On-Topic should the President have the power to ignore laws?

[bankside]

There is in every country royal prerogative or executive prerogative, which is basically saying that this person isn't just some random person off the street selected to carry out the law. They have their own authority and judgment, and democratic mandate, and a certain amount of discression in how they implement the law, where they hold back and so on. In other words, your President is not just supposed to be the lackey of Congress, no matter what laws they pass.

That does not mean he can do whatever he likes. He would be bound by the courts to give rational reasons for withholding implementation of a law or interpreting it in a certain way. There is tonnes of jurisprudence on the question of what constitutes "reasonable" behaviour in the use of this discretion. And if the head of state does not live up to the standard, he would find himself subject to the courts, who could issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel a certain action in conformity with his established duties.

In other words, yes, there is a certain amount of legitimate wiggle room before it becomes "ignoring the rule of law." It's well-established, and probably applied appropriately in this case. I don't think he is setting a precedent so much as following precedent of a time-tested approach to governance. That being said, it is not a precedent that all people enjoy, particularly if they like the swiss approach to direct democracy where it seems every action is tied to the results of a specific vote.

 

[Benvolio]

Worse than that, the President is violating the Constitution and his oath. Artical IV, Sec 4 says: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican Form of Government, and SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION;" (emphasis supplied). So Obama, is ignoring the law, violating the Constitution, and his oath. And he is doing it for the clear purpose of undermining the Republican form of government by allowing the vote by invaders to negate the votes of citizens.
Of course, the Dems will say, as they always do, this doesn't apply to Democrats. The Constitution only means what WE want it to mean.

 

[T-Rexx]

let's take Obamacare as an example... assuming the Supreme Court upholds it, and Congress fails to repeal it because there is enough of the populous that wants it to remain the law of the land, should a future Republican President be granted the authority to simply wave it away by granting exemptions to states and deciding to not pursue any states or insurance companies that violate its provisions?

Why should a president be permitted to nullify legislation passed by congress and supported by the American people?

That would not be a democracy. That's a dictatorship.

 

[Orlandude]

Why should a president be permitted to nullify legislation passed by congress and supported by the American people?

That would not be a democracy. That's a dictatorship.

Conversely, why should a Congress be permitted to nullify the majority will of the people based on partisan ideology or some unelected outside individual running around forcing them to sign "pledges" under threat of losing a bloc of malcontent voters?

That would not be a democracy. That's mob rule.

 

[Benvolio]

Conversely, why should a Congress be permitted to nullify the majority will of the people based on partisan ideology or some unelected outside individual running around forcing them to sign "pledges" under threat of losing a bloc of malcontent voters?

That would not be a democracy. That's mob rule.

Polls are too easy to manipulate by the wording of the questions. Polls tend to show approval of gay marriage, but actual elections go the other way. Which is accurate?

 

[TX-Beau]

See I though he was going for "Guarantee a REPUBLICAN form of government..." but it turned out to be just so much more fear the brown horde...

Our executive already has far more power than was intended, I don't think he should be getting more. Maybe if congress was still in control, it would be harder to push lunatic extremism on the public.

 

[opinterph]

I do believe that the President should have the power to ignore laws, provided he can give sufficiently compelling reason for it.

Maybe if congress was still in control, it would be harder to push lunatic extremism on the public.

When President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus (right of a person who has been restrained to appear before a court for a hearing to determine if they are being held legally), he justified doing so because he thought it was politically important to allow the military to engage in arbitrary arrests. Granted, the country was in a state of civil war; however, he could have used the courts to charge those arrested with treason.

One of the justifications Lincoln used to suspend Habeas Corpus was his pledge to faithfully execute the nation’s laws. He also claimed that his role as commander-in-chief during wartime enabled him to use any measure to subdue the enemy.

Chief Justice Taney wrote that the Constitution means nothing if presidents can abandon it and that the President does not have the authority to regulate the judiciary. It is worthwhile to note that if Congress had acted to suspend Habeas Corpus, then persons arrested would have been subject to trial in civil courts – not by the military. Interestingly, that would likely have negated the president’s success in “subduing the enemy.”

 

[Telstra]

unfair question.
Its all depends ..... At the moment he didn't kill anyone and he did the right thing.

 

[TX-Beau]

When President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus (right of a person who has been restrained to appear before a court for a hearing to determine if they are being held legally), he justified doing so because he thought it was politically important to allow the military to engage in arbitrary arrests. Granted, the country was in a state of civil war; however, he could have used the courts to charge those arrested with treason.

One of the justifications Lincoln used to suspend Habeas Corpus was his pledge to faithfully execute the nation’s laws. He also claimed that his role as commander-in-chief during wartime enabled him to use any measure to subdue the enemy.

Chief Justice Taney wrote that the Constitution means nothing if presidents can abandon it and that the President does not have the authority to regulate the judiciary. It is worthwhile to note that if Congress had acted to suspend Habeas Corpus, then persons arrested would have been subject to trial in civil courts – not by the military. Interestingly, that would likely have negated the president’s success in “subduing the enemy.”

Hmmmm.....

Not really sure what you're saying there. Perhaps you could be a little less oblique, ya know, as a favor to all us back forty rednecks.

 

[opinterph]

The president took an action that he thought was "the right thing to do." His reasoning may have been flawed, but he used his authority to bring about a change that he deemed necessary for the good of the nation.

 

[bankside]

The other reality of note:
None of this clips the wings of your Congress. If they feel put-upon by the President's decision, they can always pass a resolution condemning it.

 

[TX-Beau]

The president took an action that he thought was "the right thing to do." His reasoning may have been flawed, but he used his authority to bring about a change that he deemed necessary for the good of the nation.

OK and that specific and kinda arguable example is a definitive reason to give the office the right to ignore the constitution at what amounts to whim?

Not that I necessarily think that's what you're saying, but it is what I'm hearing. I could be wrong, one too many martinis at dinner don't ya know.

 

[TX-Beau]

The other reality of note:
None of this clips the wings of your Congress. If they feel put-upon by the President's decision, they can always pass a resolution condemning it.

Not really, the bully pulpit drives the party platform, the party platform drives the legislation, there can be no deviation from the party in our present political climate.

Why do you think our politics have gotten so vituperative and bitter?

 

[opinterph]

Our executive already has far more power than was intended, I don't think he should be getting more

I agree.

On the other hand, to what extent should the President be entitled to initiate directives when the Congress fails to act (e.g. an up or down vote on some [important] issue)?

I note that Lincoln didn't want Congress to act. His intentions were better served by his own unilateral action.

 

[frankfrank]

I dare somebody to come up with the most recent President who didn't do some things in violation of the Constitution. A hint: I'm almost sure one would need to go back well before the lifetimes of anybody in this Forum. I don't know much about Warren G. Harding, but I've heard him often referred to as a "terrible" President, so very possibly even he violated the Constitution even though he barely had time to do so.

OK, then, how is THAT for staying with the non-partisan theme of this thread?

 

[Benvolio]

When President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus (right of a person who has been restrained to appear before a court for a hearing to determine if they are being held legally), he justified doing so because he thought it was politically important to allow the military to engage in arbitrary arrests. Granted, the country was in a state of civil war; however, he could have used the courts to charge those arrested with treason.

One of the justifications Lincoln used to suspend Habeas Corpus was his pledge to faithfully execute the nation’s laws. He also claimed that his role as commander-in-chief during wartime enabled him to use any measure to subdue the enemy.

Chief Justice Taney wrote that the Constitution means nothing if presidents can abandon it and that the President does not have the authority to regulate the judiciary. It is worthwhile to note that if Congress had acted to suspend Habeas Corpus, then persons arrested would have been subject to trial in civil courts – not by the military. Interestingly, that would likely have negated the president’s success in “subduing the enemy.”

The issue was not whether the Writ of Habeas Corpus could be suspended, but whether the President could do it rather than Congress. The Constitution says it may not be suspended unless "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." It is listed among the prohibitions of things the US government may not do. The prohibitions bind the President as well as the Congress. So the question is whether the Congress must suspend the Writ when public safety requires, or may the President do it as well. Did the drafters really think that in an invasion or rebellion, the Pres had to wait for Congress? It can be argued both ways, but it certainly is not clear that Lincoln was wrong.

 

[Benvolio]

I dare somebody to come up with the most recent President who didn't do some things in violation of the Constitution. A hint: I'm almost sure one would need to go back well before the lifetimes of anybody in this Forum. I don't know much about Warren G. Harding, but I've heard him often referred to as a "terrible" President, so very possibly even he violated the Constitution even though he barely had time to do so.

OK, then, how is THAT for staying with the non-partisan theme of this thread?

Harding was not accused of wrongdoing, or even suspected. His fault was in failing to detect the corruption of some of his appointees.

 

[rareboy]

The Presidential Pardon legitimised the idea that the CEO of the US can suspend law.

When did that start?

 

[Benvolio]

The Presidential Pardon legitimised the idea that the CEO of the US can suspend law.

When did that start?

The Presidents power to pardon and reprieve is in the Constitution, Art II. Sec2.

 

[Benvolio]

What is for the good of the country is almost always a matter of disagreement, and Presidents often focus on what is good for their supporters an what wii help them get elected.