General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Isn't the Executive Branch EXECUTING Congress' Russia Sanctions?
I know, I know. The sanctions are being executed: Like they execute Death Row inmates. Pardon me if I don't laugh.
It is the job of the Executive to implement the decisions of the Congress. To not do so is Dereliction of Duty, and, last time I checked, unconstitutional.
How long will We, The People, abide this treason?
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Kristofer Bry
(175 posts)It's still betrayal of country.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)That is the power we have in our hands.
The repubs will do nothing about what trump is doing. The question was asked on MSNBC tonight several times "is there any republicans who will stand up to trump?" The answer each time was no.
If anyone talks about purity or someone isn't liberal enough etc. shut them down. We need enough Dems elected to take over the Congress and purity takes a back seat to that this year. And that means anyone Bernie included.
IronLionZion
(45,540 posts)GOP controls all 3 branches of federal government and the federal courts and most states.
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)It would seem that Congress, who with a nearly unanimous vote passed these Russian Sanctions has a responsibility to exercise their power to address the issue.
Since McConnel and Ryan are Russian tools Chuck Schumer abd Nancy Pelosi should be pursuing this.
Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution states Presidential responsibilities
Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law
"The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[25] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause,[26] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause[27] or Faithfully Executed Clause.[28] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President [26] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[29] Addressing the North Carolina ratifying convention, William Maclaine declared that the Faithful Execution Clause was "one of the [Constitution's] best provisions."[27] If the President "takes care to see the laws faithfully executed, it will be more than is done in any government on the continent; for I will venture to say that our government, and those of the other states, are, with respect to the execution of the laws, in many respects mere ciphers."[27] President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Discussing a tax rebellion, Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to [that duty.]"[27]
According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III, the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause to mean that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.[30] The Take Care Clause demands that the President obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution.[31] In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court explained how the President executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2."[32]
The President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)). Nor may the President take an action not authorized either by the Constitution or by a lawful statute. (See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)). Finally, the President may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or "cancel" certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power.[27]
thesquanderer
(11,993 posts)Today apparently not so much. But check out how concerned they were about this when Obama was president...
https://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ID=263649CC-0C9E-4C97-BC04-5C71DA5BADAD
tritsofme
(17,403 posts)He may face political consequences for such a waiver, but from the small amount Ive read, it doesnt seem to be the case that Trump is outright declining to enforce the law.
onenote
(42,768 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)However the have the right to reject unconstitutional laws. This hardly seems unconstitutional and it seem outrageous to me that Trump is not universally getting called out on thid.
tritsofme
(17,403 posts)Such waiver authority typically sidesteps potential separation of powers showdowns between the political branches, by imposing political, not legal consequences for the president failing to uphold Congress wishes.
Everything Ive read so far says this law gives him such waiver authority, and that is what he exercised.
It is worth acknowledging that just because his action is reckless and harmful to national security, it is not necessarily unconstitutional.
spanone
(135,885 posts)mopinko
(70,238 posts)instead of that fake forbes list.
bluestarone
(17,058 posts)at least get the Repubs to refuse it if nothing else!!
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)UTUSN
(70,744 posts)onenote
(42,768 posts)Think about it for a second. Do you really think virtually every republican would have voted for a law that tied Trump's hands?
Okay, you've had a second. I suspect you know the answer.
on edit: the two Senators who voted against the law were Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders; the three house members voting against it were Amash, Duncan (TN) and Massie (all repubs).
UTUSN
(70,744 posts)Spell it out for me, I'm dense.
bluestarone
(17,058 posts)LINDSAY GRAHAM WHERE ARE YOU????????????????????????????????????????????? BIG FUCKING TALK is all he is
oasis
(49,410 posts)Oops!