws unconstitutional, the constitution does. The courts merely apply it. A law that is repugnant to the constitution is unconstituional when its written.

Also the idea that courts "interpret" the law is bogus, what courts do is apply the law based on the interpretive arguments of the parties before them. The executive in enforcing the law must first interpret it to discern its meaning, and most court cases are not about the court interpreting anything, they are the courts adjudicating the executive branches interpretation.

How can the constitution make laws unconstitutional when it can not speak for itself?
Think about that a minute. Do the words change in between when a law gets written and the courts apply them? No they don't. What the courts have determined (since marbury) is that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, as in it is not a law and never was a law. It is void, as if it never existed. it was not a law the moment it was written.

To believe it doesn't "become unconstitutional" until they say so is to elevate the courts above the constitution they serve, and to believe its right and proper for the President to enforce what he knows are unconstitutional provisions on the populace until he gets permission to stop, means he would serve the courts and not the constitution.

Note also i said "knows" is unconstitutional, because for a president to use this authority that is the strength of belief he'd better have. Simply not liking the law, or believeing it might be unconstitutional does not suffice. He will be called on to defend his judgement in court, and also by the congress.
 
Last edited:
Also, consider the example in the OP. Yes, I know its likelyhood is about nil, thats not the point. Under our system it can happen. If you think the President is bound by unconstituional laws until the courts say otherwise, then you would have to believe it would be legally the right thing to do to take illegal immigrants as slaves until the courts said otherwise... what if they didn't?
 
So youre saying its unconstitutional until the court says it isnt?
No, I'm saying that the courts determine the constitutionality of the law in its application, and the executive must make every effort to reconcile enforcement of the law with the constitution, but if he can't, he has the option of non-enforcement (in fact it would be his duty)... which would then go through the system when someone sued to compel enforcement. What I'm saying is that each of the branches has its own powers, and the powers of each are checked by the others.
 
I do see what you are saying and in the end he could face impeachment for such actions. Simple enough. Heck judicial review itself doesnt really exist in the constitution it was made up after the fact.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top