The Unitary Executive Branch

Bush has taken his 'test' of Executive Branch powers to a completely new level; whereas presidents have openly defied the wishes of Congress in the past, Bush does it in secret.

Powers assigned to the president in the constitution cannot legally be removed by a majority (or even two-thirds) vote in the Congress, establishing a new "law".

... Whether or not he agrees with those laws or finds them to be wise or unwise, the president's constitutional duty is to faithfully excute the laws enacted by our elected representatives in Congress.

I take it you both agree that if Hillary is elected in 2008 (or some other Dem who you loathe) then you have no problem whatsoever with her ignoring any provisions of Congress that she doesn't feel meet the Constitutional interpretation that she favors? I'm sure Republican congressman would have a bone to pick with you on that one.

I'll even throw you a bone and bring up your favorite target: if Clinton issued signing statements at the level that Bush has, you'd be screaming bloody f*ckin murder, and you know it!

Cycloptichorn

I was talking about Hillary!

Telling, though.

Cycloptichorn

Your argument is reduced to pointing out that some presidents in the past have 'gotten away with it.'

Even the Supreme Court itself agrees to some extent: As Walter Dellinger observed when he served in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, the Court has "endorsed" the practice of a President's declining to enforce statutory requirements he views as unconstitutional.

I will ask you again: Do you agree that there should be no establishment of fact in this case? That it is correct for Republicans in Congress to block investigation into whether or not the President is acting in a legal and correct manner?

Cycloptichorn

As the California Attorney General's brief points out, Marbury v. Madison does say that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." But "emphatically" is not "exclusively," and history suggests that sometimes the Executive -- and not just the Judiciary -- has also pronounced on the constitutionality of laws.

Indeed, many a President has historically, and I think properly, asserted a power to decline to enforce a Congressional statute that he believes is unconstitutional -- a power deriving from both the oath he takes to support the U.S. Constitution, and his duty to see that the law, especially the Constitution, is "faithfully executed."

I didn't miss your earlier post, I just have yet to see where the SC 'endorsed' the concept you are talking about; only that one man believes that the SC 'endorsed' presidents deciding what the Constitution means unilaterally. Hardly definative.

From you Findlaw link:

Quote:

As the California Attorney General's brief points out, Marbury v. Madison does say that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." But "emphatically" is not "exclusively," and history suggests that sometimes the Executive -- and not just the Judiciary -- has also pronounced on the constitutionality of laws.

Indeed, many a President has historically, and I think properly, asserted a power to decline to enforce a Congressional statute that he believes is unconstitutional -- a power deriving from both the oath he takes to support the U.S. Constitution, and his duty to see that the law, especially the Constitution, is "faithfully executed."

Nowhere does it say that the President can ignore the consequences of his actions.

We know for a fact that the justification for the NSA spying program has 'evolved' over time; this is proof enough that it is not constitutional interpretation that lead Bush to break the law by spying, but it is the excuse he is trying to use to keep from being investigated for doing so.

Cycloptichorn

Debra_Law wrote:

... Whether or not he agrees with those laws or finds them to be wise or unwise, the president's constitutional duty is to faithfully excute the laws enacted by our elected representatives in Congress.

He is not, however, required to faithfully execute unconstitutional laws passed by the Congress. Any attempt on your part to claim otherwise is without merit.

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

... Whether or not he agrees with those laws or finds them to be wise or unwise, the president's constitutional duty is to faithfully excute the laws enacted by our elected representatives in Congress.

He is not, however, required to faithfully execute unconstitutional laws passed by the Congress. Any attempt on your part to claim otherwise is without merit.

All laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are presumptively constitutional. Laws are not unconstitutional (thus, unenforceable) unless declared to be so by a court of law.

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

... Whether or not he agrees with those laws or finds them to be wise or unwise, the president's constitutional duty is to faithfully excute the laws enacted by our elected representatives in Congress.

He is not, however, required to faithfully execute unconstitutional laws passed by the Congress. Any attempt on your part to claim otherwise is without merit.

All laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are presumptively constitutional. Laws are not unconstitutional (thus, unenforceable) unless declared to be so by a court of law.

You're wrong ... see my full response somewhere on the "America ... Spying on Americans" thread.

Congress does not hold the power to regulate the Executive Branch, and the President is not forced to blindly enforce laws passed by Congress. Unconstitutional laws are void from their enactment ... they are not made void upon an unconstitutional finding by the judiciary. The President is entitled to make an executive review of laws, and there is historical precedent for Presidents to do so, which you must admit, even though you don't want to.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Congress does not hold the power to regulate the Executive Branch . . .

Congress does not hold the power to regulate the Executive Branch

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

... Whether or not he agrees with those laws or finds them to be wise or unwise, the president's constitutional duty is to faithfully excute the laws enacted by our elected representatives in Congress.

He is not, however, required to faithfully execute unconstitutional laws passed by the Congress. Any attempt on your part to claim otherwise is without merit.

All laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are presumptively constitutional. Laws are not unconstitutional (thus, unenforceable) unless declared to be so by a court of law.

You're wrong ... see my full response somewhere on the "America ... Spying on Americans" thread.

Congress does not hold the power to regulate the Executive Branch, and the President is not forced to blindly enforce laws passed by Congress. Unconstitutional laws are void from their enactment ... they are not made void upon an unconstitutional finding by the judiciary. The President is entitled to make an executive review of laws, and there is historical precedent for Presidents to do so, which you must admit, even though you don't want to.

Hearing vowed on Bush's powers
Senator questions bypassing of laws
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing the White House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.

''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"

Specter said he plans to hold the hearing in June. He said he intends to call administration officials to explain and defend the president's claims of authority, as well to invite constitutional scholars to testify on whether Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his power.

The senator emphasized that his goal is ''to bring some light on the subject." Legal scholars say that, when confronted by a president encroaching on their power, Congress's options are limited. Lawmakers can call for hearings or cut the funds of a targeted program to apply political pressure, or take the more politically charged steps of censure or impeachment.

. . . I told ya, even Republicans in Congress aren't going to like the idea that the president considers them to be powerless in regards to the bills they pass.

This is gonna get pretty ugly, pretty quick.

Cycloptichorn

Congress does not hold the power to regulate the Executive Branch, and the President is not forced to blindly enforce laws passed by Congress. Unconstitutional laws are void from their enactment ... they are not made void upon an unconstitutional finding by the judiciary. The President is entitled to make an executive review of laws, and there is historical precedent for Presidents to do so, which you must admit, even though you don't want to.

. . . In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . ." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.

It is said that other Presidents without congressional authority have taken possession of private business enterprises in order to settle labor disputes. But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution "in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof."

The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand.