PLEASE SHARE!
#foxnews NOTICE AMERICANS MURDERED BY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, JUDGES & COURTS THAT ARE IGNORING IMMIGRATION LAWS & REFUSING TO DO THEIR JOBS & UPHOLD THEM!
FOXNEWS "JUST WHY IS IT OK FOR OBAMA & CONGRESS TO PICK & CHOOSE WHAT PARTS OF THEIR JOBS THEY WILL DO, WHY CAN THESE BASTARDS IGNORE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS "50,000 ILLEGALS IN KENTUCKY(WHILE KIM DAVIS IS JAILED)
ISN'T IT A JOKE THE PEOPLE OF FOX NEWS IGNORES THOUSANDS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES & THE US COURTS THAT FAIL TO DO THEIR JOBS EVERYDAY (BUT THE CHOOSE TO PICK ON A POOR CHRISTIAN FROM KENTUCKY)
PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK A OATH TO UPHOLD OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS! #foxnews GET IT FU_KING RIGHT WHY CAN HE PICK & CHOOSE!
WHILE OUR PRESENT GOVERNMENT HAS CHOSEN TO TAKE PART IN MURDER BY ILLEGALS!
" YOU CAN VOTE FOR BUSH OR ONE OF THE OTHER GOP ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATES "RINOS" & GET THE SAME OLD SPEECH & NO SOLUTION ( OR YOU CAN VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP ,STAND BEHIND HIM & ALLOW HIM TO DO THE JOB DONE & TELL THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT TO GO TO HELL!
THIS ! WHILE PRESIDENT OBAMA & THE US CONGRESS FAIL OR REFUSE TO DO THEIR JOBS & ENFORCE OUR LAWS (ILLEGALS MURDER AGAIN)
THAT IS RIGHT WHILE THE US COURTS & GOVERNMENT ALLOWS THESE PEOPLE TO RUN LOOSE,KILLING & RAPING! (KIM DAVIS IS JAILED & IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR FIGHTING FOR OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM)
THIS IS SICK!
WHY ON EARTH ARE THESE PEOPLE ABOVE THE LAW & ALLOWED TO PICK & CHOOSE WHAT PART OF THEIR JOB THEY WANT TO DO WHEN IT AMMOUNTS TO AIDING IN THE MURDER OF AMERICANS!
FREE KIM DAVIS & JAIL OUR GOVERNMENT!
WHY DON'T THE RULES APPLY TO ALL OF OUR MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT (THEY ALSO TOOK OATHS TO UPHOLD OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS)
AMERICA NEEDS TRUMP "IMMIGRATION LAWS MUST BE ENFORCED"
"END YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT & END YOUR SUPPORT FOR MUDER &OTHER CRIMES AGAINST AMERICANS!
ABOVE THE LAW ,PRESIDENT & CONGRESS IGNORE IMMIGRATION LAWS "COURTS PERSECUTE KIM DAVIS
PLEASE SHARE THIS ! WHILE PRESIDENT OBAMA & THE US CONGRESS FAIL OR REFUSE TO DO THEIR JOBS & ENFORCE OUR LAWS (ILLEGALS MURDER AGAIN)
THAT IS RIGHT WHILE THE US COURTS & GOVERNMENT ALLOWS THESE PEOPLE TO RUN LOOSE,KILLING & RAPING! (KIM DAVIS IS JAILED & IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR FIGHTING FOR OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM)
WHY ON EARTH ARE THESE PEOPLE ABOVE THE LAW & ALLOWED TO PICK & CHOOSE WHAT PART OF THEIR JOB THEY WANT TO DO
AMERICA NEEDS TRUMP "IMMIGRATION LAWS MUST BE ENFORCED"
Obviously, this title is in reference to two fairly recent acts by Barack Obama: his decision not to defend DOMA in courts, and his decision not to enforce certain aspects of federal immigration law and policy. Both issues are discretely different and require a different analysis. The absolutist view is that which we learned in grade school civics class: the Legislative Branch passes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judicial branch interprets the laws. If it were only that simple. Ever since this country’s founding, there has been a tension between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. In response to the Quasi-War between the US and France under the administration of John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. Among other things, it was a crime to criticize the federalist government of John Adams. Although it expired as Thomas Jefferson assumed office, had it not been, does anyone think that Jefferson would have supported the law in any court? But that is the hypothetical.
There are real-world examples of Presidents, through their Justice Department, refusing to defend existing laws in courts, although it is rare. In fact, a research of the literature uncovers, before DOMA, only eleven cases. I will not recite all the cases, but the first example occurred in 1948 in the case of U.S. v. Lovett which involved salaries for certain federal employees. Then, the Justice Department refused to defend the law in court claiming it was a Bill of Attainder. In 1963, the Kennedy Administration refused to defend a law that codified the doctrine of “separate but equal” in hospital funding. Likewise, there are cases where one Administration decided not to defend a law and the next Administration’s interpretation of its constitutionality is different and they choose to defend the law. For example, the Carter Administration decided not to defend a ban on non-commercial radio stations from editorializing or endorsing candidates on First Amendment grounds, but the Reagan Administration found a way to defend the law. The Bush I Administration decided not to enforce the “must carry” provisions of the FCC, but the Clinton Administration changed course. Lest anyone think that when the government decides not to defend a law in court it somehow means the government’s position will prevail, their record in these 11 cases is 6 victories and 5 defeats. So just because the Obama Administration chooses not to defend Section 3 of DOMA in court does not guarantee Section 3 will be struck down.
An Administration cannot willy nilly decide not to defend a law in court. To do so, they must reach the decision, after analysis, that the provisions in question are unconstitutional. They cannot simply stop defending a duly enacted law in court because they have a policy disagreement with it. And even then, they must have a reasonable expectation of prevailing in the argument when the courts do decide the constitutionality of the provision or law in question.
As for enforcing duly enacted legislation, the case become a little more muddy. The President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. As important, if not more important, that oath also specifies that they uphold the Constitution. That is one “out” for the Executive branch- they can refuse to enforce a law if they believe it is unconstitutional since the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, takes precedence over acts of Congress. Hence, Congress is under a duty not to pass unconstitutional laws, the President is under a duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws, and the courts are under a duty to strike down unconstitutional laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment