Let's sue the President

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (pronounced "boner") has announced a plan to ask the United States House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the President, which would require him to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Isn't that a noble concept?

Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.

Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?

No.

Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?

No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)

So, who can help in such a quagmire?

Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?

When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.

In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!

G. Thomas Porteous: Impeached & Removed

The United States Senate found G. Thomas Porteous, who was a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, guilty on four articles of impeachment.

This makes Porteous only the eighth federal judge to be impeached and removed by the Congress in our nation's history.

I watched some of his trial in the Senate. I had mixed feelings about what the House had done, when it impeached Porteous, but after I learned more about the charges, I felt they were justified. Porteous was a corrupt judge who had his hand out for pay-offs and kick-backs. While the U.S. Constitution shielded Porteous from crimes he may have committed before being confirmed to the court in 1994 by the Senate, it did not shield him, however, from crimes he committed as a sitting federal judge.

To wit:

Judge Porteous, and his wife, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2000. As a condition of their relief, the Porteouses were barred from incurring future debt for a period of one year, without consent of the Bankruptcy Court. Porteous, who was a habitual gambler, secured lines of credit from various casinos and other gambling establishments over the course of the year, which was a direct and flagrant violation of the court's order. In addition, Judge Porteous concealed a personal checking account from the Bankruptcy Court, which he used to pay off his incurred gambling debts. He further used the checking account to shield money from the court.

Although the House Managers argued that Porteous, who was a Louisiana state judge, committed perjury during his testimony to the Senate regarding his confirmation hearing in 1994, I do not find that constitutes an impeachable offense. It was the duty of the Senate to investigate and then either reject or confirm the President's nominee. In this case, the Senate confirmed the nominee (warts and all). The Constitution, though, could not provide protection for Porteous, as he did knowingly violate a court order on numerous occasions during his time in office.

Although, Porteous' defense declared he would retire from the federal bench in 2011, it did little to curtail the vote of guilt by the Senate. In addition, the Senate did more than simply remove him from office. It barred him forever from holding any other office of honor or profit in the United States.

Now that's harsh!