Does POTUS have to follow the law?

[HornHuskerDad]

Very interesting item - The Link.

A couple of interesting items from the article:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

Here is some interesting background on the politician who wrote the opinion. Why did I strongly suspect this would be the case?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

^^ You are an attorney. Instead of the ad hominem, will you provide a legal rebuttal? I find the topic interesting.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

He is POTUS, not king. Of course he has to follow the law.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

^Apparently the Executive Branch elected not to do as the law required - and I assume that the policy directive to do so originated at high levels in the Obama administration.

We're back to the basic underlying question - can the POTUS elect not to comply with a statute simple because he has a different view? Does such action threaten the separation of powers and checks-and-balances?

Attorneys????

HHD

 

[Hu_Fan]

The Executive Branch is 1/3 of the equal and separate branches of government
but has about 98 percent of total civilian employees.

Source: “How many federal workers are there?” Washington Post, 30Sep10. Ed O’Keefe.The Link
Data, Analysis & Documentation: Federal Employment Reports, --The Link

We hear all the time about "laws" being heaped on the American society and think Legislature. Then complain about gridlock and that "Congrees" (boo-hoo) is stymied and doing nothing. As if we really want MORE laws.

But it's the long list of departments and agencies under the Executive Branch that are dishing out the hundreds and thousands of laws, rules, regulations.

And that is UNDER the President, all throughout the Executive Branch. The President then has the power to check off on those regulations, rules, laws and do as he wishes with them.

And then, apparently, as he wishes specifically with legislation passed by an independent branch of government. The spirit and letter of the law is supposed to be that the President puts a check on a law only as it applies to the Constitution -- for no other reason.

That I'm aware of.

 

[Clean]

Quelle surprise! The libs immediately attack the judge not his legal argument.

Obama decided early on that he would selectively pick and choose which laws he would order the DOJ to enforce or ignore. If he doesn't like a law, like DOMA, or some aspects of our immigration laws, screw it, screw Congress, screw State's rights. If he doesn't like the Trayvon Martin decision he sicks his attack dog, Holder, on it. If the Supreme's negate the Voting Rights Act, he and Holder come up with another BS scheme to accomplish the same thing.

He's trying to govern by Executive Decree. Good to see this judge stand up to him. If the Dems gain control of the House or Obama packs a few more token libs on the SC, look out!

 

[HornHuskerDad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

You want an honest discussion of the allocation of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches?

You selected a terrible opinion by a partisan hack. The single person who most expanded the powers of the imperial presidency over the last forty years is George W. Bush. I warned you about this for eight years.

Now that my guy is in charge and continuing to use the expanded powers you are upset?

Color me very unimpressed. Republicans are hypocrites of the first order.

Does the President have to follow the law?

Of course.

It is inane to think otherwise and this opinion is a disrespectful piece of **** particularly coming from a partisan hack who served in the Bush White House.

Should the powers of the imperial presidency be curtailed?

Absolutely.

Democrats actually think about this stuff and realize that the pendulum of power can swing both ways. Maybe if Republicans in Congress were not so busy doing nothing but trying to shut the government down or defund Obamacare, they might pass some laws or actually do something.

If you guys want to pretend that Obama is a dictator or doing something that George W. Bush did not do, then please continue with the vapid Faux News echo chamber that defines this forum. The expansion of executive branch power predates Bush and Obama, but Bush took it up a notch (probably with the assistance of the very hypocritical judge who wrote this opinion that you so love) and Obama has continued it.

You want to have an honest discussion of curtailing the imperial presidency?

You could start by recognizing its origins. You could then outline ways to control it. Congress and good governance by Congress is the best way. The House Republicans have virtually ceded all power to the Senate and President.

 

[pasotex]

And does a 2-1 decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals define the law and whether the President is following the law?

No.

There are still another two levels to go. The decision can be reviewed by the entire DC Circuit and then by the United States Supreme Court.

Now is this the same DC Circuit for which the Senate Republicans have failed to confirm (or even allow a vote) on several judges who would alter the appointed balance of power?

Why curiously yes this is the case.

The Link

It is an amazing coincidence that the federal appellate court that considers many decisions involving federal issues (and is viewed as a key step to the Supreme Court) would have its judges held up in a move that maintains its current strong conservative bias (based on who appointed the judges).

This could not possibly be for partisan political purposes and cheap inane political points. In fact, Senate Republicans want to reduce the number of judges from 11 to 8 locking in the appointment bias for a number of years.

There is no way the Republican Party would do this for politics, right?

 

[pasotex]

And finally the rule of law (in simple terms) means that the Legislative Branch passes the laws, the Executive Branch implements them, and the Judicial Branch interprets them. It is up to a judge to determine if the Executive Branch is properly implementing a law.

The attack on the President in this opinion is improper and disgusting. It is the epitome of an unprofessional judge who never should have been appointed or confirmed in the first place. It has no place in an opinion. None. It would be called in legal terms dicta meaning that it is an unnecessary comment unrelated or unneeded for the actual holding (the holding is what the opinion or decision determines).

Opinions on the contours of Executive Branch power and how it implements the law are almost as old as the Republic itself. Unfortunately, so are partisan attacks by a politician wearing a black robe.

 

[dillohorn]

In my opinion, Obama is disgusting. He is trying to make the Constitution meaningless. ....Obama...the Stalin wannabe of this century. Disgusting. Does he give a "tingle" up your leg too?

 

[pasotex]

Comparing Obama to Stalin is laughable, inane, and disgusting. How dare you inhabit my country. Why don't you leave? Paraguay likes unrepentant stupid nazis. I hear this week they are having a special.

 

[Uninformed]

You usually aren't this petulant. I don't get why, instead of a legal opinion, we get some diatribe against I don't know what. I can only assume that your legal opinion contrasts with your political opinion. Perhaps another attorney on this board should weigh in on the subject.

 

[pasotex]

Perhaps this entire subject especially its framing is only worthy of scorn and contempt?

It isn't interesting. The political comments of a former Bush staffer who now happens to wear a robe are neither enlightening nor important.

You want a serious discussion on a thread where nitwits are comparing Obama to Stalin?

 

[HornHuskerDad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

You guys are interested in the Faux News echo chamber that defines this forum. Have at it.

Look into George W. Bush and signing statements if you want to see some real executive overreach. Obama certainly has not given back any executive power, but he has not expanded it either.

And ignoring the obvious political axe to grind by the judge also tells me that you are not remotely serious about this subject.

Let's attack Obama some more ...

 

[pasotex]

And the short really simple answer is yes the President has to follow the law. There is no evidence that Obama has not followed the law on this or any other matter. Until the appeals are exhausted and a final decision is reached (absent an injunction of some sorts), there is no binding decision. You hardly need a law degree to know this. A class or two in political science is all you need.

Obama will appeal or comply with the court ruling.

Next.

Maybe we can revisit Benghazi.

 

[Uninformed]

Sorry you had a bad weekend. Cheer up and hookem.

 

[AustinBat]

Paso's panties are in a wad. Methinks he protests and screams too much so as to drown out you RACISTS who dare to question The Annointed.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

You are going to lose some serious street cred.

 

[huisache]

the POTUS should be bound by the law but I am concerned with our conservative brethren who seem to apply this maxim selectively. How many on the right complained with Saint Ronald intentionally violated the Boland Act repeatedly? How many of you lionized that POS marine colonel they sent to congress to lie about it? Oliver North. Remember how he became a great hero for defying the law?

THe whole Iran-Contra guns for hostage thing was illegal, starting with the violation of the arms embargo we had created all the way down to arming the contras, which was a violation of a law specifically created to prevent arming them and which Saint Ronald signed and then repeatedly and intentionally violated secretly.

It does Obama no credit that he openly disregards the law. I never voted for him and am proud to say that he and Clinton are the only democrats I have refrained from voting for, in part because of their contempt for the law.

But the high dudgeon rhetoric employed by republicans is hypocritical in the extreme.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HornHuskerDad]

It's not a secret to those of you who have seen some of my prior posts - I despise the Presidency of Barack Obama. I think he is one of the worst we have ever had. I firmly believe that his view of the USA of the future is a socialist state. I cannot find any of his policy statements that I can support. But I acknowledge - grudgingly and unhappily - that he is the duly elected and seated POTUS, whether I like it or not. As such, he is expected to exercise the powers of the office IAW the Constitution. And barring death, resignation, or impeachment and conviction, he will remain POTUS until 20 Jan 17. Why is it, pasotex, that you find it so difficult to acknowledge that Judge Kavanaugh is a duly appointed federal judge, nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, as required by the Constitution? And as such, he is expected and entitled to exercise the powers and responsibilities given to the judiciary branch of the government.

I'm not a lawyer - I'm an engineer-turned-program-manager, and I'm not qualified to give an informed opinion on the court's ruling. I found it to be an interesting article, citing the court's ruling, and thought it would be worthy of some informed discussion on this forum. Those of you who are attorneys can shed some light on this topic that non-attorney folks like me would find it interesting - and I would still welcome that input.

The sidebar about the history of the Judge only serves to shed light on your political bias. If you want to call him a political hack, that's your privilege. I could call Obama a political hack, but I chose not to do so - once again, I thought the article was worthy of some informed, non-politically-biased discussion.

HHD

 

[pasotex]

The President is a politician. He was elected by the voters. A judge is not supposed to be a politician. The dicta in the opinion had no business being in there. Giving it any credence lessens the judiciary.

I get that you do not respect Obama and this blind hatred defines you. Therefore, this "discussion" will never be anything more than a pissing contest.

The answer to the basic question is very simple. The President is not "above" the law. The deeper question as to the extent of presidential authority and the overlap of the three branches of government is complex and actually is interesting to me.

This is not the forum for such a discussion. The ratio of right wing nuts is too high and the sheer volume of disrespectful and inane comments is way too high. Quite frankly, the judge's dicta is insulting and irritates the **** out of me. He should never have been confirmed by the Senate. There is a reason he was held up for three years. He is part of the polarization problem we have in politics right now.

For you guys not to understand and acknowledge it, both saddens and infuriates me.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

The actual court opinion, without the dicta, goes into the history of the tension between the three branches of government in some detail and it sounds right to me. I think the actual decision itself is a very close call. I probably go with the dissent (the 1 in the 2-1 decision), but because it is futile not because the executive branch should not do it.

The President and Executive Branch are afforded a large degree of discretion in implementing the law. This discretion is not without limits and the Judicial Branch oversees this discretion. I am not aware of any President who did not respect the ultimate rule of law.

The actual dispute concerns the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for the disposal of nuclear waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") has suspended evaluating the site because Congress has only appropriated $11 million which is not nearly enough money to do the evaluation. The site cannot be opened until the evaluation is complete.

The suit was brought against the NRC by two states that want to send their low level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Obama does not want to do this and most importantly Harry Reid does not want to do this. The reason that no more money is going to the NRC for this evaluation is because Harry Reid and the Senate remove it from budgets.

So the evaluation remains incomplete (which is required before the place can open) and the NRC only has $11 million for an evaluation that will cost far more. What should the NRC do? Two of the three judges in this case are ordering the NRC to spend the $11 million that Congress has appropriated. The third judge held that it was futile and a waste of money to do this.

I generally agree with the two judges that the Executive Branch should do what the Legislative Branch says to do. In this matter, I do not agree because the amount is inadequate to do the job and there is no indication that any additional funds will be forthcoming. The Senate, as long as Harry Reid is the majority leader, will never approve any additional funding for this.

The judge's comments directed at President Obama and the NRC are incredibly offensive. He is just flat out wrong. There are very good reasons for delaying the evaluation until such time as Congress decides to adequately fund the evaluation. At a bare minimum, the President and NRC should be presumed to be acting in good faith. The adequate funding may or may not happen any time soon.

Here is the actual opinion:

The Link

I will give Deez some street cred for something. The press has absolutely no idea what the court did and did not order. The court ordered that the NRC spend the $11 million Congress previously appropriated. It did not order that this would result in approval or even an evaluation (which according to the NRC it will not).