Sure, but it’s quite possible that every single of one of those options are allowed for in the law. Until you show otherwise, you can’t assume Obama has broken or ignored any law.
You can sue, just like when you sue against a law that is being enforced that is unconstitutional (if you have standing to sue, which may be the hard part).
You are incorrect. The President is required to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court, not his own ideas of what the Constitution says. Why do you think Obama keeps getting slapped down by the Supreme Court, if he is supposed to be guided by his own judgment?
That’s the point - when the President has a different opinion on what is Constitutional from the Supreme Court, then by definition he is wrong and they are right. It doesn’t make any difference what he decides - the Court decides.
I am afraid that this is how it works. If the executive branch thinks some law is un-Constitutional, they file an appeal and the courts tell them whether it is, or not.
Remember when Obama said that he was confident the Supreme Court would not overturn a law that passed Congress? He was wrong. They can do that. Because they decide what is Constitutional. Not the President.
Regards,
Shodan
He knows they can. He was predicting that they wouldn’t overturn the Affordable Care Act, and they didn’t.
“Let them enforce it.”
When did he say they can’t?
Or are you saying he was wrong to be confident (he wasn’t wrong about that, btw)?
Or are you simply unaware that the statement may have been intended, at least in part, to remind the rogue faction of Justices that they’re not independent of the system of checks and balances?
The nuns are not the President of the United States. One can argue whether or not the president has discretionary authority to marginally postpone a law’s effective date for good and valid reason, but it would seem clear that the nuns have no discretionary authority whatsoever to ignore the law altogether just because they don’t like it. Are you honestly seeing a parallel here?
I’m no lawyer, but as far as I can tell there are almost no limits on the presidential pardon. Obviously this would be an extreme case, but would there be anything to stop Pres. Santorum from announcing that anyone who doesn’t want to comply with the ACA can simply apply for a pardon?
actually, no, because thanks to the Supreme Court, failure to comply is not a crime. You simply pay a tax which the IRS cannot collect by any means other than to dock refunds.
So there’s no crime in flouting the mandate, and no crime in nonpayment of the taxes except in the most technical sense. The individual mandate is the equivalent of the law in Florida that says you may not sing while in a swimsuit.
Uh, no.
You have to look at the actual language in the law to see whether it was “stretched.”
Again, no. Even if the law simply says “hardship,” there may be other legal limitations, such as definitions in other laws or caselaw governing the subject. If someone sued over it, a court could look at the legislative history for congressional intent too.
(P.S. just noticed I had already responded yesterday, and I can’t figure out how to delete a post).
No one has standing to sue in that situation.
Sure - AFTER there’s a court (not just Supreme Court, ANY court) decision on it.
But until there is, the president MUST abide by the Constitution as he/she sees it.
OF COURSE he is guided by his own judgement! He couldn’t do his job otherwise. The courts don’t advise him on the legality of his actions. He must decide that himself, just like anyone else.
Yes - only AFTER there’s a court decision. But if there hasn’t been one, or nobody sues, the president must decide what is constitutional or not. Obviously. Just like Congress must do so when making laws.
It doesn’t work that way. The Supreme Court does not make advisory opinions. It only considers actual disputes - so it must wait until someone sues or appeals a criminal conviction to consider the legality or constitutionality of a law or action by the president.
This was established way back in 1793 when Chief Justice John Jay refused to give a requested advisory opinion to President George Washington.
http://courses.missouristate.edu/ftmiller/letteradvisoryopin.htm
So no, a president cannot ask a court to decide - he must decide for himself what the Constitution says and how best to follow it.
Again, only when they rule, and they only rule when a case comes before them. Otherwise, the other branches have equal responsibility for upholding the Constitution, and therefore equal responsibility for deciding what it means.
The courts only get the ultimate say, sometimes, because they settle most disputes about it. They get the final say. But only in some cases, and not immediately.
The president, nor Congress, simply couldn’t do their jobs without interpreting the Constitution.
P.S. text from the letter from the Supreme Court to George Washington in response to his request for advice on the Constitution:
"The lines of Separation drawn by the Constitution between the three Departments of Government, their being in certain Respects checks on each other, and our being judges of a court in the last Resort, are Considerations which afford strong arguments against the Propriety of our extrajudicially deciding the questions alluded to; especially as the Power given by the Constitution to the President of calling on the Heads of Departments for opinions, seems to have been purposely as well as expressly limited to executive Departments.
We exceedingly regret every Event that may cause Embarrassment to your administration; but **we derive Consolation from the Reflection, that your judgment will discern what is Right, **and that your usual Prudence, Decision and Firmness will surmount every obstacle to the Preservation of the Rights, Peace, and Dignity of the united States."
The president MUST uphold, and therefore interpret, the Constitution as much as Congress or the courts must. The courts simply have the last word on it - but only in cases that come before them.
He said that it would be unprecedented that the Supreme Court would overturn a law passed by a majority of a duly elected Congress. That is not a prediction, except insofar that it is a realization that it would be overturned unless he stopped lying about Obamacare.
Regards,
Shodan
Predictions or not, it’s absurd. ALL laws passed by Congress are passed by a majority of those duly elected, and courts overturn them all the time.
So it’s not a prediction, it’s a lack of simple observation on the part of someone more credentialed on constitutional scholarship than 99% of us.
I know they give honorary degrees, is there any way he can have his degree honorarily revoked?
How about refreshing yourself about what he actually did say before claiming he lied, hmm? Would that be OK with you?
And, again, have you considered the possibility that the statement was intended to pressure the Court’s rogue-activist wing by reminding them that their predilections are antidemocratic? And that it just may have swayed Roberts, at least?
The judiciary is a law-making political branch just like the other two, don’t kid yourself. “The Supreme Court follows the election returns”, as Finley Peter Dunne reminded us all.
Unlike your other paraphrases, this is pretty close to what Obama actually said.
Note that he does not say the Court cannot overturn the law. That was a laughable interpretation. I’m not sure how accurate this statement is, although the “strong majority” phrasing probably gives him a lot of leeway.
This is a strange claim- although I guess it’s not as strange as confusing “can” with “will.”
“Unprecedented” was a really poorly chosen word. On the other hand, he also said “strong majority” which wasn’t in the paraphrase.
Actually, in their actual decision it seems they did a pretty good job of overturning the objectionable parts while leaving the rest of the law intact.
It was the political branches that tried to manipulate the outcome by basically giving them an ultimatum that they had to approve it all or reject it all.
The court is only a lawmaking branch if it makes law. Rejecting law is not making law, it’s the proper role for the judiciary. Fleeting majorities don’t get to break our Supreme Law.
Do you know what an ultimatum is? That is not apparent. What did anyone threaten they’d do to the Court if the rogue activist position prevailed?
'Course it is. The law has to be in place before it can be invalidated, which does constitute a change in the law.
Ah, now this is getting interesting. What is this Supreme Law you’re referring to? Is it like Natural Law? Or God’s Law?