Based on this Chris Matthews Chris Matthews: Maybe Obama should sue Congress for not doing its job – HotAir comment, maybe he should.
No. The correct response to stupidity is to ignore or to mock it. Not to see if you can outdo it.
Sue for what? For not passing a certain amount of legislation every year?
Exactly. The Constitution doesn’t put a lot of requirements on what Congress has to do. So it can do pretty much as little as it chooses and no law is being broken.
Perhaps somebody could sue the American people for not overseeing their government adequately.
I don’t want to watch a video. Summarize his argument and tell us why you think he’s right.
Of course he should. I would love to hear Obama make his case. But what injury could Obama claim?
On the other hand, I think Chris Matthews is an idiot and easily confused.
He is. Congress is doing its job if you believe the job of Congress is to get re-elected. It’s deeply selfish and irresponsible, but it’s hard to see it as breaking the law. So this suit wouldn’t make any more sense than the suit against Obama - except that that lawsuit might help some people in Congress raise money and get re-elected, which of course is not an issue for Obama.
If the government doesn’t trust the people . . .
Congress isn’t suing Obama for “doing his job,” so I don’t get the humor here.
Canada?
Just as the US Marshall arrives to deliver the subpoena, the Congressmen meet him at the door, display their credentials, smirk, and say:
“Congressional Immunity!”
Congress isn’t legally obligated to pass a single law if they don’t want to.
The President, on the other hand, is obligated to enforce the law to the best of his administration’s ability. He hasn’t done that.
Whence comes this obligation? I can find it nowhere in the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Now maybe that’s not specific enough, but if we’re seriously going to argue that the President doesn’t have to enforce laws, that’s going to change a lot of things when the next Republican President is elected. He can cut taxes by executive order by simply not enforcing the collection of any tax above 20% of income.
Your contention also goes against the President’s own words:
“Now, I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause,” Obama said. “I share your concerns, and I understand them. And I promise you, we are responding to your concerns and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way.”
No, he’s not. The Executive has always had the discretion to decide what priorities to apply to the enforcement of laws.
Prioritizing does not imply that he can just refuse to enforce laws he doesn’t like. Presidents have been sued and lost for example, for not enforcing environmental laws.
The President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Of course, due to the massive amount of laws that are in force, one cannot possibly enforce them all. To say that Law X is more important that Law Y so we will devote more resources there is one thing and a legitimate exercise of discretion.
To say that the President disagrees with Law X so he will refuse to enforce it is a different beast altogether. Or even worse, to set his own standards for Law Y (law says employers must provide health care in 2014, Obama changes it to a percentage of employees starting in 2015 with a larger percentage in 2016) is not enforcing or even refusing to enforce any law. He is simply creating a law that he wished was passed in direct contradiction of Congress.
For example. Lets say that a state legislature passes a law that says a person who has a BAC of .08 is guilty of DUI and should be fined $500 and confined in jail for 24 hours. The governor decides (and directs local prosecutors) that since he cannot catch everyone over .08, he decides to start enforcement at .12. However he doesn’t feel that .12 merits jail time. So his policy is that everyone caught between .12 and .15 is only charged with “careless driving” which is a simple fine. Only when a driver is .15 or higher is the DUI law enforced.
Put aside the traditions that have evolved and look at it directed: Is that discretion or is it simply taking the law that the legislature wrote and changing it?
[QUOTE=That guy from the link]
The irony of Matthews’s shpiel…
[/QUOTE]
All his arguments now become null and void.
Canada would have no standing.