Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dear House GOP: Don’t Sue Obama
Accuracy in Academia ^ | August 7, 2014 | David Corbin and Matthew Parks

Posted on 08/08/2014 6:23:29 AM PDT by Academiadotorg

House Speaker John Boehner’s idea to sue the president gained steam last week as the House passed, largely along party lines, a resolution authorizing a suit charging the president with failing to uphold his constitutional duties by unilaterally delaying the implementation of the Obamacare employer mandate. boehner obamacare

The Left has expended much effort to show that the lawsuit is a gateway to IMPEACHMENT, despite consistent Republican protestations to the contrary. Five million dollars of online donations suggests President Obama isn’t the only one who believes his own baloney. But one might as easily argue that the speaker’s lawsuit is nothing but a ruse to protect the interests of establishment Republicans against attacks from Constitutionalists. An UNPRECEDENTED LAWSUIT might make a credible lead in the GOP’s own fundraising blasts and convince skeptics it is ready to fight back against the hegemonic presidency.

Of course, given our long history of sharp divisions between the executive and legislative branches, one might wonder why it took the House 225 years to come up with this idea. As Justice Scalia’s dissent in the 2013 Defense of Marriage Act case (U.S. v. Windsor) suggests, it may be because the lawsuit is only a lesser violation of the separation of powers—the very principle Boehner says he wants to uphold. How to Handle Disputes Between Branches

President Obama’s Justice Department refused to defend the law in Windsor, which led to competing theories about whether and why the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) could take it up. Contrary to a more expansive ruling by the majority, Justice Alito argued that only “in the narrow category of cases in which a court strikes down an Act of Congress and the Executive declines to defend the Act, Congress both has standing to defend the undefended statute and is a proper party to do so.” Scalia (joined by Justices Roberts and Thomas) responded that Alito’s principles would allow for suits far beyond that “narrow category” and therefore, if followed, distort the means of engagement between the three branches of government.

What should the Congress do when contending with an unruly president? Scalia writes:

To be sure, if Congress cannot invoke our authority in the way that Justice Alito proposes, then its only recourse is to confront the President directly. Unimaginable evil this is not. Our system is designed for confrontation. That is what “[a]mbition . . . counteract[ing] ambition,” The Federalist, no. 51 . . . is all about. If majorities in both Houses of Congress care enough about the matter, they have available innumerable ways to compel executive action without a lawsuit–from refusing to confirm Presidential appointees to the elimination of funding. (Nothing says “enforce the Act” quite like “ . . . or you will have money for little else.”) But the condition is crucial; Congress must care enough to act against the President itself, not merely enough to instruct its lawyers to ask us to do so. Placing the Constitution’s entirely anticipated political arm wrestling into permanent judicial receivership does not do the system a favor. And by the way, if the President loses the lawsuit but does not faithfully implement the Court’s decree, just as he did not faithfully implement Congress’s statute, what then? Only Congress can bring him to heel by . . . what do you think? Yes: a direct confrontation with the President. [emphasis added]

For those keeping score at home, there’s four probable votes—conservative votes—from the nation’s highest court against the House suit before we even get to the merits (Justice Alito’s conditions aren’t met in the prospective Boehner case). Counting on the four liberals and the other (Justice Kennedy) to team up on a rebuke of President Obama? It’s hard to imagine a shot in the dark less likely to find its target. The Federalist Discusses the People’s House

Justice Scalia relies heavily on The Federalist in his opinion, citing three essays on the separation of powers (48, 49, and 51) and one on the role of the judiciary (78). Were the Boehner case to reach him, he might look to its essays on the House of Representatives (52-58) for further help, which provide a clear portrait of what is expected from the people’s house.

Federalist 55 is the first of four essays responding to objections related to the size of the House, which would have only sixty-five members until the first census was taken. Was this number dangerously low? James Madison argued “no,” although this answer was conditioned on the number expanding rapidly in the years to come (as the constitutional maximum of one representative per 30,000 people was applied to a population doubling every 25 years). Madison, in fact, had unsuccessfully proposed a doubling of the number of initial representatives (to 130) in the Constitutional Convention to ensure a fuller and more responsible representation of the people. On the other hand, he had successfully opposed a motion which would have guaranteed states forever one representative for every 40,000 people, on the grounds that it would eventually prove unsuitable (requiring today, for example, an 8,000-member House!). Madison, in other words, was thinking about today and many tomorrows, attempting to ensure that the House would faithfully protect the rights and interests of the public at large as long as the Constitution survived.

This was no easy task, in part because a simple ratio, like the one Madison’s Convention colleague had proposed, could not be found that would be suitable to populations of all sizes and republican governments of all descriptions (federal, confederate, or consolidated). But it was made even more difficult because populations of the same size with republican governments of the same description need not possess the same character:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Quality, then, matters at least as much as quantity. Madison was confident that “the liberties of America” were safe in 1788; “[w]hat change of circumstances, time, and a fuller population of our country may produce, requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions.” House Leaders Doubt Public Opinion

Which brings us back to our current dilemma. Partisans of republican governance have, of necessity, put their trust in the Republican leadership to defend the Constitution. And yet it seems that the highest ranking Republican leader has much less interest in a constitutional than in a cable television confrontation with the President. Why?

The most likely explanation is that Boehner and most of his colleagues in the House Republican leadership doubt their ability to defeat President Obama in the court of public opinion if and when they take up their real constitutional tools. Better to use the lawsuit to signal to voters their displeasure with an unpopular president on the upcoming pre-election county fair circuit than to risk their own political fortunes in a direct confrontation.

The actions taken by the president and his defenders to try to provoke a more serious response—from fundraising appeals to press conference taunts and threats of a massive unilateral immigration amnesty—suggest they too believe that a constitutional give-and-take between the legislative and executive branches is a political suicide mission for Republican legislators.

Perhaps, but the president might also calculate that a good part of the Republican leadership’s ambition is personal, rather than institutional. Risk-averse Republicans might be expected to behave like the mercenary troops Machiavelli warned about who “want to be your soldiers while you do not make war; but when war comes they want either to flee or to go away.” Armed mercenaries won’t risk their bodies, and political mercenaries won’t risk their offices, against dangers real or imagined, because they love their own lives more than your cause.

Conservative and libertarian proponents of limited government must be as equally clear-sighted about the nature of ruling class Republicans as the president. It wasn’t too long ago that “comprehensive immigration reform” was inevitable. And then Dave Brat sent Eric Cantor into an early K Street retirement. Republicans recalculated, and “comprehensive immigration reform” became impossible. It turns out that mercenaries can sense danger on their right as well as their left.

There is a limit, of course, to how much good can be done by the timely application of political pressure to those otherwise unwilling to embrace it, especially when there may be as much political pressure and a lot of ruling class social pressure in the opposite direction. At some point we return, as Publius does so often in The Federalist, to the people, who must cherish self-government in order to preserve it. We need House Republicans willing to confront an imperious president and a virtuous people ready for the fray.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: jamesmadison; johnboehner

1 posted on 08/08/2014 6:23:29 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

A lawsuit is preliminary to nastier solutions...


2 posted on 08/08/2014 7:03:11 AM PDT by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

5% Carry 100% of Free Republic Expense


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR Or Lose It

3 posted on 08/08/2014 7:11:32 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn

The lawsuit is probably a political stunt orchestrated by Obama himself. “Boehner this is just too easy. At least make it look SOMEONE is trying to stop me”..,


4 posted on 08/08/2014 7:15:48 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
Oh right. Conservative & Republicans aren't supposed to do anything that the left might use for fundraising.

I.e., we aren't to do anything, because anything we do will be used by the left for fundraising.

The only reason to delay impeachment is to wait until we have more support in the Senate. However, the very act of waiting can be seen as the cowardice of the Rino and an unwillingness to go to impeachment. Certainly there is nothing in the record to suggest that Boehner and co. have the necessary appendages to try this, or the skill to win.

The Republicans will once again try to make this a bloodless, legalistic jury trial, when it really needs to make its case to the public first & win the public first. They aren't even attempting to win the public over on the subject of the lawsuit, or are horribly ineffective at it.

Clinton was right, it's all about the campaign. Obama has raised that idea to an art form. When it comes to winning over the public, the Republicans have left the field.

I'm thinking the lawsuit should be a nasty solution, not just a preliminary. If it's treated as a dry, legal argument, the public will get behind Obama. The press will show it as a case of little men nipping at the heel of a giant. Unless the case is made that the giant is a pile of crap, we lose. And that case must be made in public. The court result doesn't matter if we win the public.

5 posted on 08/08/2014 8:17:23 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

I’m all in favor of a lawsuit, and pleading that it is the path to impeachment, or that Democrats will unduly profit from it is nonsense. You might as well argue against having a concealed carry gun, “Because it might make the armed robber/rapist more aggressive!”

In real terms, what does a lawsuit entail?

The bottom line goes all the way back to the Marbury v. Madison case of 1810. Perhaps the most substantial case in US history, which did two things and did not do a third.

First, it established that the SCOTUS could review laws for their constitutionality. Second, it made clear that the judiciary was a separate independent branch from the executive.

But third, the SCOTUS tried to issue a “writ of mandamus” against the president, ordering him to carry out an act.

And the president refused. This established that the president *cannot* be forced to do something he does not want to do.

HOWEVER, the flip side of this is that the SCOTUS and congress CAN STILL *prevent* the president from doing something he wants to do.

And this is the very essence of the lawsuit against Obama by congress. That Obama has overstepped his authority, and that congress is asking the SCOTUS to make him STOP.

Importantly, this could not, by itself, succeed if it just targeted Obama himself. Instead, it targets all of Obama’s *subordinates* in the executive branch. Obama himself can refuse, but if any of his cabinet officers, or any bureaucrat, refuses to obey an order of the SCOTUS, they can be held in contempt by the SCOTUS, and jailed for months at a time.

“The case was United States v. Shipp (1906). There were nine defendants, all charged with contempt of the Supreme Court. It was a full-blown trial. There were special prosecutors, dozens of witnesses and a special mas­ter assigned to take the evidence. The trial rec­ord exceeded 2,200 pages. Each side was given a full day of oral argument before the justices.

“Shipp and several—though not all—of his co-defendants were convicted by the Court and sentenced to terms from 2–3 months in federal prison in Washington, DC.”


6 posted on 08/08/2014 9:36:21 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn

such as?


7 posted on 08/08/2014 10:19:00 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

lawsuit against the President

is that part of the powers of Congress in the Constitution?


8 posted on 08/08/2014 10:28:41 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn

The Congress writes the budget. That is their main job. I don’t remember anything about suing the President in the Constitution.


9 posted on 08/08/2014 10:29:25 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Corbin and Parks discuss that at some length, as did Alito and Scalia


10 posted on 08/08/2014 10:33:14 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson