What do you make of SCOTUS calling for a 'take care' clause discussion in Obama's Executive Amnesty??

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:22:31 -0500

My initial pleasure about this is rapidly turning to dread. The initial legal issue around the injunction blocking this action was based upon the Obama Administration not having given adequate notice. But SCOTUS has said that they want both sides to be prepared to discuss the 'take care' clause, ie Article I,§3 of the Constitution which says that the President shall take care that the laws of the United States be executed faithfully.

My concern is this; the Court has basically said that they plan on deciding this issue on Constitutional grounds, NOT whether or not adequate notice was given. This leads me to believe that this case is pretty much already decided on a 5-4 basis and the majority wants it decided BEFORE a vacancy or something of that nature can occur on the Court.

Ginsburg's the oldest at 82 while Kennedy and Scalia are 79 and Breyer 77. That's 2 of the 4 oldest that are liberal, one conservative and one the swing vote. Hoping I'm wrong but I'm guessing that this will end up 5-4 in favor of Obama and that the Court's calling for this decision on Constitutional grounds so the numbers can't change between a potential decision on the timeline's legality and the Constitutional issue arising again.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Jan 19 at 2016 1:25 PM

SSG Audwin Scott — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:25:20 -0500

I haven't heard of this one.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 19 at 2016 1:50 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:50:43 -0500

Here's a decent article on the implications of the Clause in question.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/98/take-care-clause

The issue with the clause is that we grant the President (Executive) specific Power, for theoretically the purposes of "Usage." Unfortunately, if the President doesn't use said Powers as directed, what do we do?

An executive must have "some" ability to either prioritize, or even "ignore" laws. Legislation is intentionally slow in our system. So... we have a conflict, which is really hard to resolve. But the way we resolve this is (which already exists):

If the President is not enforcing a Law, Congress sues him to enforce it at the SCOTUS. Unless he can show that he is "faithfully executing Laws" to the best of us ability (proper funding, since Congress does that), he is forced to do so.

Unfortunately, when you have a dysfunctional Congress, the Executive (any) can run ram-shod over this process.

Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2016 1:53 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:53:25 -0500

I think the initial case was actually about much more than a timing issue. The TX AG, in asking the SCOTUS not to take the case, specifically states that he believes the POTUS exceeded his executive powers in creating the deportation deferment program. So all along, this really was a case about presidential power vs states powers.

Interestingly, states likeTX did everything they could to delay the SCOTUS from taking the case. Seems to me if they are so confident that your case stands on constitutional grounds, then you ahould want it resolved as quickly as possible. But if a group wants to delay their own case hoping for some future undetermined change in court makeup, that indicates they feel the case is less clear cut on a constitutional basis and they need to try and get an ideologue on the court in order to win.

IMO it will be great to get a SCOTUS ruling on this in June just prior to the presidential election. That way, the choices will be clear on immigration policy, and people will have an added example of how elections have consequences. So let's quit stalling and kicking the can down the road, and let the SCOTUS rule, and then the candidates can agree or disagree with the SCOTUS ruling, and then let the people decide who they want to appoint the next SCOTUS justices.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Jan 19 at 2016 1:54 PM

SFC Wade W. — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:54:28 -0500

1LT Aaron Barr i feel that SCOTUS has forgotten their role as the Constitutional overseer. Their recent rulings seem based on society's whims and not the rule of law. This is another chance for them to make law and not define the law.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Jan 19 at 2016 2:53 PM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:53:48 -0500

We still have a Supreme Court?

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jan 19 at 2016 2:59 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:59:57 -0500

If they honestly discuss the "take care" clause, Obama will still lose. However, some interesting decisions have come out of our current SCOTUS, so I am not too confident that they will actually follow the constitution.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 19 at 2016 3:20 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:20:18 -0500

Sadly, the Supreme Court is influenced by elections, so much so that they may be swayed into making bad decisions which result in bad law. Most famously (or infamously) they were swayed by the reelection of FDR. SCOTUS turned aside FDR's grasp for control of the nation's economy under the ruse of the Commerce Clause during his first Administration. However, once We the People reelected him, SCOTUS became more lenient and gave him more latitude in the legal conflicts that followed. Well, here we go again. We the People reelected President Obama and SCOTUS is intimidated. They are willing to let us have our way. If we want a President who enforces the law selectively, they're going to allow him to enforce the law selectively using the broadest interpretation of the "take care" clause. God have mercy on us...

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jan 19 at 2016 3:26 PM

LTC John Shaw — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:26:26 -0500

I am not certain I see this as a clear 5-4, the Constitution carves out specific immigration powers to the legislative branch. It is an area that should be adjusted before the Obama administration leaves office.

Response by SrA Marlin Taylor made Jan 19 at 2016 4:31 PM

SrA Marlin Taylor — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:31:46 -0500

I thought Obummer had the court in his pocket for awhile now... like they are going to go against him on anything?