# "...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501 "2013-08-17T17:25:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/61 "2013-08-18T00:18:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. I agree with the above, and I further agree that this kind of peccadillo is not what Congress should ever use as grounds for impeachment. > > But I think the President SHOULD go to Congress and ask them to pass the modification. > > But that’s a political problem for the President: > > To me, THAT is insufficient reason to flout the law. I don’t get what you’re saying then, you seem to be contradicting yourself. The Congress passes laws. The Executive enforces them (or chooses to flout them, in your words). If the Congress believes strongly enough in the laws that they have passed, then they should impeach and convict a president who is willingly flouting them. The constitution doesn’t explicitly say that the president “may” execute the laws, it says that he shall or will or something along those lines. I’d say that any house congresscritter could make an ironclad case for impeachment: President Obama refuses to enforce law X passed by congress, constitution says that he must/shall/whatever the verbiage is, therefore he deserves to be impeached. If the Congress doesn’t believe strongly enough that the laws they have passed are worth impeaching/convicting a president over, then they probably shouldn’t have passed that law in the first place. So really, my argument is that you should be upset with the Congress here, as well as the president. Ultimately it is The Congress who is responsible for getting rid of a do-nothing executive. I would expect The Congress to act similarly if President Romney decided that Obamacare was an awful idea and just refused to implement it, and I would vote for congresspersons/senators who pledged to impeach/convict president Romney because of it. If you are saying it’s not worth impeaching him and removing him from office, then you are implicitly admitting that the law isn’t really all that important to uphold, and the President doesn’t deserve to be removed over it. In which case, why the thread? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/62 "2013-08-18T00:46:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is not my job to give you ideas, if the WSJ does not have a clue on how to use the law to formally accuse the president of malfeasance and demonstrate with evidence that the president is not doing this because of discretion in light of already identified problems but for other unsavory reasons, I will go for what **Bryan Ekers** said. > > The WSJ’s opinion does not deserve to be taken seriously. It’s your job to defend your position with citations to fact, though. I am asking you if you are arguing that, as a matter of law, the motive of the president in taking an action has a bearing on whether that action is in the scope of his power. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/63 "2013-08-18T00:50:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s your job to defend your position with citations to fact, though. You got none. And a smoke screen instead of facts in your last post. > [@Bricker](#): > > I am asking you if you are arguing that, as a matter of law, the motive of the president in taking an action has a bearing on whether that action is in the scope of his power. The best opinion is an educated one, I agree with what Simon Lazarus reported, deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/64 "2013-08-18T00:54:26Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > I don’t get what you’re saying then, you seem to be contradicting yourself. > > The Congress passes laws. > > The Executive enforces them (or chooses to flout them, in your words). > > If the Congress believes strongly enough in the laws that they have passed, then they should impeach and convict a president who is willingly flouting them. The constitution doesn’t explicitly say that the president “may” execute the laws, it says that he shall or will or something along those lines. I’d say that any house congresscritter could make an ironclad case for impeachment: President Obama refuses to enforce law X passed by congress, constitution says that he must/shall/whatever the verbiage is, therefore he deserves to be impeached. I don’t agree. Impeachment is a most serious matter. It’s been done twice, and nearly done one additional time, in the country’s history. Each of those times Congress rested its actions on, essentially, violation of the law in what amounts to a criminal way. Congress has never seriously considered impeachment on the mere basis that the President isn’t doing enough to execute the law. They have, I am sure, regarded that as a political issue with a political solution, and I agree completely. > [@](#): > > If the Congress doesn’t believe strongly enough that the laws they have passed are worth impeaching/convicting a president over, then they probably shouldn’t have passed that law in the first place. I think you and I have very different views of impeachment. > [@](#): > > If you are saying it’s not worth impeaching him and removing him from office, then you are implicitly admitting that the law isn’t really all that important to uphold, and the President doesn’t deserve to be removed over it. In which case, why the thread? Impeachment is a nuclear blast. I absolutely would reject threatening to impeach, or impeaching, over this failure to enforce the law. But there are intermediate measures. One such measure is this thread: saying clearly that the President has in fact failed to execute the law. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/65 "2013-08-18T01:00:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But there are intermediate measures. One such measure is this thread: saying clearly that the President has in fact failed to execute the law. Well, that is, like your opinion… And that is ok, what is not ok is to claim that in the implied follow up on the way to the courts is that that bit of the information coming from the treasury and other agencies that prompted the delay will not ever will be looked at, or that they do not exist, or that they do not justify the delay. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/66 "2013-08-18T01:05:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You got none. And a smoke screen instead of facts in your last post. Certainly I have. I have the dates mandated in Public Law 111-148. I have the Supreme Court case that holds that while an Executive Order can be used to implement the President’s authority, it cannot override law or make new law. And I have the President’s announcement contravening those dates. Correct? > [@](#): > > The best opinion is an educated one, I agree with what Simon Lazarus reported, deal with it. I agree with some of what he said as well. But if the best opinion is an educated one, why aren’t you swayed by the author of the WSJ piece, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who teaches constitutional law and federal jurisdiction, and writes for the Harvard Law Review and the Stanford Law Review? > [@Simon Lazarus](#): > > Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases – not the case here – the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. I agree that the administration has a position in which they can’t be compelled to act (short of impeachment, which is far too serious a club to wield here). But I don’t agree with Lazarus’ slight of hand, in which he moves smoothly from whether it’s illegal to whether the courts can compel a different path. He asks if it’s illegal, and then discusses whether or not the courts can force compliance. I say those are two different questions. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/67 "2013-08-18T01:10:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, that is, like your opinion… And that is ok, what is not ok is to claim that in the implied follow up on the way to the courts is that that bit of the information coming from the treasury and other agencies that prompted the delay will not ever will be looked at, or that they do not exist, or that they do not justify the delay. I claim they can’t change the fact the the President violated the law. You rebuttal seems to be that he didn’t because there’s no mechanism to force him to follow it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/68 "2013-08-18T01:10:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Certainly I have. I have the dates mandated in Public Law 111-148. I have the Supreme Court case that holds that while an Executive Order can be used to implement the President’s authority, it cannot override law or make new law. > And I have the President’s announcement contravening those dates. Correct? I give you an incomplete. “the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been “unreasonably delayed.”” You are still denying that for all that was reported, that it was not unreasonable delayed. > [@Bricker](#): > > I agree with some of what he said as well: > > I agree that the administration has a position in which they can’t be compelled to act (short of impeachment, which is far too serious a club to wield here). > > But I don’t agree with Lazarus’ slight of hand, in which he moves smoothly from whether it’s illegal to whether the courts can compel a different path. > > He asks if it’s illegal, and then discusses whether or not the courts can force compliance. I say those are two different questions. > > Do you? Once again, the slight of hand I see is to depend on an incomplete point to make it so, the burden is still to show that the delay is not justifiable. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/69 "2013-08-18T01:13:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I claim they can’t change the fact the the President violated the law. > > You rebuttal seems to be that he didn’t because there’s no mechanism to force him to follow it. Nope, incomplete again, the point still stands, you need to demonstrate that the delay was not justifiable, as I have seen from past history it is a tall order to get or to make the courts to act. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/70 "2013-08-18T01:34:32Z")
And of course, I’m not just looking at Lazarus for support: > **[Right-Wing Media Build Faulty Case That Obama Is "Lawless"](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-friends/right-wing-media-build-faulty-case-obama-lawless)** > > Right-wing media have attempted to manufacture the claim that President Obama is abusing executive power by delaying implementation of the health care law's employer mandate and directing federal prosecutors to avoid maximum drug sentences in some... > [@](#): > > SCOTUSblog’s Denniston: Supreme Court Gave Agencies Discretion Regarding Implementation. > > In a post on Constitution Daily, legal expert Lyle Denniston pointed out that \*\*“Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it.” \*\*Denniston pointed to a recent Supreme Court case as relevant, writing that the court “just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity”: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act - the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system. > > > > The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts. > > > > Very telling in that decision in the case of City of Arlington, Texas, v. Federal Communications Commission is that it was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court's strongest believer that the courts should be very strict in following the letter of the laws that Congress passes. The actual text, not what someone said about it, is what controls, he has said, over and over. Scalia, a former professor of administrative law, seems quite tolerant of agency discretion. > > > > ``` > > [Constitution Daily, 7/10/13] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/71 "2013-08-18T03:43:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, incomplete again, the point still stands, you need to demonstrate that the delay was not justifiable, as I have seen from past history it is a tall order to get or to make the courts to act. Yes, I agree. But pay close attention to this sentence: the standard involved here is NOT “when courts will act.” Here is an analogy: when am I speeding? Answer: the moment I exceed the speed limit by even 1 mile per hour. When will the police act to restrict me from speeding? Answer: at some point beyond 1 mile per hour over. Your cites talk about when the courts will act. That’s not what I am talking about. Got it? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/72 "2013-08-18T03:56:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can the Republican President in 2016 legally use this tactic to scuttle Obamacare? Yes or no? Could he do what Obama’s doing? Of course he can, and that’s what was so scary about the prospect that Romney even had any chance of becoming president. I remember this being brought up on this very board. Absent any provision or court ruling to the contrary, the executive can interpret the laws it enforces in any way it wants. The check on this is the Supreme Court or Congress. If you want to make sure a law is executed in a specific way, you must put it in the bill. This is taught in Civic 101. Could the future President actually scuttle Obamacare? That’s not what Obama is doing, but it would hardly be the first time the executive branch has done so. The only question is whether both Congress and the Supreme Court would let him get away with it. Congress, absent a Democratic supermajority, probably would. The Supreme Court might not, if they believe the intent is to circumvent Congress. And, yes, of course intent matters. Intent always matters. The Executive can’t override the Legislative except in certain specified ways. The Executive has full discretion to implement changes as long as the purpose is to enforce the laws passed by the legislature. You’re a freaking lawyer, **Bricker**. You know the law practically revolves around intent. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/73 "2013-08-18T03:58:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree. > > But pay close attention to this sentence: the standard involved here is NOT “when courts will act.” > > Here is an analogy: when am I speeding? > > Answer: the moment I exceed the speed limit by even 1 mile per hour. > > When will the police act to restrict me from speeding? > > Answer: at some point beyond 1 mile per hour over. > > Your cites talk about when the courts will act. That’s not what I am talking about. > > Got it? Yes. You’re moving the goalposts. You are asking a legal question, and thus only the legal answer matters. The legal answer is that, unless the courts intervene, the President does have the power. You do not get to pull the same bullshit you constantly accuse the rest of us of doing and change this into whether or not we agree with Obama’s actions. This entire thread is about the claim that what Obama is doing is illegal. And that is, by definition, a matter for the courts to decide. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/74 "2013-08-18T04:31:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yes. You’re moving the goalposts. You are asking a legal question, and thus only the legal answer matters. The legal answer is that, unless the courts intervene, the President does have the power. > > You do not get to pull the same bullshit you constantly accuse the rest of us of doing and change this into whether or not we agree with Obama’s actions. This entire thread is about the claim that what Obama is doing is illegal. And that is, by definition, a matter for the courts to decide. QFT and a better answer than I was thinking. \*\*Bricker \*\*is avoiding the actual speed limits of the road and exceptions some vehicles get, specially official ones, It was the treasury and the dealings with private companies that came with the advise to delay this, the burden is with the ones that are trying to avoid the rules of the road and deny that it was “reasonably delayed.” ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/75 "2013-08-18T11:39:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the complaint is simply that the President’s actions are not within the scope of his powers. If this was “simply” the complaint why were you compelled to vent your spleen in composing thread title? Did none of your admired Presidents ever seek to exceed their power? ---
**Author:** ![slm2955](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@slm2955](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slm2955)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/76 "2013-08-18T11:41:10Z")
Because we can ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/77 "2013-08-18T13:39:53Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Could he do what Obama’s doing? Of course he can, and that’s what was so scary about the prospect that Romney even had any chance of becoming president. I remember this being brought up on this very board. > > Absent any provision or court ruling to the contrary, the executive can interpret the laws it enforces in any way it wants. The check on this is the Supreme Court or Congress. If you want to make sure a law is executed in a specific way, you must put it in the bill. This is taught in Civic 101. > > Could the future President actually scuttle Obamacare? That’s not what Obama is doing, but it would hardly be the first time the executive branch has done so. The only question is whether both Congress and the Supreme Court would let him get away with it. Congress, absent a Democratic supermajority, probably would. The Supreme Court might not, if they believe the intent is to circumvent Congress. > > And, yes, of course intent matters. Intent always matters. The Executive can’t override the Legislative except in certain specified ways. The Executive has full discretion to implement changes as long as the purpose is to enforce the laws passed by the legislature. > > You’re a freaking lawyer, **Bricker**. You know the law practically revolves around intent. The criminal law does. Tort law and contract law do. Property law does. The law concerning the powers of the President does not, except to whatever extent Congress and the courts decide to be guided by it. But I agree that your other point is correct – the President always can do whatever he wants, unless the other branches stop him. So that would be true of President GOP, elected in 2016, too. Right? He can scuttle Obamacare and “…The only question is whether both Congress and the Supreme Court would let him get away with it.” Right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/78 "2013-08-18T13:45:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yes. You’re moving the goalposts. You are asking a legal question, and thus only the legal answer matters. The legal answer is that, unless the courts intervene, the President does have the power. Absolutely true. > [@](#): > > You do not get to pull the same bullshit you constantly accuse the rest of us of doing and change this into whether or not we agree with Obama’s actions. This entire thread is about the claim that what Obama is doing is illegal. And that is, by definition, a matter for the courts to decide. Ok, you’ve convinced me. The correct answer to the question, “Does the President have the power to do X?” is derived solely from observation from what Congress and the courts actually do in response. And that’s true now, in past, and in the future. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/79 "2013-08-18T13:47:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > QFT and a better answer than I was thinking. \*\*Bricker \*\*is avoiding the actual speed limits of the road and exceptions some vehicles get, specially official ones, It was the treasury and the dealings with private companies that came with the advise to delay this, the burden is with the ones that are trying to avoid the rules of the road and deny that it was “reasonably delayed.” Ok, you’ve convinced me. The correct answer to the question, “Does the President have the power to do X?” is derived solely from observation from what Congress and the courts actually do in response. And that’s true now, in past, and in the future. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/80 "2013-08-18T13:49:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok, you’ve convinced me. The correct answer to the question, “Does the President have the power to do X?” is derived solely from observation from what Congress and the courts actually do in response. > > And that’s true now, in past, and in the future. > > Agreed? Nope, the very same question was put to the people in 2012, the answer to Romney was **NO.** , And no matter how much you want to pout, intention is still a guiding principle if this is going to be deal with congress or the courts. And not even Scalia is warm to your peculiar points here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501.md?page=5)