Obama to Congress: I’ll decide what’s constitutional

[Polk]

I hate to ruin Polk's day. But let's go one step further to illustrate a point.

I STIPULATE that a President's general job description involves enforcing the laws. On the other hand, he also has a DUTY to uphold the Constitution. Now let's add a goodly measure of THIS to the discussion. It is a TRUISM that any law passed that is in derogation of the Constitution is a nullity. It is void from jump street. It is -- in short -- no law at all.

Add these things together in the right proportions and stir and bake at 350 degrees for one hour or until golden brown. The result is: The President MUST not enforce a nominal "law" that is not really a law at all inasmuch as it violates the Constitution which he is obligated to uphold and protect. And he can't wait for a ruling from the SCOTUS refs, either. Their rulings come later. HE has to make the call. Now. He necessarily has the power and the authority to do so.

I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.

A law cannot be vetoed a Bill can.

You really want to get in to a semantic skirmish after how badly you've already face planted in this thread?

 

[Polk]

The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Executive Branch | The White House

That wasn't what you were saying just a few minutes ago...

No it is not his job is to make sure the law of the land is enforced, The Supreme court's job is to make sure what is Constitutional and what isn't.

It's not his job to interpret laws. It his his job to execute them.

Can you not read? You've cited something as authoritative that states the exact opposite of what you claimed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That wasn't what you were saying just a few minutes ago...

It's not his job to interpret laws. It his his job to execute them.

Can you not read? You've cited something as authoritative that states the exact opposite of what you claimed.

To bad you're stupid.
The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.

A law cannot be vetoed a Bill can.

You really want to get in to a semantic skirmish after how badly you've already face planted in this thread?

With an empty suit sure bring it on

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.

Ideally, I agree. But in a practical real-world scenario, that isn't always possible. Like a defense authorization bill might NEED to be signed even if some of the riders are a bunch of irrational and patently unconstitutional horseshit.

This is the point at which we'll disagree. The President doesn't have the authority to chop legislation in to pieces. He doesn't have a line item veto (I think there is merit to the idea of amending the Constitution to give him on budgetary matters, but that's a different issue).

Congress gives authority on spending the president does not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branch have authority or power to determine what is and is not Constitutional once a bill is signed into Law.

The reality is that there is no clear point in the Constitution on what branch if any has that power. However Precedent from Jefferson's first term was established and is maintained that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. Neither the Executive or the Legislative Branch can make rulings on constitutionality , they must seek redress through the Federal Courts.

The Justice Department has no authority to MAKE a law or provisions of a law Unconstitutional. Their sole power is to draft a case and submit it through the Federal Courts.

The President has no authority to violate laws because he believes they are Unconstitutional. He also must have the Justice Department draft a case and submit it through the Courts.

Until a Federal Court injunctions or rules on the law the President must follow said law. He can not declare it unconstitutional and violate it. In some cases he may be able to simply not implement portions of the law by instructing the Executive Branch to not act.

However he can not spend money when a specific law states he can not. He can not hire advisers and pay them with Tax Payer money if a specific law says he may not.

The Executive has no authority to spend money not appropriated by the Legislature. The Executive has no Constitutional Authority to declare parts of laws Unconstitutional and violate them, that is the sole power of the Federal Judiciary.

It is not a power of the President to violate laws he disagrees with no matter the reason he disagrees. It especially is not his power to sign a law and then announce he finds parts of it Unconstitutional and that he will unilaterally violate said law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branch have authority or power to determine what is and is not Constitutional once a bill is signed into Law.

The reality is that there is no clear point in the Constitution on what branch if any has that power. However Precedent from Jefferson's first term was established and is maintained that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. Neither the Executive or the Legislative Branch can make rulings on constitutionality , they must seek redress through the Federal Courts.

The Justice Department has no authority to MAKE a law or provisions of a law Unconstitutional. Their sole power is to draft a case and submit it through the Federal Courts.

The President has no authority to violate laws because he believes they are Unconstitutional. He also must have the Justice Department draft a case and submit it through the Courts.

Until a Federal Court injunctions or rules on the law the President must follow said law. He can not declare it unconstitutional and violate it. In some cases he may be able to simply not implement portions of the law by instructing the Executive Branch to not act.

However he can not spend money when a specific law states he can not. He can not hire advisers and pay them with Tax Payer money if a specific law says he may not.

The Executive has no authority to spend money not appropriated by the Legislature. The Executive has no Constitutional Authority to declare parts of laws Unconstitutional and violate them, that is the sole power of the Federal Judiciary.

It is not a power of the President to violate laws he disagrees with no matter the reason he disagrees. It especially is not his power to sign a law and then announce he finds parts of it Unconstitutional and that he will unilaterally violate said law.

Someone get's it

 

[Intense]

Sounds like he is not going to let congress dictate policy to the executive branch. I wonder why he would do that?

Congress used to write the Laws and Pass them? What happened? Who knew that the Laws didn't apply to the Executive Branch? He does not need the Law, he does not need any oversight at all. Due Process does not apply to him. What a guy.

 

[Intense]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no ******* clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

I actually DO disagree.

The COURT's role is what the Constitution SAID the Court's role is, not what the Court (itself) then said their role was.

And there's not one single coherent reason that the President cannot make decisions about what is or is not Constitutional.

For example, if the Congress passes a law that transgresses the separation of powers and invades the proper turf of the Executive, I maintain that the FIRST Constitutional body to pass judgment on that law's Constitutionality (or lack thereof) is not some Court. It is the Executive.

However, I completely AGREE that when he issues a signing statement that "interprets" a prohibition as unconstitutional and then proceeds to DO the very thing that the law (which he has himself signed) forbids, he is not validly interpreting the Constitution anymore. At that point he is simply violating the law.

He is a President not a King or a dictator.

It was before Hamilton and Marshal changed it.

 

[Intense]

It's his job to direct policy for the cabinet agencies, congress can try to step on his turf but short of drafting a law they have no business dictating policy for these agencies.

When the Agencies act outside of the Law they do. Yes, they Pass Legislation. It's what they do. Power is not limitless.

 

[Intense]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no ******* clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

I feel queasy saying this, but Liability had it right. The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. It is implicit to the furtherance of that responsibility that the President make determinations about how to interpret provisions. This is why the outrage over Bush's use of signing statements was overblown to some extent (though it was still an issue in cases where he simply said he'd ignore the plain text of the law).

He has the ability to interpret and define how he wants to act on an issue, the Court, has the responsibility to call him on it, if he crosses the line. The Courts interpretation takes precedence. The end is not justified by the means. There may be 1000 ways to accomplish a task. That does not mean they are of equal merit, or all legal, or all ethical. Big Hamilton style fail there.

 

[The T]

He is just so benevolent isn't he??? I get he feeling he thinks himself Immortal. God-Like. This Guy taught Constitutional Law? What a waste of time.

Albiet he's got those records under lock-and-key...

 

[The T]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no ******* clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

Obama: "I won't wait for Congress..." "If Congress won't act, I will..."

 

[Intense]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no ******* clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

Obama: "I won't wait for Congress..." "If Congress won't act, I will..."

I think most Presidents feel that way.

They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.

 

[The T]

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

Obama: "I won't wait for Congress..." "If Congress won't act, I will..."

I think most Presidents feel that way.

They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.

Absolutely. And unfortunately? It's a line that has been crossed too many times.

 

[Polk]

It's not his job to interpret laws. It his his job to execute them.

Can you not read? You've cited something as authoritative that states the exact opposite of what you claimed.

To bad you're stupid.
The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress

You say that now. Earlier in this thread, you said it is not the responsibility of the President to enforce the laws.

 

[Polk]

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

I feel queasy saying this, but Liability had it right. The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. It is implicit to the furtherance of that responsibility that the President make determinations about how to interpret provisions. This is why the outrage over Bush's use of signing statements was overblown to some extent (though it was still an issue in cases where he simply said he'd ignore the plain text of the law).

He has the ability to interpret and define how he wants to act on an issue, the Court, has the responsibility to call him on it, if he crosses the line. The Courts interpretation takes precedence. The end is not justified by the means. There may be 1000 ways to accomplish a task. That does not mean they are of equal merit, or all legal, or all ethical. Big Hamilton style fail there.

We're not really disagreeing here, except that the SCOTUS interpretation only has as much authority as the other branches allow it to have, since they have no power to enforce their rulings.

 

[Polk]

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

Obama: "I won't wait for Congress..." "If Congress won't act, I will..."

I think most Presidents feel that way.

They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.

What the hell are you talking about? Every President uses the executive branch machinery to maximize his influence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can you not read? You've cited something as authoritative that states the exact opposite of what you claimed.

To bad you're stupid.
The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress

You say that now. Earlier in this thread, you said it is not the responsibility of the President to enforce the laws.

I have said this from the ******* beginning you son of a *****. If I said anything other than that it was a god damn typo.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama: "I won't wait for Congress..." "If Congress won't act, I will..."

I think most Presidents feel that way.

They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.

What the hell are you talking about? Every President uses the executive branch machinery to maximize his influence.

No what in the hell are you talking about? The president cannot subvert law.