Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The President & the Executive Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The President & the Executive Branch Discuss Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by AZRWinger The idea that our President can "delay" enforcement of any law at his pleasure is something ...

Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111 (permalink)  
Old 08-05-2014, 05:43 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,315 Times in 1,841 Posts
Default Re: Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power

Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The idea that our President can "delay" enforcement of any law at his pleasure is something the Federal judiciary ought to take an interest in correcting. If Obama can rewrite the ACA with implementation delays by fiat and implement the dream act after failing to get it through Congress ought to be concerning for all Americans. Of course the Framers did not anticipate Congressional Democrats supporting Obama's thuggery, they just assumed Congress would guard its power instead of cheering Obama's power grab. If Obama can delay laws for years why not for decades? In effect Obama claims the power to rewrite the law any law at his whim.

The Federal Courts claim to have the power to defend the Constitution something the President has clearly violated by failing to enforce the laws he is obligated to do.

The Federal courts ought to order the President to obey the laws and the Constitution not circumvent them with "delays." Complying with the court's decision is Obama's problem. Gasp, he might actually have to follow the law and even worse work with Congress.

In this case standing is a legalism to avoid ruling on Obama's dictatorial actions. Congressional Democrats sprang to their feet cheering when Barack I announced he was stripping them of their Constitutional power to legislate in favor of his decrees and the same band of sycophants showed their willingness to shut down the Federal government over attempts at defunding. We all have standing in the destruction of the Constitution.
Congress has often set unrealistic "implementation dates" that presidents have fundamentally been forced to delay. There is extensive historical precendent for this happening.

Personally I believe that if there was a problem with implementation that the implementation of the Employer Mandate should have taken precedent over the implementation of the Individual Mandate but that is a descretionary decision that a president has the historical authority to make.

President Obama has not inintiated the "Dream Act" when it comes to immigration law. He has prioritized enforcement of the existing immigration laws based upon limited funding when it comes to deportation. I don't even think we can condemn his prioritization because he's placed "criminal" aliens (i.e. those the commit crimes against others) as his highest priority and those that have personally broken no laws (i.e. children brought here by their parents) as the lowest priority.

The US Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court authority to "defend the Constitution" but instead it is delegated with the responsibility and authority to resolve disputes that arise under the Constitution and the laws of the land. For a dispute to exist there must be a plaintiff with standing (i.e. someone that suffers direct harm) and a defendant (i.e. someone causing the harm) and the condition of "redressability" (i.e. can the court actually do something to resolve the conflict) is necessary.

I know that the issue of "Standing" is hard for many to understand but it is a Constitutionally imposed requirement that should be reviewed again so that people understand it.

Standing Law and Legal Definition

Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you "lack standing" to bring the suit and dismiss your case.

There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:

Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.

Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.

Redressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury.

There are other requirements imposed by judge made law:

A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court.

A plaintiff cannot sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers.
Standing Law & Legal Definition

Like others sometimes I have a problem with how "Standing" can prevent the Court from deciding issues of Constitutionality.

For example the War Powers Act passed by Congress and all too often implemented by Presidents has never been challenged in a Court of Law because apparently no one has "Standing" to be able to challenge it. I would like to see a condition imposed in those cases where "Standing" is denied that the Court could be compelled to establish "Who" does have standing to file a lawsuit. If the Court cannot establish who a potential plaintiff with standing is then the case should proceed. That is not the case today of course.

As I've noted I don't believe the House GOP can establish that they have suffered "Injury" nor can they even argue that there is "Redressability" related to either the Employer Mandate or the Delayed Deportation.

The White House can't wave a magic wand and implement the Employer Mandate immediately nor can it magically make funding appear out of thin air to be able to address the immediate deportation of roughly 11 million undocumented aliens in the United States.
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote

abuse, against, alleged, boehner, executive, file, house, obama, over, plans, power, says, sue, suit

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0