BenNatuf
Limit Authority
- Thread starter
- #41
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.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?
Last edited: