Summary of the thread and some afterthoughts:
With regard to Libya, as we know from
Dellums v. Bush (1990) the courts will not get involved in a conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches as Congress has no objective standing. But there is something else Congress can do: it may use its constitutionally mandated authority to defund military programs. It can be inferred and argued, therefore, that by not defunding the Libya operation, Congress has given its de facto approval of the action and there would be no grounds for impeachment. Indeed, how can the president be accused of ‘defying’ the will of the people if Congress itself refuses to acknowledge that same desire by not defunding military operations for Libya.
In the case of the Dream Act, the president clearly has settled Constitutional case law on his side. In
Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that forbade undocumented children from attending public school. In
Weber v. Aetna Insurance (1972), the Court ruled that children may not be punished for the criminal or irresponsible acts of their parents. It can be argued, therefore, that it is Congress in violation of the law by not passing the Dream Act, not the president.
And with regard to the president’s ‘EPA thugs,’ not only did the Court rule in
Connecticut v. American Electric Power (2011) that the EPA is constitutionally authorized regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was unanimous:
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Monday a lawsuit by six states that were suing five major power companies for emitting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
In a victory for the utilities and President Obama's administration, the high court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency -- not the courts -- should place restrictions on such heat-trapping emissions. It reversed a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that would have allowed federal judges to issue restrictions.
"The critical point is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation is what displaces federal common law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a decision on behalf of the court, which voted 8-0 against the states. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself, because she had sat on the appeals court panel that heard the case. Ginsburg also said the states and conservation groups can go to federal court if they object to the EPA's eventual rules.
Supreme Court backs EPA over states on climate change - Green House - USATODAY.com
