From the Constitution to Pandora's Box

Posted in the Columbus Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#1 Jul 5, 2013
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352780/c...

by Mario Loyola

During the presidency of Barack Obama, we’ve learned something about our Constitution that we did not know: The president can simply refuse to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like. Not as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, mind you, but in general, as to whole categories of people.

First it was DOMA, in a sop to the gay lobby. Then it was the immigration laws, which the president has decided not to enforce against young illegal immigrants. Now it’s the crucial employer-insurance mandate in Obamacare, which is “suspended” for a year, because the president feels like it. I say “crucial” because, absent the employer mandate, the official estimate of how much Obamacare is going to cost, and how it’s going to affect the number of uninsured, is no longer valid.

Employers shouldn’t have to provide health insurance at all. But without it, more people will go on the state insurance exchanges, where their health insurance is subsidized. That subsidy is the single-payer essence of Obamacare. Hence, suspending the employer mandate just brings us one step closer to the single-payer system that liberals wanted all along.

Others are busy fleshing out the vast implications for the nation’s health-care market. But let’s focus on the constitutional implications for a moment.

The Constitution states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Not “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed if he feels like it,” which is how the Obama administration apparently reads the provision. Rather, he must see that the laws are faithfully executed, period. Otherwise, there’s no point to the veto power. The president can simply decide, by his sole imprimatur, to nullify any law he doesn’t like.“Imprimatur,” incidentally, is at the roots of the words “emperor” and “empire.”

Alas, there is no way to enforce the president’s obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The courts will not issue a mandamus — it is a “political question.” It’s probably not a “crime or misdemeanor” for him to fail to enforce a law, so he probably can’t be impeached for it. The reason presidents have enforced the rule of law is, generally, the people’s expectation that they will. But if the president simply ignores the Constitution, and the people cheer him on (as happened during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt), then where does that leave us?

In the middle of a wide-open Pandora’s box, that’s where.

The Obama administration’s approach to executive power makes a mockery of constitutional process. His supporters appear totally oblivious to the precedent they’ve set, and to how sorry they could be one day.

What if future presidents do exactly the same thing? What if a future president announces that he will no longer enforce any aspect of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the minimum wage will no longer be enforced? What if a future president decides to stop collecting income taxes on his supporters?

If a conservative president did anything like that, liberals would be crying “Dictatorship!” Yet they cheer when Obama does it. By establishing the precedent that the president can ignore the law whenever it suits him, the Obama administration has struck a grievous blow against the Constitution he is sworn to defend.
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

#2 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ corner/352780/constitution-pan doras-box-mario-loyola
by Mario Loyola
During the presidency of Barack Obama, we’ve learned something about our Constitution that we did not know: The president can simply refuse to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like. Not as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, mind you, but in general, as to whole categories of people.
First it was DOMA, in a sop to the gay lobby. Then it was the immigration laws, which the president has decided not to enforce against young illegal immigrants. Now it’s the crucial employer-insurance mandate in Obamacare, which is “suspended” for a year, because the president feels like it. I say “crucial” because, absent the employer mandate, the official estimate of how much Obamacare is going to cost, and how it’s going to affect the number of uninsured, is no longer valid.
Employers shouldn’t have to provide health insurance at all. But without it, more people will go on the state insurance exchanges, where their health insurance is subsidized. That subsidy is the single-payer essence of Obamacare. Hence, suspending the employer mandate just brings us one step closer to the single-payer system that liberals wanted all along.
Others are busy fleshing out the vast implications for the nation’s health-care market. But let’s focus on the constitutional implications for a moment.
The Constitution states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Not “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed if he feels like it,” which is how the Obama administration apparently reads the provision. Rather, he must see that the laws are faithfully executed, period. Otherwise, there’s no point to the veto power. The president can simply decide, by his sole imprimatur, to nullify any law he doesn’t like.“Imprimatur,” incidentally, is at the roots of the words “emperor” and “empire.”
Alas, there is no way to enforce the president’s obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The courts will not issue a mandamus — it is a “political question.” It’s probably not a “crime or misdemeanor” for him to fail to enforce a law, so he probably can’t be impeached for it. The reason presidents have enforced the rule of law is, generally, the people’s expectation that they will. But if the president simply ignores the Constitution, and the people cheer him on (as happened during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt), then where does that leave us?
In the middle of a wide-open Pandora’s box, that’s where.
The Obama administration’s approach to executive power makes a mockery of constitutional process. His supporters appear totally oblivious to the precedent they’ve set, and to how sorry they could be one day.
What if future presidents do exactly the same thing? What if a future president announces that he will no longer enforce any aspect of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the minimum wage will no longer be enforced? What if a future president decides to stop collecting income taxes on his supporters?
If a conservative president did anything like that, liberals would be crying “Dictatorship!” Yet they cheer when Obama does it. By establishing the precedent that the president can ignore the law whenever it suits him, the Obama administration has struck a grievous blow against the Constitution he is sworn to defend.
President-for-life Obama will be sending a few drones to pay you a visit after he takes care of other business. Maybe you can swat them away with a rolled-up copy of the Constitution!
They cannot kill a spook

Detroit, MI

#3 Jul 5, 2013
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
President-for-life Obama will be sending a few drones to pay you a visit after he takes care of other business. Maybe you can swat them away with a rolled-up copy of the Constitution!
Just reroute them like the Texas tech kids did.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#4 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ corner/352780/constitution-pan doras-box-mario-loyola
by Mario Loyola
During the presidency of Barack Obama, we’ve learned something about our Constitution that we did not know: The president can simply refuse to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like. Not as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, mind you, but in general, as to whole categories of people.
First it was DOMA, in a sop to the gay lobby. Then it was the immigration laws, which the president has decided not to enforce against young illegal immigrants. Now it’s the crucial employer-insurance mandate in Obamacare, which is “suspended” for a year, because the president feels like it. I say “crucial” because, absent the employer mandate, the official estimate of how much Obamacare is going to cost, and how it’s going to affect the number of uninsured, is no longer valid.
Employers shouldn’t have to provide health insurance at all. But without it, more people will go on the state insurance exchanges, where their health insurance is subsidized. That subsidy is the single-payer essence of Obamacare. Hence, suspending the employer mandate just brings us one step closer to the single-payer system that liberals wanted all along.
Others are busy fleshing out the vast implications for the nation’s health-care market. But let’s focus on the constitutional implications for a moment.
The Constitution states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Not “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed if he feels like it,” which is how the Obama administration apparently reads the provision. Rather, he must see that the laws are faithfully executed, period. Otherwise, there’s no point to the veto power. The president can simply decide, by his sole imprimatur, to nullify any law he doesn’t like.“Imprimatur,” incidentally, is at the roots of the words “emperor” and “empire.”
Alas, there is no way to enforce the president’s obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The courts will not issue a mandamus — it is a “political question.” It’s probably not a “crime or misdemeanor” for him to fail to enforce a law, so he probably can’t be impeached for it. The reason presidents have enforced the rule of law is, generally, the people’s expectation that they will. But if the president simply ignores the Constitution, and the people cheer him on (as happened during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt), then where does that leave us?
In the middle of a wide-open Pandora’s box, that’s where.
The Obama administration’s approach to executive power makes a mockery of constitutional process. His supporters appear totally oblivious to the precedent they’ve set, and to how sorry they could be one day.
What if future presidents do exactly the same thing? What if a future president announces that he will no longer enforce any aspect of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the minimum wage will no longer be enforced? What if a future president decides to stop collecting income taxes on his supporters?
If a conservative president did anything like that, liberals would be crying “Dictatorship!” Yet they cheer when Obama does it. By establishing the precedent that the president can ignore the law whenever it suits him, the Obama administration has struck a grievous blow against the Constitution he is sworn to defend.
Mr. Loyola has mistaken the word "imprimatur" for the Latin word "imperator".

That should clue you in on the fact that his piece is seriously flawed.

The writer is more than just a mere bit ignorant about the issues he is discussing.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/ #!/articles/2/essays/98/take-c are-clause

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#5 Jul 5, 2013
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/ #!/search/take+care+/articles/ 2/essays/98/take-care-clause

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#6 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr. Loyola has mistaken the word "imprimatur" for the Latin word "imperator".
That should clue you in on the fact that his piece is seriously flawed.
The writer is more than just a mere bit ignorant about the issues he is discussing.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/ #!/articles/2/essays/98/take-c are-clause
woof
"imprimatur" =[imprimere] authorize, endorse
"imperator" =[imperare], command

So, the author mixed up his Latin...and not to a great extent.
Big deal.
The point of the article is not dismissed by a word choice.
It remains exactly on point.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#7 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
"imprimatur" =[imprimere] authorize, endorse
"imperator" =[imperare], command
So, the author mixed up his Latin...and not to a great extent.
Big deal.
The point of the article is not dismissed by a word choice.
It remains exactly on point.
Dig a little deeper on the roots of those words. He's clearly mistaken.

Then research the "Take Care Clause".

He's even more mistaken.

Or you can just take your sorry source at face value, and base your opinion on it.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#8 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Dig a little deeper on the roots of those words. He's clearly mistaken.
Then research the "Take Care Clause".
He's even more mistaken.
Or you can just take your sorry source at face value, and base your opinion on it.
woof
http://www.texaslrev.com/dream-on-the-obama-a...

...In Part I, Professors Delahunty and Yoo describe the circumstances of the Administration’s June 15 nonenforcement decision and identify the central legal issues. In Part II, they examine the meaning and scope of the President’s duty to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed. In Part III, they catalogue and review the most commonly offered and generally accepted excuses or justifications for the breach of the duty to execute the laws, such as unconstitutionality of the law, equity in individual cases, and resource limitations. The authors conclude that the June 15 decision does not fall within any of them.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_ob...

“The Constitution confers no express or implied power or authority not to enforce the laws,” they write.“On the face of it, the Obama administration breached its constitutional duty by refusing to enforce the immigration law in (up to) 1.7 million cases.”
Big Johnson

Columbus, OH

#9 Jul 5, 2013
I guess you will just have to elect a president who will do your bidding.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#10 Jul 5, 2013
Big Johnson wrote:
I guess you will just have to elect a president who will do your bidding.
Since my bidding is for our president to uphold the Constitution, you're right.
For the first time in your pathetic life.

“The One! The Only! RUKiddingme”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey, Baby!

#11 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.texaslrev.com/dream-on-the-obama-a...
...In Part I, Professors Delahunty and Yoo describe the circumstances of the Administration’s June 15 nonenforcement decision and identify the central legal issues. In Part II, they examine the meaning and scope of the President’s duty to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed. In Part III, they catalogue and review the most commonly offered and generally accepted excuses or justifications for the breach of the duty to execute the laws, such as unconstitutionality of the law, equity in individual cases, and resource limitations. The authors conclude that the June 15 decision does not fall within any of them.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_ob...
“The Constitution confers no express or implied power or authority not to enforce the laws,” they write.“On the face of it, the Obama administration breached its constitutional duty by refusing to enforce the immigration law in (up to) 1.7 million cases.”
Don't you have any thoughts of your own, tippi?

Watch out for the birds. They'll peck your eyes out.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#12 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.texaslrev.com/dream-on-the-obama-a...
...In Part I, Professors Delahunty and Yoo describe the circumstances of the Administration’s June 15 nonenforcement decision and identify the central legal issues. In Part II, they examine the meaning and scope of the President’s duty to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed. In Part III, they catalogue and review the most commonly offered and generally accepted excuses or justifications for the breach of the duty to execute the laws, such as unconstitutionality of the law, equity in individual cases, and resource limitations. The authors conclude that the June 15 decision does not fall within any of them.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_ob...
“The Constitution confers no express or implied power or authority not to enforce the laws,” they write.“On the face of it, the Obama administration breached its constitutional duty by refusing to enforce the immigration law in (up to) 1.7 million cases.”
Its a Law Review Article. Argument. One side.

Read closely, and ask yourself what just transpired as a result of the DOMA decision.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#13 Jul 5, 2013
RU_Kiddingme wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you have any thoughts of your own, tippi?
Watch out for the birds. They'll peck your eyes out.
Nope. You're still not relevant.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#14 Jul 5, 2013
Its up to the Courts to decide questions of Constitutionality of statutes. The Executive is free to act accordingly regarding enforcement or defense of the law.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#15 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
Its up to the Courts to decide questions of Constitutionality of statutes. The Executive is free to act accordingly regarding enforcement or defense of the law.
woof
No, the executive is not.
Making up sh!t doesn't make you the alpha dog.
It just makes more work for your master.

“The One! The Only! RUKiddingme”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey, Baby!

#16 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. You're still not relevant.
Holy cut'n'paste, Batman. Tippi answered a question. I asked "Don't you have any thoughts of your own, tippi?" and she answered "Nope."

However, I have to argue that I must be very relevant if I am the only poster who has ever asked you a question that you answered honestly.

I rock!

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#17 Jul 5, 2013
RU_Kiddingme wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy cut'n'paste, Batman. Tippi answered a question. I asked "Don't you have any thoughts of your own, tippi?" and she answered "Nope."
However, I have to argue that I must be very relevant if I am the only poster who has ever asked you a question that you answered honestly.
I rock!
How did you get here?
Did Duke leave your cage open?

“The One! The Only! RUKiddingme”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey, Baby!

#18 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
How did you get here?
Did Duke leave your cage open?
Someone who really holds you in contempt left a trail of hypocrites for me to follow.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Since: Dec 11

Middletown, OH

#19 Jul 5, 2013
Do you realize what you just said doof. Of course you don't. Please tell me where is states that the president is free to act accordingly regarding enforcement???? Where??? So here is what your saying. Congress can make laws but the president can oreder his cronies buried in the DOJ or wherever. Why make laws if they are of no consequence???? Does the president put his hand on the bible and swear to defend the constitution but is free to ignore laws passed by congress? When it is his perogative? When it's not, he goes along. And please tell me how the Unaffordable Care Act passed by congress can be ignored by the president? He didn't make the law? He did support it's passage? Wouldn't you say he's not obeying the law by ordering his IRS to not penalize folks until 2015? Why is the IRS HIS???? Isn't it merely a governmental bureau that functions according to law? Shouldn't congress amend the Unaffordable Care Act? to reflect the new date? I actually think it's a good thing he's skeered and backpeddling, it will save some jobs but it's still has no basis in action?

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#20 Jul 5, 2013
RU_Kiddingme wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who really holds you in contempt left a trail of hypocrites for me to follow.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Reader and Johnson are bumps on the road?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Columbus Police Push Legislation That Would Req... 27 min Wear Seatbelts 2
Merry Christmas! What's your favorite memory? 30 min ImNonmusToo 296
Public Flogging 44 min Crime Pays 24
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 2 hr Pale Rider 4,806
Censoring Male. 2 hr Big Johnson 27
Beef replacing ham, turkey on Christmas dinner ... 2 hr Reality Speaks 4
who knows david marcum (Feb '09) 3 hr Franklin Magilicutty 11
Topix gets rid of Canton and Twinsburg posters!!! 4 hr White cop 35
CIA Torture Report Comes Out Tomorrow 11 hr Reality Speaks 337
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Broncos vs. Bengals: TV Info, Spread, Injury Updates, Game Time and More
NFL 9:01 AM
Browns place safety Tashaun Gipson on injured reserve
ESPN 9:39 AM
Setback-free Newton to start against Browns
NBC Sports10:00 AM
Browns put Tashaun Gipson on IR
NBC Sports11:17 AM
Peyton Manning officially questionable for Monday night