In so doing, they somewhat mimic the arguments and practice of President Thomas Jefferson, who refused to enforce the Sedition Act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Yet modern Presidents occasionally exercise a power to ignore such enactments on the grounds they are not true “laws” subject to the faithful execution duty. For instance, must the President enforce even those laws he or she believes to be unconstitutional? Some scholars argue that Presidents must enforce all congressional laws, without regard to his or her own constitutional opinions. Hence the Constitution itself never grants the President authority to either authorize private violations of the law (issue individualized dispensations) or nullify laws (suspend their operation).īeyond these constraints, the Clause raises a number of vexing questions. The Constitution also incorporates the English bars on dispensing or suspending the law, with some supposing that the Clause itself prohibits both. Though the Clause is found amidst a sea of duties in Article II, Section 3, some, including Alexander Hamilton, spoke of the “power” of “faithfully executing the laws.” While President, George Washington observed, “it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to” that duty.Īt a minimum, the Clause means that the President may neither breach federal law nor order his or her subordinates to do so, for defiance cannot be considered faithful execution. Early constitutional discussions shed some light on its meaning. Both granted their executives “executive power” and also required them to execute the laws faithfully.
The Clause traces back to the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution and the 1777 New York Constitution. More recently the Clause played a central role in the debates and litigation surrounding President Barack Obama’s enforcement of federal immigration laws. United States (1926), relied upon particular claims about the Clause. Famous Supreme Court cases, like Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Two Presidents, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, were impeached by the House, at least in part, for allegedly violating their Take Care Clause duties. Legislators have discussed it in many debates regarding the scope of presidential power, including whether the President has a constitutional power to remove federal officers. The Take Care Clause has played a central role in momentous constitutional disputes. Yet, at the same time, the provision also serves as a major limitation on that power because it underscores that the executive is under a duty to faithfully execute the laws of Congress and not disregard them. The Take Care Clause is arguably a major source of presidential power because it seemingly invests the office with broad enforcement authority. The President “shall Commission all the officers of the United States,” a Clause that forces the President to authenticate the status of federal officials.įinally, and most significantly, Section 3 contains the Faithful Execution Clause, commonly known as the Take Care Clause. The President “shall receive” all foreign ambassadors, a duty that many suppose grants Presidents authority over whether to recognize foreign nations and their governments. The President shall “recommend” measures to Congress, a soft duty that necessarily cedes discretion. The President must provide information on the “state of the union” from “time to time.” This seems to require the President to share information with Congress.
Section 3 imposes obligations on the President that are varied and significant. It further grants the President the authority to adjourn Congress whenever the chambers cannot agree when to adjourn, a power that no President has ever exercised. This Section invests the President with the discretion to convene Congress on “extraordinary occasions,” a power that has been used to call the chambers to consider nominations, war, and emergency legislation. Article II, Section 3 both grants and constrains presidential power.
0 kommentar(er)
