[ilbegone]

The requirement of the President of the United States to enforce laws passed by Congress and signed on by a previous president whether he agrees with them or not:

Article II Section I clause 8 of the Constitution:

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.”

Article II section III of the Constitution:

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.

Congressional Revocation and Alteration of Executive Orders:

... Further, as long as it is not constitutionally based, Congress may repeal a presidential order, or terminate the underlying authority upon which the action is predicated. For example, in 2006, Congress revoked part of an executive order from November 12, 1838, which reserved certain public land for lighthouse purposes.28 Congress has also explicitly revoked executive orders intheir entirety, such as in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which revoked a December 13, 1912, order that created Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2.29 Another example of the express nullification of an executive order by Congress involved the revocation of an executive order by President George H. W. Bush to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a human fetal tissue bank for research purposes. To effectuate this repeal, Congress simply directed that the “the provisions of Executive Order 12806 shall not have any
legal effect. ”There have been numerous similarly revoked executive orders and proposals to revoke particular executive orders.

Additionally, Congress has used its appropriations authority to limit the effect of executive orders, such as denying salaries and expenses for an office established in an executive order, as well as denying funds to implement a particular section of a subsequently revoked executive order that would have enabled agency heads to designate a presidential appointee to serve as the agency’s regulatory policy officer. Additionally, Congress has used appropriations acts to enable a program created by executive order to receive donations for publicity materials about the program. Outside of appropriations bills, other legislative proposals have included those that would codify existing executive orders with modifications... https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...2wun3mVEAtfEfg

Congress has the right to repeal executive orders, but it may require a super majority of both houses - enough to over-ride a veto. As I'm understanding it, an executive order in the case of existing law is permissible if the intent of the law is not clear and the executive order fills in the gaps - but I'm not sure. However, immigration law is very clear as to the intent and Obama is constitutionally required to enforce the law, whether he likes it or not.

I'm not sure, but this might be construed to mean that Congress might be able to deny salaries and department funding to those within the Justice Department who fail to carry out the law under the directive of an executive order for so long as they refuse to enforce the law. Maybe such a position would be a stretch and it might be extremely disruptive if carried out...

Obama can also be impeached for not enforcing the laws.

If Congress doesn't act in accordance to either protect their legislative turf, correct the over reach of an aggressive president, or to curb a president who is defying the Constitution by directing that our laws not be enforced there is recourse to the courts by the citizenry.

And interesting, thought provoking, and somewhat alarming opinion essay on the subject entitled Barack Obama And Ruling By Presidential Decree by Thomas Sowell: http://news.investors.com/article/62...der.htm?p=full http://news.investors.com/article/62...der.htm?p=full