"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."

[Bricker]

@Ravenman

So you see a difference between President A who is attempting to carry out a mission to Mars at the earliest opportunity, but cannot comply with a statutory deadline; as compared to President B who has no interest in carrying out a mission to Mars whatsoever.

Please explain what you see as the difference. Since you basically point out that President A and President B are both in violation of the law, I would assume that you would NOT see a difference. But since you do, I think you should explain why you see a difference.

They have different goals. That’s the difference I see.

But since I can’t imagine a rule that says a President has a power if he’s thinking X, but he doesn’t have that power if he’s thinking Y, I say that either the President has the power or he doesn’t regardless of his ultimate intent.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

So, the basic problem I see is that there is a big mountain to surpass to get to the courts and then work towards making the courts agree with the blobiators of the WSJ and others, looking at the context I can tell them to take a hike now, maybe when evidence surfaces that the president is doing this with the intention to scuttle the law, but until then, bupkiss to the ones that are overreaching on this accusation.

“…maybe when evidence surfaces that the president is doing this with the intention to scuttle the law…” In your view, that is an element of determine the exercise of Presidential power?

[xenophon41]

@Bricker

Why do you believe the Preident’s intention to scuttle the law or not is legally relevant to the question of whether the President has the power, under the law, to take a specific action?

Because it can be determined by the Court(s) within a reasonable standard whether the President is or isn’t directing Executive branch entities to faithfully execute the law within the practicalities dictated by logistics and exigencies.
(Apologies to GIGObuster for stepping in without invitation.)

On review of my post I see that Bricker has edited the wording of his query. I hope this still answers appropriately.

[Ravenman]

@Bricker

They have different goals. That’s the difference I see.

But since I can’t imagine a rule that says a President has a power if he’s thinking X, but he doesn’t have that power if he’s thinking Y, I say that either the President has the power or he doesn’t regardless of his ultimate intent.

But the Constitution states that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Surely you must admit that, for whatever debate that may occur on President A’s actions for not launching the space mission on time, that President B – the sandbagger – is not “faithfully” executing the law. He’s actually trying to undermine it. Doesn’t this clause of the Constitution actually require the President to have a certain intent with respect to the law?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Bricker

Thanks for answering.

So your view would be that whatever the courts decide is the right answer?

No. Not necessarily. I think the courts have come up with the wrong answer on a lot of things in the past (Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, Ledbetter v Goodyear, etc. But I think that whatever the courts decide determines what the law means, whether I agree with that interpretation of the law or don’t. At which point, if I don’t agree, I’m free to bitch about how they got it wrong. But my bitching won’t change the way the situation is. And, I also think, given Chevron, there’s an assumption of agency correctness in rules interpretation.

But we’ll see.

[Miller]

@Bricker

They have different goals. That’s the difference I see.

But since I can’t imagine a rule that says a President has a power if he’s thinking X, but he doesn’t have that power if he’s thinking Y, I say that either the President has the power or he doesn’t regardless of his ultimate intent.

You can’t imagine laws whose application is dependent on the intent of the person undertaking the action?

[drewtwo99]

Bricker, I’m with you on this one. It’s pretty shitty when the Executive branch basically just refuses to enforce the laws that The Congress pass.

But I am not familiar enough with the law to say that this has necessarily been done in this case. It seems that there is some discretion that the HHS department has with requiring reporting in regards to the mandate, and, they simply are choosing not to require it yet. I don’t know if that’s the same as refusing to enforce the law or not.

As to your thought experiment, it would piss me right the fuck off if a president, by executive authority, tried to just say they weren’t going to enforce a law that The Congress passed. But, it’s their prerogative and, it’s up to congress to impeach if the President isn’t doing his job as constitutionally defined, and it’s up to the Senate to convict.

[GIGObuster]

That is coming right up. Today in Tempe, Arizona, there was a small group with banners on the road that demanded to Impeach the President, I guess they did not get the memo:

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/316649-gop-lawmaker-house-has-votes-to-impeach-obama-tomorrow

The Texas lawmaker said the country would be harmed if the House voted to impeach Obama but the Democratic-controlled Senate failed to remove him from office.

“What message do we send to America if we impeach Obama and he gets away with what he’s impeached for and is found innocent?” Farenthold said.

Farenthold pointed to the failed effort to remove then-President Clinton from office in 1998.

“As a result of impeaching President Clinton, we’ve redefined what sex is to a lot of our young people, and we’ve said that it’s OK to lie to Congress,” warned Farenthold.

To me the point here is that I saw this movie before, it seems to me that the very right wing (that is controlling the House IMHO) is looking for anything that would stick and use on their articles of impeachment. But if it is for this issue, I would like them to remember what happened to Brer Rabbit when the bad ones did throw him into the briar patch.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

“…maybe when evidence surfaces that the president is doing this with the intention to scuttle the law…” In your view, that is an element of determine the exercise of Presidential power?

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.

[Malden_Capell]

Can Executive Orders be overridden by Congress?

[GIGObuster]

@Malden_Capell

Can Executive Orders be overridden by Congress?

It can, but to me it is even less likely than impeachment:

Executive order

the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the super-majority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[11]

[Malden_Capell]

Good grief. Here (UK) it’s a simple majority within 40 days of the measure being laid. Rarely happens admittedly but it seems considerably more likely to happen than in the US!

[GIGObuster]

Well, IMO one should hang on to that thought of “rarely happens”, it seems to me that the problem of defending that vote to your constituents still remains in the UK just like in America.

In this specific case I can say, with support, that we are close to birther like justifications regarding the **reasons **why such a vote should be done in this case.

[Bricker]

@Miller

You can’t imagine laws whose application is dependent on the intent of the person undertaking the action?

Criminal laws – certainly. In fact, it’s almost axiomatic that criminal laws depend on an intent as well as an action. But criminal laws are different in lots of other ways – the rule of lenity, for example, requires that criminal law be construed strictly against te government. Here, in contrast, we’re talking about following the law not in the sense that failure to do so is criminal, but simply in the sense that the President is obligated to execute the laws as written, and not jigger them for his political benefit.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Here, in contrast, we’re talking about following the law not in the sense that failure to do so is criminal, but simply in the sense that the President is obligated to execute the laws as written, and not jigger them for his political benefit.

That is a good thought, but there is no evidence for that. The Administration explained the delay “as a sensible adjustment to phase-in enforcement”, there has been no evidence presented to debunk that.

[Bricker]

@drewtwo99

Bricker, I’m with you on this one. It’s pretty shitty when the Executive branch basically just refuses to enforce the laws that The Congress pass.

But I am not familiar enough with the law to say that this has necessarily been done in this case. It seems that there is some discretion that the HHS department has with requiring reporting in regards to the mandate, and, they simply are choosing not to require it yet. I don’t know if that’s the same as refusing to enforce the law or not.

As to your thought experiment, it would piss me right the fuck off if a president, by executive authority, tried to just say they weren’t going to enforce a law that The Congress passed. But, it’s their prerogative and, it’s up to congress to impeach if the President isn’t doing his job as constitutionally defined, and it’s up to the Senate to convict.

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:

Fourth, and most strikingly, Lincoln promptly looked to Congress to ratify his unilateral action. Congress agreed with Lincoln, and the president welcomed and signed new legislation. President Obama says only that he wishes he could follow the same course. Last week, he said he would like to “simply call up the Speaker” of the House to request a “change to the law” that would achieve his desired delay.

In fact, as the president knows, he doesn’t even need to pick up the phone: On July 17, the House of Representatives passed the Authority for Mandate Delay Act (with 229 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting in favor). This would authorize President Obama’s desired suspension of the law, just as Congress ratified Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus.

But unlike Lincoln, President Obama doesn’t welcome this congressional ratification. He has called the House bill that fixes the constitutional problem he created “unnecessary,” and he threatened to veto it. Why? Because the House also passed a companion bill that would delay the individual mandate too. For political reasons, the president doesn’t want to be in the inconvenient position of signing one bill that would give companies a reprieve from ObamaCare, while vetoing another that would grant individuals the same delay. The Democratic-controlled Senate will quietly kill the House bill and save Mr. Obama the awkwardness of having to veto it.

To me, THAT is insufficient reason to flout the law.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

That is a good thought, but there is no evidence for that. The Administration explained the delay “as a sensible adjustment to phase-in enforcement”, there has been no evidence presented to debunk that.

There IS evidence for that: the failure of the President to accept the Authority for Mandate Delay Act.

[Psychopants]

@GIGObuster

That is a good thought, but there is no evidence for that. The Administration explained the delay “as a sensible adjustment to phase-in enforcement”, there has been no evidence presented to debunk that.

I would like to take the liberty to translate this statement into even plainer language.

The Federal Government is not prepared to put everything in place to support the implementation of the ACA. Therefore, reporting would be analogous to yelling into an empty trash can. Kudos to the President.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

There IS evidence for that: the failure of the President to accept the Authority for Mandate Delay Act.

No 2/3 majority there, and that was just the House. And IIUC that bill is not expected to be taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate. BTW what you are doing is moving the goal posts, any description the courts could make against Obama depend on discrediting what the administration reported regarding the problems that are showing up, the delay has very good non political reasons to exist, so once again I have to ask for evidence that what the administration reported is not the truth.

[The_Second_Stone]

As much as I am an admirer of Lincoln, his unilateral suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was constitutional bullshit. Congress can suspend the writ in times of war, the executive does not have that power.

Having me choose between the integrity of a WSJ op ed writer and Obama, I’ll go with Obama. And that is a pretty frickin’ low bar.

As for the OP’s personal indictment of “see what Obama done did now”, after SCOTUS seated W and W ran us into some idiotic wars and economic meltdown, I’d really rather the government stick to reading my email and plainly lying about it and otherwise remain within the confines of the demonic D.C. beltway.