Reply #15: is this really the argument you want to make? [View All]

[HankyDubs]

Please show me where it says in the Constitution the President or executive branch must enforce every provision of every law.

So your argument is that the president can pronounce himself to be above the law if he so chooses? REALLY?

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

He must take care that laws are executed FAITHFULLY. This clause does not say that he is allowed to pick and choose which laws or portions of laws he wants to enforce. Your reading of this clause opens up a pandoras box of abuse and totally violates the spirit of the document. Under your reading, why couldn't the president simply ignore all kinds of laws that he doesn't happen to like? No sane human being can think of this as "faithful execution" of the laws. Again, this is what the ABA said in 2006. You don't appear to want to confront that fact.

"You seem to employ a very strict interpretation of the enumerated powers in the Constitution."

Actually the so-called "originalists" are the ones who pushed this scam in the first place. No interpretation of the constitution is broad enough to insert powers that SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST in the document anywhere, whether implied or enumerated. Signing statements are not mentioned, therefore their use in this manner violates both letter and the spirit of the constitution.

Preserving and protecting the constitution could mean many things, but it cannot mean that a president protects the constitution by accumulating for herself powers that are not implied or enumerated in the document by violating or ignoring laws that are passed in a constitutional manner.

In this particular instance, the president can show standing and I think a very good case is there to be made that this "czars" provision infringes on his powers. Whether or not it actually does infringe is not a matter for him to decide--it is a matter for the judiciary.