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?
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.
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.
I think you and I have very different views of impeachment.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.