Supreme Court bombshell: Does Obama’s immigration guidance violate the Take Care Clause?

The Washington Post ^ | January 19, 2016 | David Bernstein

[baltimorepoet]

While opponents of judicial activism might be horrified by this turn of events, we should consider why the court seems to have volunteered to involve itself in what has traditionally been seen as a “political question” not subject to judicial intervention.......

Possibly because the Judicial Branch may be sick of seeing the Executive Branch fail to faithfully execute the law, and beyond that, doing so for purely political purposes as opposed to any vagueness or flaw in the integrity of the law itself.

[DannyTN]

Good. I hope Scotus takes care to kick Obama and his treasonous ways sideways.

[GrouchoTex]

From the article:

“I don’t know which, if any, of these points is appreciated by the justices who added the question about the Take Care Clause. But it seems that at least some justices appreciate that the separation of powers is endangered by the growth of unilateral executive action, and want to consider whether the court should take a more active role in policing the boundaries between the president’s powers and Congress’s. As someone who has publicly called on the court to make it easier to sue the executive branch for exceeding its constitutional authority, I welcome this consideration.”

Sometimes, even the Washington Post gets it right.

[blackdog]

Dame Luck payback.

Sweet!

[hoosiermama]

Finally inforcing the separate but equal. !

[Solson]

Don't get your hopes up. The very Judicial branch that is "tired" of the executive branch failing to execute the law, also allowed the wholesale creation of new law where none existed.

Bottom line - all three branches are so screwed up.

[JimSEA]

I hope you’re right. This administration has gone beyond the arguable interpretations of the law that the executive so often uses to bend legislation in its direction.

[Pollster1]

If we’re going to follow the Constitution, it is the job of Congress to impeach the traitor for failure to follow the “Take Care” clause. That one phrase covers literally hundreds of separate offenses by Obama, each of which fully justifies impeachment and removal from office. The House and Senate aren’t going to do their job because democrat politicians are too corrupt to fulfill their responsibilities, but that is where the legal authority lies.

The Court’s only role is for the Chief Justice to preside over the trial in the Senate, in the unlikely event that the House does its duty and impeaches the most dangerous enemy our country has faced in its entire history.

[subterfuge]

True. But I think our Supremes are mostly worried about a Republican becoming president and acting lawlessly, as berry Obama has.

[subterfuge]

It isn’t about obamie. Its about the NEXT president.

[Pollster1]

That is a good point. If we survive the above-criticism-first-black Affirmative Action occupant of our White House, we will need to enforce uniform standards on real presidents who try to follow the lawless precedents of these terrible years.

[tophat9000]

that is a bombshell ruling basically saying a lack of action by the president not executing laws is criminal

[Adder]

Or maybe they want to go ahead and capitulate like they did on other “sure fire” cases like the ACA...

[Savage Beast]

The clause states that “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Well George W. Bush violated this clause. He REFUSED to enforce U.S. immigration laws and secure the Mexican Border. It was when I realized that he had no intention of enforcing this law that I became disenchanted with him--and the rest of the Bushes as well.

[iontheball]

While we are considering the force of oaths of office, do the Supremes believe their oaths to protect, preserve, and protect the U.S. Constitution legitimately allow them to punt when the U.S. Constitution is being violated? Levin claims that the escape hatch - political question - will allow them to do so with respect to a presidential eligibility clause challenge brought by a presidential candidate. Maybe, just maybe oaths will finally come to mean something more than swearing to a mandate and then immediately ignoring it.

[minnesota_bound]

It would be nice if someone would just follow the law and common sense.

[monkeywrench]

Is this a case of the court just doing the job that Congress doesn’t want to do?

[for-q-clinton]

The supremes have a very good point. If they faithfully executed the laws (no matter how garbage they are) we would be able to get our laws updated and the old ones that don’t make sense off the books.

[loveliberty2]

When attempting to interpret what it means for the President to "take care" in executing a law, the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson on the subject of constitutional interpretation, as cited at this link, may be helpful.