George F. Will: Stopping a lawless president

Washington Post ^ | June 20, 2014 | George Will

[Cincinatus' Wife]

What philosopher Harvey Mansfield calls “taming the prince” — making executive power compatible with democracy’s abhorrence of arbitrary power — has been a perennial problem of modern politics. It is now more urgent in the United States than at any time since the Founders, having rebelled against George III’s unfettered exercise of “royal prerogative,” stipulated that presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity and qualitatively different.

[rockrr]

Thank you, it’s actually a very old concept that (unlike Will’s proposal) has proven “tried and true” LOL

[Eddie01]

"Ponder that the MSM completely missed the catastrophic 12 point Cantor loss.....proves we don't need the media to get what we want"

here...

Eight Commandments of the Liberal Left

I
Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking

II
Thou shall not allow any member to question the group's inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions

III
Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions

IV
Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose

V
Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments

VI
Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view

VII
Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members

VIII
Thou shalt appoint mind guards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I’m shocked —SHOCKED!— that a communist has no regard for the Constitution.

[Gaffer]

Agree. After all, bow ties aren’t cheap.

It just seems pathetic to me that all it takes is a little TV makeup, airtime, a weekly paycheck, a DC Condo, and a few cocktail parties and some fake camaraderie with liberal zealot pundits to sit back for YEARS and watch this country’s end talking about it as an impotent mental exercise of no consequence..

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Congress is generally keen on finding ways to pass its duty and responsibility to others. Calling on the courts is a perennial favorite approach. And the president can just as well figure ways to duck around court orders, as he finds ways to duck around statutes.

I was listening to Levin last night, and he mentioned that he has had success in taking rogue agencies to court. As an example, he sued the EPA at the end of the Clinton regime, forcing them to refrain from destroying computerized records, in a situation analogous to the IRS scandal.

But I don't think Boehner is talking to Mark.

[VRW Conspirator]

Congress is generally keen on finding ways to pass its duty and responsibility to others.

Bingo. Congress shirk its law making duties to the executive branch a long time ago. It was done so Congress could take credit for the good laws/regulation, and give blame for the bad laws/regulation.

Take for instance the EPA. The real scoundrels concerning this rogue outfit is Congress! A few paragraphs of carefully worded law could reign in this runaway bureaucracy. Done.

And yes I blame Bush for this. He had both Houses yet did not reign in these maverick agencies. He gave them more power by default or overtly. He even gave us more government.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Anybody who uses the word “supine” more than once in a newspaper column is just begging for a wedgie.

George Will is Kevin Bacon in "Animal House."

[Alberta's Child]

A lawsuit? What a joke.

The basic problem with that kind of legal action by a legislative body is that it automatically acknowledges that the legislature's clear authority would be subject to the whims of the judicial branch of government. Nothing can be further from the truth here in the U.S. A legislative body that files a lawsuit to deal with abuses of executive power is nothing more than a bunch of cowards and should cease to exist.

Every executive abuse that George Will can contemplate in this administration is carried out by executive branch appointees whose offices are subject to Federal funding that can only be authorized by Congress.

The problem the U.S. is facing right now isn't an abusive executive branch of government: it's a legislative branch that is perfectly comfortable with the arrangement.

[Bratch]

The Supreme Court will not insert itself into a dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches.

They've already had an opportunity; instead of taking a stand, they punted.

[Alberta's Child]

I was listening to Levin last night, and he mentioned that he has had success in taking rogue agencies to court. As an example, he sued the EPA at the end of the Clinton regime, forcing them to refrain from destroying computerized records, in a situation analogous to the IRS scandal.

The difference there is that Levin wasn't taking legal action against these rogue agencies on behalf of CONGRESS. LOL.

[Math Geek 2.718]

Sadly, most of the comments on this article at the WAPO site are stating that it does not matter how lawless “he” is, because of those who went before him. And, because the commenters agree with the laws he is not enforcing, it is ok to not enforce. Everyday I feel like I do not recognize the country I live in any more, where laws do not apply to everyone and no one has the courage to hold people accountable for not doing their jobs.
And, everyday that border is open, the population who is willing to “vote themselves the bank” instead of producing is increasing and those producing and paying the way will LOSE.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I am bewildered by the inaction of congress.

The RINOs are simply careerists, bought and sold by the corporations which have decided to ally with the government against their competitors.

The role of the RINOs is to dissipate the energy of the true opposition to the communists and fascists: the Tea Party.

The RINOs are as much our enemy as the communists in elected office and the media.

We can thank Ted Cruz for exposing them for what they are.

[centurion316]

It’s useful to remember that this sort of abuse of Presidential power has happened twice before in our history, in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. In both cases, their abuses were tolerated in part because we were involved in a war. When the war ended, much of the excesses were rolled back.

In Roosevelt’s case, the Supreme Court intervened to check Presidential power, but Roosevelt countered by threatening to pack the Court and they were intimidated from taking further action. World War II had the effect of restoring some balance, but the power and reach of the Federal Government have been the lasting legacy of Roosevelt’s overreach.

We are facing the same sort of overreach and are in the process of expanding the Federal Government’s power and reach yet again. The closely divided Congress has proven an ineffective counter and the Courts have largely stayed on the sidelines except where liberals on the bench have chosen to intervene on Obama’s side. If we don’t act soon, the Judiciary will become even more liberal and that avenue will be closed. That day is very near.

[Hostage]

I am not so sure a congressional lawsuit against the President is a valid approach. The court can refuse to hear such a lawsuit for the simple reason that impeachment and conviction in the Senate is the process specified in the Constitution.

In other words, the courts can express “What jurisdiction do we have over your complaint? Why involve us? You have the power and authority in Congress to dispense with this.”

It is understandable why some in Congress want to avoid impeachment but taking it to the Court would be shirking responsibility and burdening another government body that has no authority in such matters.

[hopespringseternal]

I fear that we are ultimately treating the symptoms of a terminal illness: The supine populace Will mentions.

Obama knows that the people, the press, and even the republican congress are not going to seriously challenge him on anything. Even the two men who ran for office against him couldn't muster the courage to take him to task in a serious way.

We no longer have any meaningful values as a nation, and George Will isn't really any different (Mr. Low-Voltage Atheist). Obama is actually admired even by those who know what he is doing is wrong and destructive simply for the reason that he is less of a spineless, scheming jellyfish who won't stand up for anything than his political opponents like Boehner and McConnell.

[bert]

Calling on the courts is the only current congressional remedy.

Given the snail like pace of the courts, there is no real remedy that is in accordance with law.

Of course is there is no law, the situation becomes simpler

.

[Cboldt]

Taking agencies to court actually works, especially when they are operating outside of their statutory mandate. Regulatory agencies are another tool Congress uses to duck accountability. “We didn’t make the rules, we just created an agency to do that.” But the courts can and do “clarify” what powers an agency has. Not always the way we would like, e.g., Courts deciding that CO2 is a pollutant in the atmosphere, so within EPA regulatory power.

[Cboldt]

Like your handle, “Math Geek ‘e’”!! Are you irrational? ;-)

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The difference there is that Levin wasn't taking legal action against these rogue agencies on behalf of CONGRESS. LOL.

I'll have to listen to him again, but can't they do both?

As far as I can tell, their options are:

1) Hold ineffectual hearings.
2) Take them to court (per Mark. OK, I don't understand how this works.)
3) Appoint a special prosecutor, which Holder will never do.
4) Defund agencies, i.e., resulting in a "scary" gov't shutdown.

It seems like 2 & 4 are the only effective means at their disposal. They're chicken sh--, so they won't do 4. So all that's left is option 2.

[Cboldt]

Your example just make the point that SCOTUS is a political branch, not a judicial branch.