[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Have You Noticed That Seismic Activity Has Been Going Nuts All Over The Globe

The Vax was meant to CAUSE cancer.... listen to this - this clip from RFK Jr's site

CNN Immediately Cuts Off Panelist Who Tells the Truth About the LA Riots

Army Secretary declares war on the military industrial complex

Former Israeli PM Threatens U.S. Will Get 'A Re-Run Of 9-11' If It Doesn't Fight Israel's Wars

7 Examples Of The “Mostly Peaceful” Los Angeles Riots Becoming Even More “Peaceful”

Biden Admin and ActBlue Funded Group Behind Abolish ICE Protests in LA

Murderers, rapists, gang members: ICE busts 12 of LA's 'worst' illegal alien criminals amid riots

LA Mayor Karen Bass Threatens Feds: Withdraw From LA Or the Violence Will Escalate –

Woman points gun at police and finds out

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Ronny Jackson Accuses Biden Doctor Kevin O’Connor Of Sexual Misconduct

WHAT YOU’RE WITNESSING IN LOS ANGELES ISN’T JUST UNREST—IT’S MORAL COLLAPSE

Anna Paulina Luna Exposes the Guy Behind the Anti-ICE Riots

Mike Huckabee Working To Keep Netanyahu in Power

Israeli Military and Israeli-Backed Gang Shoot Aid Seekers in Gaza, Killing 14

Only 68 Building Permits Issued for Pacific Palisades After Wildfires Destroyed 6800 Structures

Violent Rioters Fire Off Exploding Projectiles at Police Horses Use Fireworks and Explosives to Attack Police

ICE Just Shattered Records With One Massive Operation That Has Democrats Fuming

Nolte: Insurrectionist Democrats Plan Another Summer of Blue City-Riots

Violent riots have now been reported in over 30 American cities. Heres a full list:

Mass shooter opened fire at graduation party was an migrant who was busted in LA ICE raids:

Cash Jordan: ICE Raids Home Depot... as California Collapses

Silver Is Finally Soaring: Here's Why

New 4um Interface Coming Soon

Attack of the Dead-2025.

Canada strips Jewish National Fund of charitable status

Minnesota State Rep. Vang just admitted that she is an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

1100% increase in neurological events since the roll-out of Covid mRNA

16 Things That Everyone Needs To Know About Violent Far-Left Revolution In Los Angeles

Undercover video in Arizona alleges ongoing consumer fraud by Fairlife


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Supreme Court to render a verdict on Obama's use of executive authority
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na ... tial-power-20160208-story.html
Published: Feb 7, 2016
Author: David G. Savage
Post Date: 2016-02-07 17:19:57 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1197
Comments: 8

The Supreme Court is expected to issue two rulings by summer on executive actions taken by President Obama.

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.

Supreme Court upholds Obama's energy regulations to help conserve power in peak periods Supreme Court upholds Obama's energy regulations to help conserve power in peak periods 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.

Supreme Court is urged to halt Obama's climate change rules 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.

Four years ago, in a key test of state-versus-federal power, the court ruled for Obama after his administration sued to block Arizona from enforcing a law to crack down on immigrants in the country illegally.

In 2011, Obama and then-Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. raised ruffles on the right when they announced the administration would not defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, which recognized only marriages between a man and a woman. House Republicans took up the cause, but two years later the high court agreed with the administration and struck down key parts of the law as unconstitutional.

But the new immigration and contraceptive cases pose a tough test for Obama's lawyers. In last year's healthcare case, they were defending a law that had won approval in Congress, when both chambers were controlled by Democrats. “We must respect the role of the legislature and take care not to undo what it has done,” Roberts said in upholding its system of insurance subsidies.

This year, by contrast, Obama is defending an executive action on immigration that was taken without the approval of Congress and in the face of fierce Republican criticism.

See the most-read stories this hour >> Similarly, the “contraceptive mandate” was not spelled out in the Affordable Care Act, as lawyers for Catholic bishops often point out. It was adopted later in a regulation issued by Obama's healthcare advisors.

But Obama's defenders, including immigration law experts, say the critics are missing the crucial point that the deportation laws give the chief executive a free hand to decide how or whether to deport those living here illegally. Contrary to what many assume, the law does not say federal officials must arrest and deport such people. Rather, it says they are “subject” to removal, based on policies and priorities set by the executive branch.

Obama's administration says it wants to focus on deporting criminals, security threats, gang members and drug traffickers, not parents and grandparents who have children in the United States legally.

The administration can quote a powerful voice to back up its view of the matter. “Aliens may be removed” if they entered the country illegally and committed crimes, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but “a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.... Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”

Kennedy spoke for the court four years ago in rejecting Arizona's claim that immigrants who could not prove their citizenship should be arrested, and Roberts agreed. Kennedy's explanation of the deportation system may also defeat any claims that Obama is violating his duty to “faithfully execute” the law.

“The president is not claiming a constitutional authority to not enforce the law. He's claiming authority based on the immigration statute,” said Walter Dellinger, a White House lawyer under President Clinton. “And if the court says he is wrong, then he will comply with that.”

On Twitter: @DavidGSavage

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0)

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.

If the Supreme Court rules on this, it will definitely include his action on gun control, which is the purview of Congress, not the Executive. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2016-02-07   17:39:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BTP Holdings (#1)

If the Supreme Court rules on this, it will definitely include his action on gun control, which is the purview of Congress, not the Executive. ;)

The Supremes have a nasty habit of ruling narrowly when it comes to the powers of the federal government.

Ada  posted on  2016-02-07   21:11:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Ada (#2)

And evilly. I love the future tense, as in this headline -- the past tense is usually so awful, even when talking heads obsessively add the word "today" to it.

---------------------------------------------------------

NN Sequitur

--------------------------------------------------------

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2016-02-07   21:16:45 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Ada (#2)

The Supremes have a nasty habit of ruling narrowly when it comes to the powers of the federal government.

Then, they have a very short memory of what is precedent. Executive Orders are a new creation just in the last 100 years. They did not exist until a short time ago. I think they need a wake up call and a few Amicus Curae (Friend of the Court) briefs filed in short order. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2016-02-07   21:54:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: BTP Holdings (#4)

I think they need a wake up call

The Supreme Court? The Nine Cadavers could have found torture unconstitutional, or affirmative action, or undeclared wars. Nothing. They serve only to certify the status quo. What do they do all day? Sleep in their coffins, I suppose, and come out at night to flap around the Capitol. - Fred Reed

Ada  posted on  2016-02-08   5:35:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Ada (#5)

They serve only to certify the status quo.

So, you are saying that the Supreme Court is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the establishment? ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2016-02-08   6:22:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#3)

That motorcycle made from an old tractor looks like something out of a Mad Max movie. LOL

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2016-02-08   6:25:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: BTP Holdings (#6)

So, you are saying that the Supreme Court is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the establishment? ;)

SCOTUS is part of the government and sides with the government. Every so often they will throw the people a bone but its usually a very skinny bone.

Ada  posted on  2016-02-08   6:51:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]