• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Is there any way/reason that the Executive would have to adhere to the Judiciary rule

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Lancevo03

Junior Member
Does the President have to listen to a ruling by the Supreme Court? IF he doesn't who will enforce it? I mean i know that it kind of defeats the purpose of checks and balances...but if no one is there to enforce a decision...then why would the executive have to enforce a law...against himself for that matter.
 


S

seniorjudge

Guest
You have asked a perceptive question. I am subscribing to this thread to see what others say. I'd like to know what people think about that too! It would make a heck of a good political novel!!!

Keep thinking, Lance....
 

azgrandpa

Member
Well, the judge wants to hear the responses of others about your questions. So, let me be the first layperson to throw my hat in the ring!

First, let me say that I believe the questions are way off track! The president isn't required to "enforce" any laws. He is only required to perform his duties according the constitution and the laws of the land.

Does the President have to listen to a ruling by the Supreme Court?
He had better or the congress might "fire" him!

IF he doesn't who will enforce it?
See response immediately above.

I mean i know that it kind of defeats the purpose of checks and balances...
That's why the President isn't required to "enforce" Supreme Court rulings!!

but if no one is there to enforce a decision...
That's what the lower courts are for.

then why would the executive have to enforce a law...
Objection Your Honor...ask and answered!

against himself for that matter.
Man!....I didn't realize how much work it is to answer legal questions! I've got to go take a golf break to unwind!!
 
S

seniorjudge

Guest
azgrandpa said:
First, let me say that I believe the questions are way off track!
No question is off track. The only way you learn is by questioning.


azgrandpa said:
The president isn't required to "enforce" any laws. He is only required to perform his duties according the constitution and the laws of the land.
You might want to re-read this answer. These two sentences are contradictory. Your second sentence is a definition of "enforce."

In any event, the executive of any tri-partite government is the enforcer of the laws.
 

badapple40

Senior Member
Lancevo03 said:
Does the President have to listen to a ruling by the Supreme Court? IF he doesn't who will enforce it? I mean i know that it kind of defeats the purpose of checks and balances...but if no one is there to enforce a decision...then why would the executive have to enforce a law...against himself for that matter.
Well, that all depends on what the definition of is is.

Seriously, the Supreme Court interprets the laws and the constitution. The President takes an oath to support that very document. But lets assume he doesn't...

The Supreme Court holds him in contempt. He doesn't listen, and orders the folks sent to arrest him for the contempt away. Now you've got a serious pissing match. A pissing match the U.S. Supreme Court sought to avoid almost two hundred years ago when they established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.

But, at that point, the President would be in violation of the Constitution. And his followers, who also took oaths to the constitution, and not to the president, might well carry out the contempt order to throw him in jail.

And you've got a bigger issue with impeachment, with forced marches on Washington, with civil unrest, with clamor that would or could destroy the very fabric of our country.

Notwithstanding all of the possibilities, e.g. impeachment, contempt, and the like, I think there are two factors that are most likely to drive the President to obey the decision: First, his own moral compass to follow the oath he took and; Second, the possibility of violence, of civil unrest, of shaking the fabric of our society with such a stand-off, is enough to deter the executive in all but the most extreme circumstances.

That, however, is just my take on it.
 

azgrandpa

Member
No question is off track. The only way you learn is by questioning.
Certainly, a question can be off track! A person then learns, (maybe!), after the answer directs him to the right track.

You might want to re-read this answer. These two sentences are contradictory. Your second sentence is a definition of "enforce."
At this time, I stand by my response. If the President were required to "enforce" the law; wouldn't that make him much too powerful?
The President is merely an Ambassador of the American form of government. He is not involved in the "enforcement" of law. He is required' though, to "follow" the law. Therfore, if he does not; he is required to submit to the punishment that results.
 

azgrandpa

Member
John Ashcroft may disagree with this.
I'm sure he would; since John Askcroft IS required to enforce the law! However the central figure is this discussion, as I understand it, is the President. Sure, John Ashcroft is the President's man, but, the President relies on Mr. Ashcroft to perform the "enforcement" duties assigned to that position by law. And should the President violate a Supreme court ruling; there are always people in law "enforcement" ready to take down a President that violates the law of the land! If he could; Richard Nixon would confirm that!

If I'm misunderstanding the OP's question, I apologize for cluttering the discussion!
 

badapple40

Senior Member
seniorjudge said:
Thank you for contributing to this discussion. You are making me think!

...Role of the executive

It is usually the role of the executive to:

* Enforce the law....

That is from Wikipedia and I cannot think of a more lofty reference! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branch
I prefer my reference:

Article II, U.S. Constitution:

Section 1:
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2:
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.



The President's role is to enforce or execute the laws, which is the same as enforcing the laws.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My response:

"Unless we study the past, we are doomed to repeat it."

Our original writer has, apparently, never heard of Watergate, and what eventually happened to President Richard M. Nixon. Specifically, study that portion of Watergate history vis-à-vis the Supreme Court's decision concerning the Nixon tapes.

IAAL
 
S

seniorjudge

Guest
badapple40 said:
I prefer my reference....
I am stunned!

You mean the United States Constitution outranks Wikipedia?!

Well, anyway, you are absolutley correct!
 
azgrandpa said:
The President is merely an Ambassador of the American form of government. He is not involved in the "enforcement" of law..
It's the responsibility of the executive to carry out the law. Part of that is most certainly the enforcement of the law. There is a reason why the Attorney General and the Justice Department, which enforce the law, are under the executive branch.
 
azgrandpa said:
I'm sure he would; since John Askcroft IS required to enforce the law! However the central figure is this discussion, as I understand it, is the President. Sure, John Ashcroft is the President's man, but, the President relies on Mr. Ashcroft to perform the "enforcement" duties assigned to that position by law.
There are a lot of departments and agencies, including the Justice Department, that are delegated the power of carrying out the the law. That delegation of authority doesn't mean that responsibility ultimately isn't the President's.

No the President enforces the laws. He does that, in part through the Justice Department, headed by the Attorney General.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top