Should Obama take his case against the US House Leadership before the Supreme Court?

[kentuck]

Would there be any doubt how they might rule??

What case would he have against the House? Does not the Constitution give certain powers and responsibilities to the House, such as appropriate monies for emergencies and wars, etc??

The US House, under John Boehner, is putting our nation at risk. We need those extra agents at the border. If the smugglers, for example, wanted to cross the border, this refugee problem at the border would give them a great diversion. The Congress needs to act immediately.

Or maybe Barack Obama can sue John Boehner??

[Hekate]

1. Oh, you made a funny!

THIS Supreme Court?

[Louisiana1976]

4. Yeah, the Fascist Five would vote against him.

[Gothmog]

2. This is a political question and the court would not accept jurisdiction

The Boehner lawsuit is not going to last long in the courts which is why Boehner is not taking it to the vote of the house until just before the August recess

[Lurks Often]

3. On what grounds?

Failing to do what a president wants is not grounds for a court case and the Constitution is quite clear that it is the House of Representatives that is responsible for legislation regarding funding issues.

Case law is murky, but the grounds for the Executive Branch to sue Congress, be it the House the Senate or both, or the reverse, would require that branch of government exceeded it's authority in some manner.

I'll use the President's executive order raising the minimum wage for Federal workers as an example.

The President has every right to raise the minimum wage of the Federal worker, however the President can not appropriate more money to pay the higher wages. So the President will have to either shrink the workforce in some manner or find excess money somewhere else in the existing budget to pay the higher minimum wage. If the President decided to spend more then the budget allows for, then the House could very well have a legitimate case before the Supreme Court.

[kentuck]

5. It would mostly be a symbolic gesture...

...much like Boehner's threatened lawsuit.

No doubt it would be a precedent if the Supreme Court were to here a case of Legislative vs Executive. I can't think of any similar cases in any history I have read?

I suppose the argument would be on the grounds that no branch of government has the right to shut down government by refusing to vote on issues critical to national security? If one branch votes in favor of immigration, for example, the other branch could not simply ignore it. That would be ignoring the wishes of the majority.

However, it would work both ways. The Senate could not hold up votes from the House by simply ignoring them, as they have reportedly done.

It would make for an interesting Court decision, I think?

[Lurks Often]

9. It would be an embarrassing political defeat

If the wishes of the majority aren't taken into account by the Legislative or Executive branch, then the resolution of that problem is in the ballot box, not the court room.

However either branch can take the other to the Supreme Court if they feel that they can prove the other branch exceeded its role as stated in the Constitution.

The basis of the potential lawsuit is that the ACA specified that the employer mandate was to take effect in 2014 and that by delaying implementation date of the employer mandate until 2016 without going back to Congress, the President violated the ACA law.

What gives any president the authority to re-write law without going back to Congress?

Always remember that any precedent set by President Obama, even if you like what he is doing, is a precedent that can be used by a Republican president in the future.

[tritsofme]

6. About all the Constitution requires of Congress is that it meets once a year.

And perhaps counting electoral votes? Most other things like funding the government or passing sensible legislation are essentially optional.

[kentuck]

7. It is the duty of the Legislature to make laws...

<snip>

0In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in In J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that Congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]

For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency in the Executive branch created by Congress with the power to regulate food and drugs in the United States. Congress has given the FDA a broad mandate to ensure the safety of the public and prevent false advertising, but it is up to the agency to assess risks and announce prohibitions on harmful additives, and to determine the process by which actions will be brought based on the same. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Service has been given the responsibility of collecting taxes that are assessed under the Internal Revenue Code. Although Congress has determined the amount of the tax to be assessed, it has delegated to the IRS the authority to determine how such taxes are to be collected. Administrative agencies like these are sometimes referred to as the Fourth Branch of government.
Case law

The origins of the nondelegation doctrine, as interpreted in U.S., can be traced back to, at least, 1690, when John Locke wrote:

The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. . . . And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be govern'd by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

[tritsofme]

8. Congress' failure to make laws that please the president is not grounds for a lawsuit.