On Executive Authority and Unconstitutional laws

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.

BenNatuf said:
What does that have to do with the President finding a law passed by the Congress to be unconstitutional and not enforcing it? There is no constitutional provision declaring he must obey the edicts of the court with regard to the authorities of the states. The courts ordered GA to release them, the issue it would seen was between the court and the state of GA. GA did not comply, and I can find nothing that declares the Perisdent must enforce its opinions. The President does not serve the courts.

Perhaps you're correct but I'm curious about this view of the supremacy of executive whim. Does this imply that if a bill is duly passed by both chambers of Congress, signed into a law by a president, and subsequently struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, the president is in fact duty-bound to continue enforcing or implementing that law as long as he's fervently convinced of its constitutionality?
Who would apply it? Courts apply the law and wouldn't entertain a case bought before it on a law it declared to be unconstitutional. Or better yet, once the SCOTUS strikes it whether or not the President believed in it, the law is off the books, so there's nothing for him to enforce. My contention is not the the SCOTUS is powerless, it's that they are not all powerfull, and the President is not powerless... neither is he all powerful. The branches contend with each other and the outcome is what it is. I never said the presidents word was final' I just said he has the option at the FIRST bite of the apple.
 
Last edited:
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.
Until the court strikes a law as irreconcilable w/ the constitution, the PotUS must enforce it.
BUT
If the PotUS cannot reconcile the law with the constitution, he should ignore it.

Doesn't "must enforce" override "should ignore"?
Why not?
 
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.
Until the court strikes a law as irreconcilable w/ the constitution, the PotUS must enforce it.
BUT
If the PotUS cannot reconcile the law with the constitution, he should ignore it.

Doesn't "must enforce" override "should ignore"?
Why not?
By must enforce I did not mean are compelled, I meant simply that thats what they do. They do not wait until a court rules a law constitutionasl to enforce it, and they have no reason to enforce ones they know are unconstitutional until a court says so either. You are changing the deffinition of "must" from what was intended.

Are you seriuosly implying the administaration has a compelling duty to knowingly violate the constitution until a court tells it to stop? And where did you see the words "until a court stikes it" anywhere in my post?
 
Last edited:
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.
Until the court strikes a law as irreconcilable w/ the constitution, the PotUS must enforce it.
BUT
If the PotUS cannot reconcile the law with the constitution, he should ignore it.
Doesn't "must enforce" override "should ignore"?
Why not?
By must enforce I did not mean are compelled, I meant simply that thats what they do....you are changing the deffinition of "must" from what was intended.
I was simply using the common definition of the word you used. Nothing on the context of your statement implied any other interpretation of the word might be valid.

They do not wait until a court rules a law constitutionasl to enforce it...
Of course not. Until overturned, it is presumed constitutional.

and they have no reason to enforce ones they know are unconstitutional until a court says so either.
That he "knows" are unconstitutional?
How does he "know" this?
 
Until the court strikes a law as irreconcilable w/ the constitution, the PotUS must enforce it.
BUT
If the PotUS cannot reconcile the law with the constitution, he should ignore it.
Doesn't "must enforce" override "should ignore"?
Why not?
By must enforce I did not mean are compelled, I meant simply that thats what they do....you are changing the deffinition of "must" from what was intended.
I was simply using the common definition of the word you used. Nothing on the context of your statement implied any other interpretation of the word might be valid.
except of course the entire context of the conversation.

They do not wait until a court rules a law constitutionasl to enforce it...
Of course not. Until overturned, it is presumed constitutional.
unless the President after making every effort to devise an enforcent mechanism that fits withinn the confines of the constitution cannot. You are making the mistake of thinking I believe he can simply say any law he doesn't like is unconstituional, I never said that. However, if in the course of planning enforcement the President cannot recconcile the law to the constitution and what his powers are he is BOUND to NOT exceed his powers or violate the constitution by enforcing the law outside of the constitutions boundaries.

and they have no reason to enforce ones they know are unconstitutional until a court says so either.
That he "knows" are unconstitutional?
How does he "know" this?
It is his determination to make. The strength of his position must be "knowing", if he has doubts he MUST (right deffinition this time) enforce the law in whatever constitutional way it can be. That is his oath. You gotta remember, the president IS going to have to defend his position, and more than likely in court and in the congress. Checks and ballances.

If the President has the strength of belief that a law is unconstitutional (say like the OP example) it is anethema to consider that he should enforce what he "knows" to be an unconstitutional provision (unconstitutionally) untill he gets permission from the court to once again confine his enforcements to what the constitution allows.

If you don't think so let me ask you a question with regard to the OP. How many illegals should he sell to GE until the court tells him to stop?
 
Also, I'd like to add that in the example I gave in the OP (as impossible as it is to think) the president likely would end up impeached... even when he was doing exactly the right thing and honoring his oath to the constitution above a clearly unconstituional law (which of course would make it not a law at all).
 
Since newt stated he would if necessary ignore the courts today at the value voters summit I thought I'd resuscitate this thread. The context of his remarks is different and applies to the constitutional duty of the CinC vs the constituional duty of the courts, but the premise is the same.
 
Liberal Congress passes a new 'assault weapon' ban.
Conservative President vetoes.
Liberal Congress overrides.
Presdident, based on current precedent, declares the ban unconstitutional and directs the DoJ to not enforce it.

What happens next?
-Liberals agree with the premise of the topic and do nothing
-Liberals go apeshit, start screaming about impeachment
 
Liberal Congress passes a new 'assault weapon' ban.
Conservative President vetoes.
Liberal Congress overrides.
Presdident, based on current precedent, declares the ban unconstitutional and directs the DoJ to not enforce it.

What happens next?
-Liberals agree with the premise of the topic and do nothing
-Liberals go apeshit, start screaming about impeachment
he ctully doesn't have to announce anything, just direct the AG not to enforce it and wait for someone to sue to try and make him.

Let the libs scream... it's what they're good at.
 
Liberal Congress passes a new 'assault weapon' ban.
Conservative President vetoes.
Liberal Congress overrides.
Presdident, based on current precedent, declares the ban unconstitutional and directs the DoJ to not enforce it.

What happens next?
-Liberals agree with the premise of the topic and do nothing
-Liberals go apeshit, start screaming about impeachment

Neither. It has nothing to do with ‘liberals.’

A party with standing, such as a gun rights organization, would file suit in Federal court seeking relief from a law it considers in violation of the Second Amendment. The issue would be between gun rights advocates and Congress, having nothing to do with the Executive. Indeed, it would be likely gun rights advocates would get a court to enjoin the law.

Otherwise, all laws are considered Constitutional until a court says otherwise, see: United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).
 
Otherwise, all laws are considered Constitutional until a court says otherwise, see: United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).
that assertion is false. All laws are considered constitutional by the courts in their application of them until overturned, that has absolutely no bearing on whether the executive must consider them so, and is actually anethema to constitutional principles and the precedent of marbury. The courts have upheld that principle many times and in no occassion I am aware of has the executive EVER been forced to enforce a law the executive regards as unconstitutional by any court decree.
 
Liberal Congress passes a new 'assault weapon' ban.
Conservative President vetoes.
Liberal Congress overrides.
Presdident, based on current precedent, declares the ban unconstitutional and directs the DoJ to not enforce it.

What happens next?
-Liberals agree with the premise of the topic and do nothing
-Liberals go apeshit, start screaming about impeachment

Neither. It has nothing to do with ‘liberals.’

A party with standing, such as a gun rights organization, would file suit in Federal court seeking relief from a law it considers in violation of the Second Amendment. The issue would be between gun rights advocates and Congress, having nothing to do with the Executive. Indeed, it would be likely gun rights advocates would get a court to enjoin the law.

Otherwise, all laws are considered Constitutional until a court says otherwise, see: United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).
This response is completely outside the context of the topic.
 

Forum List

Back
Top