Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
02-07-2016, 01:51 PM
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-presidential-power-20160208-story.html
By David G. Savage Contact Reporter
The Supreme Court has often dealt a big blow to presidents in their second term.
Harry Truman was rebuked for claiming the power to seize strike-bound steel mills
during the Korean War. Richard Nixon resigned shortly after the court ruled
unanimously he must turn over the Watergate tapes.
Bill Clinton's impeachment was triggered by the court's decision that he must
answer questions under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. And
George W. Bush lost before the court when he claimed his power as commander in
chief gave him almost unfettered authority over prisoners held at the Guantanamo
Bay prison.
Now, as President Obama begins his last year in office, the court is set to render
a verdict on his use of his executive authority. The justices will decide whether
he violated the law by authorizing more than 4 million immigrants living in the
U.S. illegally to come out of the shadows without fear of deportation and obtain
work permits.
There are signs that at least some of the justices are ready to rein in the
president's ability to take such bold action without the approval of Congress.
Never before has the high court ruled that a president violated his constitutional
duty to “take care” that laws are “faithfully executed.” Yet when justices agreed
to hear the immigration case, they surprised many by asking both sides to present
arguments on whether Obama's actions violated the rarely invoked “take care”
provision. That question had not even been at issue when lower courts blocked
Obama's plan from taking effect.
In a separate pending case this term, the court also will rule on whether the
president and his healthcare advisors went too far by requiring Catholic charities
and other faith-based employers to formally opt out of providing a full range of
contraceptives to their female employees by citing their religious objections.
The faith-based entities argued that by notifying the government of their decision
to opt out — which triggers a process under which employees would get contraceptive
coverage by other means — they would be “complicit” in supplying “abortion-inducing
drugs.”
The decisions, both due by summer, will help answer a question that looms over
Obama's presidency. Has he properly used his power as chief executive to circumvent
congressional gridlock on issues such as immigration, climate change and healthcare,
or has he gone too far and violated his duty to enforce the laws as set by Congress?
The cases come before the court with a backdrop of Republican claims that the
president has overreached and abused his power. Former House Speaker John A.
Boehner said Obama was “acting like a king” and “damaging the presidency” when he
announced the deportation-relief plan now before the high court.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas promises GOP voters that, if he is
elected president, his first task on his first day in the White House will be to
“rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action of Barack Obama.”
White House officials and supporters of the president counter that Obama's actions
are not only legal and well within his discretionary authority, but that Congress
has left him no choice by refusing to take action on pressing national problems.
Conservative scholars think Obama has left himself vulnerable by announcing broad
executive actions on policies that had been considered and rejected by Congress,
and which even he once said were beyond his authority.
In his first term, Obama told Latino activists who were pushing him to take
unilateral action that he could not “waive away the laws Congress put in place”
regarding the removal of immigrants who entered the country illegally. But later
the president decided he did have the power to suspend deportation and offer
“lawful presence” and work permits to as many as 5 million of those immigrants.
So far conservatives have mostly failed to derail Obama in the Supreme Court.
Twice, the justices upheld the president's healthcare law against conservative
attacks, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. casting his vote with the court's
four liberals------
A damn shame that they can not issue an order for his arrest for his treason IMHO...
His "globalist protection" (HIS PUPPET MASTERS) would never allow that, not even if it meant that they had to knock off a justice or two IMHO.-TYR
By David G. Savage Contact Reporter
The Supreme Court has often dealt a big blow to presidents in their second term.
Harry Truman was rebuked for claiming the power to seize strike-bound steel mills
during the Korean War. Richard Nixon resigned shortly after the court ruled
unanimously he must turn over the Watergate tapes.
Bill Clinton's impeachment was triggered by the court's decision that he must
answer questions under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. And
George W. Bush lost before the court when he claimed his power as commander in
chief gave him almost unfettered authority over prisoners held at the Guantanamo
Bay prison.
Now, as President Obama begins his last year in office, the court is set to render
a verdict on his use of his executive authority. The justices will decide whether
he violated the law by authorizing more than 4 million immigrants living in the
U.S. illegally to come out of the shadows without fear of deportation and obtain
work permits.
There are signs that at least some of the justices are ready to rein in the
president's ability to take such bold action without the approval of Congress.
Never before has the high court ruled that a president violated his constitutional
duty to “take care” that laws are “faithfully executed.” Yet when justices agreed
to hear the immigration case, they surprised many by asking both sides to present
arguments on whether Obama's actions violated the rarely invoked “take care”
provision. That question had not even been at issue when lower courts blocked
Obama's plan from taking effect.
In a separate pending case this term, the court also will rule on whether the
president and his healthcare advisors went too far by requiring Catholic charities
and other faith-based employers to formally opt out of providing a full range of
contraceptives to their female employees by citing their religious objections.
The faith-based entities argued that by notifying the government of their decision
to opt out — which triggers a process under which employees would get contraceptive
coverage by other means — they would be “complicit” in supplying “abortion-inducing
drugs.”
The decisions, both due by summer, will help answer a question that looms over
Obama's presidency. Has he properly used his power as chief executive to circumvent
congressional gridlock on issues such as immigration, climate change and healthcare,
or has he gone too far and violated his duty to enforce the laws as set by Congress?
The cases come before the court with a backdrop of Republican claims that the
president has overreached and abused his power. Former House Speaker John A.
Boehner said Obama was “acting like a king” and “damaging the presidency” when he
announced the deportation-relief plan now before the high court.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas promises GOP voters that, if he is
elected president, his first task on his first day in the White House will be to
“rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action of Barack Obama.”
White House officials and supporters of the president counter that Obama's actions
are not only legal and well within his discretionary authority, but that Congress
has left him no choice by refusing to take action on pressing national problems.
Conservative scholars think Obama has left himself vulnerable by announcing broad
executive actions on policies that had been considered and rejected by Congress,
and which even he once said were beyond his authority.
In his first term, Obama told Latino activists who were pushing him to take
unilateral action that he could not “waive away the laws Congress put in place”
regarding the removal of immigrants who entered the country illegally. But later
the president decided he did have the power to suspend deportation and offer
“lawful presence” and work permits to as many as 5 million of those immigrants.
So far conservatives have mostly failed to derail Obama in the Supreme Court.
Twice, the justices upheld the president's healthcare law against conservative
attacks, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. casting his vote with the court's
four liberals------
A damn shame that they can not issue an order for his arrest for his treason IMHO...
His "globalist protection" (HIS PUPPET MASTERS) would never allow that, not even if it meant that they had to knock off a justice or two IMHO.-TYR