Obama's move on same-sex marriage is 'very rare,' WFU law professor says

Solitary, would you have said the same thing about Andrew Johnson refusing to enforce the 1868 Civil Rights Act?

Apparently, this sort of decision is within the scope of the powers of the POTUS. Would I have been happy that he did it? Absolutely not. Would I have called for impeachment for him doing something that is legal? Again, absolutely not.



Now SM, if several federal judges, the DoJ, and the POTUS all see that the law is unconstitutional, and they have sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend" the US Constitution, why is refusing to enforce this law grounds for impeachment?

Would you have the POTUS and the DoJ defend an unconstitutional law?
 
No it's not. Andrew Johnson was impeached for ignoring dully passed legislative Acts.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html

Your link lists numerous articles of impeachment. Please give me the number of the article that involves him ignoring the laws?

Most of them seem to do with unlawfully firing Edwin M Stanton and replacing him with someone else.




Also, the basis for Obama's action is that the law is unconstitutional. Did Johnson (along with several federal judges and his DoJ) make the same claim? If not, the comparison is invalid.
 
i'm guessing that congress can impeach for failure to satisfactorily perform the office of POTUS???? maybe???

nope, first they would have to show his unwillingness to enforce or defend this law is unconstitutional. here is an interesting opinion backed up with case that i believe wholly supports my position:

First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).

Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Memorial of Captain Meigs, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 462, 469-70 (1860) (asserting that the President need not enforce a statute purporting to appoint an officer); see also annotations of attached Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Moreover, as we discuss more fully below, numerous Presidents have provided advance notice of their intention not to enforce specific statutory requirements that they have viewed as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983) (noting that Presidents often sign legislation containing constitutionally objectionable provisions and indicate that they will not comply with those provisions).

...

. The President's office and authority are created and bounded by the Constitution; he is required to act within its terms. Put somewhat differently, in serving as the executive created by the Constitution, the President is required to act in accordance with the laws -- including the Constitution, which takes precedence over other forms of law. This obligation is reflected in the Take Care Clause and in the President's oath of office.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
 
i'm guessing that congress can impeach for failure to satisfactorily perform the office of POTUS???? maybe???

"High crimes and misdemeanors". Note the plural. To me this means that Congress can impeach for just about anything. The important part is are his actions flagrant enough to piss off enough of the public where they will pressure their Senators long enough and hard enough to throw him out of office.

So far, in the history of the US, our legislators have proven themselves mega-wimpmeisters with regard to axing one of their own. IMO this is the main reason why our system sucks so bad right now. Since Woodrow Wilson all three branches of government have routinely ignored the Constitution as well as federal laws and done whatever the hell they please with little fear of reprisal.
 
"High crimes and misdemeanors". Note the plural. To me this means that Congress can impeach for just about anything. The important part is are his actions flagrant enough to piss off enough of the public where they will pressure their Senators long enough and hard enough to throw him out of office.

So far, in the history of the US, our legislators have proven themselves mega-wimpmeisters with regard to axing one of their own. IMO this is the main reason why our system sucks so bad right now. Since Woodrow Wilson all three branches of government have routinely ignored the Constitution as well as federal laws and done whatever the hell they please with little fear of reprisal.

Obama apparently has the courage of his convictions on whether or not this law is unconstitutional.

He puts his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the US Constitution above his duties to enforce laws passed by congress.
 
Those none paper trail voting booths are the best thing for elections.

Not to mention all of the dead people that vote.
 
I have to wonder how much democratic support there would be if the president decided that the machine gun ban was unconstitutional and that he wouldn't enforce it?
 
Back
Top