• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
That's not a good example at all. The example I replied to you earlier explained it very well. If congress passed a law that said police are no longer allowed to prosecute white people for murdering blacks, by your logic it would be unacceptable for Obama to ignore that and arrest those murderers anyway. If they passed a law that said that all black people must die, then Obama would be ok with ignoring that. I'm telling you there's no principle behind that, either legal or moral, that makes sense to me. I think that clearly shows why such a distinction doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking I'm getting a better sense of what you mean. Perhaps the difference between us is where we were viewing the process. You kept mentioning Presidents enforcing laws. I didn't care if Obama is chasing illegals or not, rather we have a case where a President may have violated a law. Then the Constitutionality of that comes into play, and that very much comes down to interpretation. If a President can say that a law does not apply to him, or violates law then claims after the fact that it is inapplicable then the justification is, "well he's the President so he can do that", well I can't agree. Since that's not what you meant I'm good.
 
Matt1970 said:
You can't keep rewriting the rules to fit your cause. It is solely the job of the judicial branch to decide what laws are constitutional or not. I will wait for you guys to quote which part of the constitution gives the executive branch the power to decide which laws are and are not constitutional. I suspect I will be waiting a while.
Click to expand...

The problem is that a lot of this is hypothetical. The courts do ultimately determine whether any law is Constitutional but that does not mean that every law has been officially approved.

Let's look at Obama and these laws. He can say anything he likes and he can attempt to justify it on Constitutional grounds. Well he has that opinion, however if challenged he does not have the last say. The courts do.

Now suppose that Congress passes a law that the President cannot act as C in C and that absolutely every move he makes must be vetted by Congress. In that case it makes sense that a President can use his judgement and say take a flying leap. There's nothing that requires him to surrender his rights because law is inferior to the Constitution and he is coequal in his responsibilities. If forced to do so the SCOTUS referees.

My problem would be if a President does the reverse and dictates law. While it may be deficient, Congress is the entity which has the responsibility of legislation. This cannot be delegated or usurped. "Well he has no choice because". No, he has no choice, no more than Congress has the choice to be the Executive Branch. Get a new Congress. Of course the problem is that Presidents do have limited authority to do things which have the effect of law, and that's what's been pushed harder and harder, and I have a real problem with that.
 
Matt1970 said:
You can't keep rewriting the rules to fit your cause. It is solely the job of the judicial branch to decide what laws are constitutional or not. I will wait for you guys to quote which part of the constitution gives the executive branch the power to decide which laws are and are not constitutional. I suspect I will be waiting a while.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and quote the part of the Constitution that says the judiciary has that power. (It doesn't actually say that anywhere) It's an implied power that we think is necessary for the courts to fulfill their duty. Just like the president must interpret the constitution to fulfill his.

Pretend Obama isn't the president for a minute to get the blind partisanship out of your head. Then think about it. Alternatively, provide me with literally any legal analysis other than you just making wild claims.
 
I'm familiar with the Constitutional argument some of you are debating. That's not what bothers me. Instead it's the rather cavalier manner Obama invokes such arguments when it is convenient for him. He uses such things like a free 'get of jail card'.

Fern
 
eskimospy said:
The constitution comes first.

Are you saying he should commit acts that he believes violate the constitution until the judiciary tells him to stop? How is this in any way compatible with his oath of office?
Click to expand...
If he feels the law is unconstitutional
1) Veto it
2) Request the SCOTUS for an opinion

If something can be shown to be a constitutional issue, I am sure that SCOTUS will generate time to review and generate an opinion.

Without a super majority in both chambers, Congress will not be able to do an veto override instantaneously.

And knowing that a bill is in progress that he feels is unconstitutional, he can alert SCOTUS in advance.

I would like to know what laws Obama claims are unconstitutional, he has vetoed and then has appealed to SCOTUS.

Or what bills by previous administrations he claims are unconstitutional and has appealed to SCOTUS.

Or is he just playing politics and trying to do it his way, ignoring the laws of the United States.
 
eskimospy said:
Go ahead and quote the part of the Constitution that says the judiciary has that power. (It doesn't actually say that anywhere) It's an implied power that we think is necessary for the courts to fulfill their duty. Just like the president must interpret the constitution to fulfill his.

Pretend Obama isn't the president for a minute to get the blind partisanship out of your head. Then think about it. Alternatively, provide me with literally any legal analysis other than you just making wild claims.
Click to expand...

Where is the president authorized to "interpret" the constitution. Unless Congress grants him the authority to interpret a law; he should obey/enforce that law.
 
Fern said:
I'm familiar with the Constitutional argument some of you are debating. That's not what bothers me. Instead it's the rather cavalier manner Obama invokes such arguments when it is convenient for him. He uses such things like a free 'get of jail card'.

Fern
Click to expand...

I agree that the administration has been pushing the boundaries, but they're simply following the precedent set by previous administrations. Congress has the power to step in and fix the situation, but they're craven.
 
cabri said:
If he feels the law is unconstitutional
1) Veto it
2) Request the SCOTUS for an opinion
Click to expand...

1) that doesn't account for laws passed by previous presidents.
2) he most certainly cannot ask SCOTUS for an opinion on the manner. The Supreme Court does not give opinions on laws that don't exist yet and it also does not adjudicate hypothetical situations due to the standing doctrine.

What you're talking about simply bears no resemblance to how our government works.

If something can be shown to be a constitutional issue, I am sure that SCOTUS will generate time to review and generate an opinion.
Click to expand...

Not just no, but hell no they won't. See above.

Without a super majority in both chambers, Congress will not be able to do an veto override instantaneously.
Click to expand...

You're attempting to insert the partisan makeup of congress into this. That is irrelevant.

And knowing that a bill is in progress that he feels is unconstitutional, he can alert SCOTUS in advance.

I would like to know what laws Obama claims are unconstitutional, he has vetoed and then has appealed to SCOTUS.

Or what bills by previous administrations he claims are unconstitutional and has appealed to SCOTUS.

Or is he just playing politics and trying to do it his way, ignoring the laws of the United States.
Click to expand...

Again, I hope I've made clear that all these requests are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how courts in the US work.
 
cabri said:
Where is the president authorized to "interpret" the constitution. Unless Congress grants him the authority to interpret a law; he should obey/enforce that law.
Click to expand...

And if the law is unconstitutional or of questionable constitutionality? Or ambiguity in the law - eg: signing statements indicating how the executive will interpret the law?

A) Tenure of Office Act (1867) (Overturned eventually in Myers v. United States (1926) )
B) War Powers Resolution of 1973

Or the judiciary deferring to the executive on matters of constitionality (at least in regards to ambiguous laws and executive agencies' interpretations):
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then doesn't it follow that laws that are clearly unconstitutional (even if they have not yet been ruled as such) should be ignored?
 
Last edited:
Wow, today I'll learned that some of those who go one to higher education resort to using profanity to express themselves. Doesn't come across very educated at all, in fact they come across as being on the same level as a drunken sailor.
 
Brainonska511 said:
I agree that the administration has been pushing the boundaries, but they're simply following the precedent set by previous administrations. Congress has the power to step in and fix the situation, but they're craven.
Click to expand...

Here's my question. If a President asserts a right it would seem the judiciary would be the one to rule on it's validity since they are the ultimate authority. How could Congress legitimately make that ruling, or do you mean something else?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Here's my question. If a President asserts a right it would seem the judiciary would be the one to rule on it's validity since they are the ultimate authority. How could Congress legitimately make that ruling, or do you mean something else?
Click to expand...

Congress doesn't even need to think its unconstitutional. They could simply not like it. They could refuse his appointments, they could impeach him, they can shut down the government, etc.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Here's my question. If a President asserts a right it would seem the judiciary would be the one to rule on it's validity since they are the ultimate authority. How could Congress legitimately make that ruling, or do you mean something else?
Click to expand...

I was referring to issues that either don't have the time to reach the judiciary (eg: a law that was enacted but never needed to be enforced) or something that is a clear enchroachment, perhaps outlined in this memo from the Assistant Attorney General: http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc110294.html


In general, laws should be presumed constitutional. Congress can make the ruling by explicitly stating in their legislation how it is constitutional, making it much harder to bypass laws in ways suggested by the AAG in 1994. I don't think the president has the power to willie-nillie ignore the law (obviously, there are cases where the laws are prioritized due to finite government resources: see immigration). And if the president doesn't abide, they are always free to enact varying degrees of punishment on the president, from passing new legislation, withholding funding, censuring the president, impeaching the president, etc...

On a side note about this entire prisoner swapping (ignoring the constitutional questions), seeing as how these are Taliban members, wouldn't they really be POWs that would have to be returned after hostilities ended? The Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan at the start of the war. We may as well get something for the POWs we'd be forced to return.
 
Last edited:
cabri said:
If he feels the law is unconstitutional
1) Veto it
2) Request the SCOTUS for an opinion

If something can be shown to be a constitutional issue, I am sure that SCOTUS will generate time to review and generate an opinion.

Without a super majority in both chambers, Congress will not be able to do an veto override instantaneously.

And knowing that a bill is in progress that he feels is unconstitutional, he can alert SCOTUS in advance.

I would like to know what laws Obama claims are unconstitutional, he has vetoed and then has appealed to SCOTUS.

Or what bills by previous administrations he claims are unconstitutional and has appealed to SCOTUS.

Or is he just playing politics and trying to do it his way, ignoring the laws of the United States.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is a court of last resort. They do not generate advisory opinions. It's part of the interpretation of "case or controversy" that has been around since the days of George Washington. Here's a letter from then Chief Justice John Jay about this:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s34.html

Here's the relevant quote from the letter:

These being in certain respects checks upon each other, and our being judges of a court in the last resort, are considerations which afford strong arguments against the propriety of our extra-judicially deciding the questions alluded to, especially as the power given by the Constitution to the President, of calling on the heads of departments for opinions, seems to have been purposely as well as expressly united to the executive departments.
Click to expand...

Here's the wiki on the "Case or Controversy" Clause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause
 
Matt1970 said:
If the President were to find a law he feels is unconstitutional, there are ways to get it changed.
Click to expand...
True, and those ways should be taken whenever practical. Unfortunately we have an adversarial two-party system. If one party says "Hey, we noticed that this bill says the federal government will imprison you if you pay your health care tax when it's framers obviously meant to say if you pay your health care tax; we need to fix that", then the other party says "Great; let's talk about what you'll give us to get on-board with your bill." Doing the right thing in D.C. usually has a price, unfortunately.

In any case, I think the charge of un-Constitutionality in this case is merely the shotgun defense, forcing his opposition to divide its time between attacking the law breaking and defending the Constitutionality of the laws broken.

Fern said:
Just a thought, and I could surely be wrong because it's based upon a hazy recollections of events from some years ago, but transporting GITMO prisoners could be a special case.

I seem to remember that several years ago when Obama was considering closing GITMO that Congress took the step of ensuring that no money be made available to transport GITMO prisoners as a way of preventing Obama from unilaterally closing GITMO.

Fern
Click to expand...
Could be. I actually thought it concerned transporting them plus housing them in domestic prisons and trying them in domestic courts, but you may be right.

Fern said:
I'm familiar with the Constitutional argument some of you are debating. That's not what bothers me. Instead it's the rather cavalier manner Obama invokes such arguments when it is convenient for him. He uses such things like a free 'get of jail card'.

Fern
Click to expand...
I dislike that too, but shouldn't we choose our attacks for those occasions when he's clearly doing something for political reasons?

This might have been a political stunt - the White House was clearly caught flat footed by the breadth and depth of the opposition. Maybe they did it only for political benefit, because they thought it would be universally applauded as the right thing to do. But that could also be because they did it only because it was the right thing to do and thought it would be universally applauded because it was the right thing to do. I tend to think the latter; had it been done strictly or mostly for political benefit, surely Team Obama would have done at least some homework and would have at least been ready for the fire storm, if not prepared to spin it to their advantage. Politicians even try to gain political benefit from the popularity of things they opposed and tried to kill, so Obama's abortive schedule of political back-patting doesn't necessarily means his intentions were political. Could just be thinking it's foolish to miss an opportunity for some good publicity.

In any case, malfeasance in D.C. seems so prevalent that surely we should grant a bit of latitude when the pols appear to be honestly trying to do right.
 
Last edited:
The GOP haven't taken control yet. Not til next month, then the shit is gonna hit the fan? Maybe not, because Boehner and McConnell are spineless, flip flopping pussies.
 
compuwiz1 said:
The GOP haven't taken control yet. Not til next month, then the shit is gonna hit the fan? Maybe not, because Boehner and McConnell are spineless, flip flopping pussies.
Click to expand...
If Boehner is confirmed again and McConnell is reconfirmed it's all over. We saw the huge sellout Congress completed this month, it's just going to be more of the same. New blood in charge is what the nation needs if it's interested in the health of the nation over the long haul. Those two career politician's are good at the hot air shtick but when the rubber meets the road they're just Democrats at heart. With them in charge we'll hear two years of fiery rhetoric while Obama runs out of ink and those two fetch new pens for him.

http://iotwreport.com/?p=267172
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top