Author Topic: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law  (Read 476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 386,105
  • Let's Go Brandon!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/03/supreme-court-to-decide-if-the-president-can-ever-ignore-parts-of-the-law/

Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
Nov. 3, 2014 1:19pm   Fred Lucas

The Obama administration is defending an action by former President George W. Bush in a Supreme Court case that could have significant ramifications on executive power and also touches on the sensitive matter of U.S. foreign policy and the status of Jerusalem.

President Barack Obama speaks during a meeting with more than 20 foreign defense ministers on the ongoing operations against the
Zivotofsky vs. Kerry involves a boy who was born in Jerusalem to American parents and centers around whether presidents can issue “signing statements” at a bill signing to assert they won’t abide by a particular provision in a law.

Congress in 2002 passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which included a provision giving U.S. parents of children born in Jerusalem the right to have the child’s place of birth recorded on their passports as Israel. Bush signed the bill, but issued a signing statement saying he would not enforce the passport provision because it “impermissibly interferes with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

In October of that year, American parents of newborn Menachem Zivotofsky, born in Jerusalem, asked the U.S. consulate to list Israel as his birthplace. The State Department refused because of the policy of neutrality toward the status of Jerusalem, which Palestinians also claim as their capital.

For the family, “there’s a strong emotional sense of identification with Israel, and they would like that to be recognized on their son’s passport,” said Alyza Lewin, a Washington lawyer who is representing the parents, the Tribune News Service reported.

Obama administration attorneys argue that the president must have control of sensitive foreign policy matters.

“The president has exclusive authority to recognize foreign governments … as well as their territorial limits,” the government argued in its brief to the Supreme Court. The brief said that Congress cannot “override the executive branch’s decades-long policy of neutrality with respect to the sovereignty over Jerusalem.”

Presidents before Bush issued signing statements, but some critics, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, denounced Bush for executive overreach and picking and choosing which parts of a law to enforce.

796
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2014, 08:53:47 pm »
If the POTUS can ignore laws, we have no Constitution or a nation of laws.  I'm relatively certain that isn't what the framers had in mind but with this court what the framers intended seems to be of little consideration.

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2014, 09:05:53 pm »
If the POTUS can ignore laws, we have no Constitution or a nation of laws.  I'm relatively certain that isn't what the framers had in mind but with this court what the framers intended seems to be of little consideration.
Ever heard of prosecutorial discretion? Plea-bargains? Limited resources?

All across these faire landes, there exist jurisdictions with an abundance of laws, so many in fact that they could NOT hope to prosecute and fully enforce every one, nor have room for all that might be imprisoned if they did.

Hence we appoint rational, practical men and women, who do the best they can be expected to do, with known limitations.

That said, Obama is a sh!thead, and he makes the wrong tradeoffs, and compromises.

 

« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 09:25:40 pm by truth_seeker »
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,401
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2014, 09:21:12 pm »
If the POTUS can ignore laws, we have no Constitution or a nation of laws.  I'm relatively certain that isn't what the framers had in mind but with this court what the framers intended seems to be of little consideration.

I'm ABSOLUTELY certain that you are right as rain!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,625
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2014, 10:16:26 pm »
Quote
Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law

Who writes this dribble?

Of course the President can ignore parts of the law. He's been doing it for nigh near six years.

What they need to figure out is what his punishment should be for doing it.

 
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 10:20:58 pm by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277
Re: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2014, 11:39:59 pm »
If the POTUS can ignore laws, we have no Constitution or a nation of laws.  I'm relatively certain that isn't what the framers had in mind but with this court what the framers intended seems to be of little consideration.

I'm thinking that the SCOTUS rules in favor of selective enforcement...


"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,929
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2014, 02:35:34 am »
Luis wrote above:
[[ What they need to figure out is what his punishment should be for doing it. ]]

Luis, if any member of the Supreme Court or Congress has to “figure out” what the “punishment” should be, they should be ashamed of themselves.

I know what the “punishment” for that should be.
And you do, too.
As does every member of this forum.

It’s the “remedy that dare not speak its name”.

Starts with a vowel, if I recall correctly…

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court to Decide if the President Can Ever Ignore Parts of the Law
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2014, 11:32:39 pm »
Who writes this dribble?

Of course the President can ignore parts of the law. He's been doing it for nigh near six years.

What they need to figure out is what his punishment should be for doing it.

 


Not really.  What matters is what remedy do those injured by the president's ignorance deserve.  The Founders never imagined for a minute that the president - or most of anybody else in the government - would be a choirboy (or girl), which is why they set the three branches at odds with each other, and gave the one - the courts - the power to provide remedies to those injured by the actions of the executive.