21 votes

Rand Paul and Rep. Ted Poe Introduce Constitutional Check and Balance Act

I searched everywhere on DP, Pretty sad this has not been posted yet, I am as guilty as anyone. I guess people care more about about Bill Kristol in the news. Whatever.

This is absolutely promising and I hope he at least gets attention for the effort!

"Sen. Rand Paul joined Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) to introduce the 'Constitutional Check and Balance Act.' The legislation authorizes members of Congress to bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in response to a written statement made by the President - or any other executive branch official - that directs that branch to not enforce a provision of federal law."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Selective enforcement should be illegal

Another (of many) glaring holes the Founders left in the Constitution.

By some estimates the "average" American "breaks" something like 4 laws per day. I don't know how the calculation was made nor what "average" means but I strongly suspect that with selective enforcement in full play the reality is grossly higher. And higher still for anyone who chooses to rise above "average" in business or any other endeavor under the tight thumb of the government. And add in regulations which "interpret" the laws and laws which interact with other laws and .... Well, it's a mess out there.

But it's heaven for a tyrant because it means that anyone can be taken down at any time by WHIM of the then Criminal in Chief.

There should be no room for "executive orders". They make a mockery of Rule of Law.

There should be no room for selective enforcement of a law. If a law is bad it should be thrown out by official process (judicial or legislative anullment).

There should be no room for a government representative to SELECTIVELY enforce laws. It should be criminally prosecutable and/or there should be a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone who can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are being targeted by a law which other people are given a pass on.

It should also be the case for governments -- as it is for Corporations and their "veil" of personhood -- that breaking the law results in piercing the veil. That is, people who work for government should be individually open to suit and to criminal prosecution if it can be proven that something was done illegally.

The Constitution of the US is massively riddled with both termite holes and holes which were designed in from the beginning and which encourage termites, rats, and other pests. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything meaningful to be fixed. The vermin are fully in control of the system now. They own you.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

At first this sounds like a

At first this sounds like a good idea, but what if president Paul wanted to executive-nullify an unconstitutional law?

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

An executive order should trigger a Supreme Court case

automatically and immediately. The executive order should have only temporary applicability and if the Supreme Court ultimately throws out a Presidential "Executive Order" (ipso facto unConstitutional) the President should lose his job as incompetent, at best.

And Presidential pardons FOR PERSONS WHO COMMITTED THEIR PUTATIVE OFFENSE UNDER THE PRESIDENT THEN IN POWER are an absurd idea. What mafia chieftain wouldn't like to be able to forgive his henchmen and lackeys? Who's responsible for placing that stupidity/corruption in the Constitution (actually, where is the verbage...would someone please pull that up?)

The problems with the Constitution go on and on. To the extent the weaknesses simply betrayed a simpler, more naive time the flaws should be forgiven and brought up for change by Amendment. But lots of things exist in the Constitution which anyone with a lick of common sense simply reward human corruption.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28


After looking further into this, I see how this could be heavily abused by false interpretations of executive orders. Should not even need an act such as this, it should be common constitutional knowledge.

All law does is prop up even

All law does is prop up even more smoke and mirrors. The system is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The system should be what was created originally, but even that would again get added to and get out of control again.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Thanks for posting...

I did not read this anywhere else.

meekandmild's picture

The Constitution already allows that.

Congress is too corrupt to impeach Obama.