Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
Much of Washington has engaged in an angst-ridden debate over the President's lack of compliance with the War Powers Act, which every president after its enactment (except President Obama) argued was unconstitutional.
In an attempt to avoid seeking congressional approval for an unpopular conflict, the President has brazenly asserted that the War Powers Act does not apply to the NATO mission in Libya (even senior administration lawyers disagreed with his interpretation). While not being engaged in hostilities, U.S. armed forces are supposedly engaged only in "a limited kinetic operation." However, the deaths of nine civilians this weekend reveal the vacuousness of this distinction without a difference. Instead of complying with the statute or rejecting it as unconstitutional, the President has attempted to thread the needle, seemingly unsuccessfully.
Yet, in the context of another law he thought was unconstitutional, Obama choose to disregard his responsibilities to execute the laws by not defending the Defense Against Marriage Act in a constitutional challenge.
What obligation do you think a president has in enforcing laws he believes are unconstitutional? When does the promise of his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution supersede his responsibilities to execute the laws? Should presidents be allowed to select the laws they enforce? Would our federal system benefit from greater participation in constitutional interpretation by the political branches? Or should the president defer to Congress to repeal unconstitutional laws or the courts to declare them void? Should constitutional interpretation be the sole domain of the judiciary?
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Time for the constitutional lawyers to weigh in to interpret the above text to tell us which part applies to enforcement of the law (DOMA) as opposed to following the law (WPA).
Dec '10
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
It's a very timely question. My impression of the Obama administration is that the U.S. has never before experienced such a lawless (if not criminal) arbitrary capricious government-by-fiat, but I hate to go around in a constant state of outrage if I'm wrong.
I'm sure some of Ricochet's crack legal team can answer whether there is any precedent for an administration refusing to enforce a law duly enacted by Congress and found constitutional by the Supreme Court, like DOMA. Has any administration challenged the WPA in court?
Jun '10
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
I've been wondering if the Oath of Office was a binding contract too. Or is it just a solemn theatrical moment (either way I thought Obama's choke at the critical moment was a tell). If it is actually an offense to subvert the constitution after having taken the oath there are a lot of politicians who should have something to answer for. Would not mock trials of Woodrow Wilson and FDR for deliberate subversion of the constitution be an enlightening excercise? Could it be proven?
Dec '10
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
He must have choked on a fly. A man who doesn't believe he'll be held accountable to God for supporting infanticide would have no problem swearing an oath, even on the Lincoln Bible.
Nov '10
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
I thought one of the checks of the Executive against the Legislature is the ability to refuse to enforce laws. I am willing to be mistaken on that, though.
Of course, when you combine that with the Executive effectively making laws (executive orders, bureaucratic regulation and the like), you get something the founders definitely wouldn't have wanted.
May '10
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
As regards enforcement, any law should be assumed Constitutional until it is proven otherwise in court.
Laws must be either enforced or challenged in court. To treat some laws as optional or to ignore them entirely threatens the validity of our entire legal code.
In fact, we have already witnessed such invalidation. Politicians are increasingly willing to ignore the Constitution and subsequent legislation because history has proven that they can get away with it. Our government becomes more lawless with each passing year, as evidenced by the recent failures to pass a national budget and the President's signing of a law not read.
The limbo in which the War Powers Act currently exists is a clear demonstration of tyranny. It is deemed invalid not by courts but by the whims of politicians.
Edited on Jun 20, 2011 at 9:38amJul '10
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
Hoyasrock:
In an attempt to avoid seeking congressional approval for an unpopular conflict, the President has brazenly asserted that the War Powers Act does not apply to the NATO mission in Libya (even senior administration lawyers disagreed with his interpretation). While not being engaged in hostilities, U.S. armed forces are supposedly engaged only in "a limited kinetic operation." However, the deaths of nine civilians this weekend reveal the vacuousness of this distinction without a difference. Instead of complying with the statute or rejecting it as unconstitutional, the President has attempted to thread the needle, seemingly unsuccessfully.
The primary reason we are engaged in "a limited kinetic operation," is because Police Action was already taken.
Essentially there is Nothin New here. Obama is trying to Bypass the War Powers Act himself, while preserving its existance for any future Republican President who may want to defend the United States Interests to be limited by it.
Oct '10
Re: Executing the Laws v Protecting the Constitution
Forgive this, this is a Fools Errand...It should be clear by now that there is no intent by this administration to abide by any sworn oath.
It is troubling to see that even the phrase of Pushing the Envelope means nothing and there are none that dare challenge to any meaningful end.