4 ms·

can executive branch "ask" the Supreme Court just to confirm legality of a law? I know that's the case in many other countries, where the other branches of the

can executive branch "ask" the Supreme Court just to confirm legality of a law? I know that's the case in many other countries, where the other branches of the government may ask the supreme court to rule on legality of a law. Isn't it the same in the US? The petition states: WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: Request The Supreme Court to Rule on the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act.

venomsnake 13y ago
Well ... it does not matter. The deal is that the executive branch kinda likes the PATRIOT act. So they have no reason at all of challenging it. If the administration was by any way troubled by the widespread information gathering - they could just tune down and stop.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Of course. And I'm not that naive to believe otherwise. But that's not the point. The point is to have the petition signed by 100k people and have the Government to say in open they are not willing to request the Supreme Court to rule on it. They will have to say why. They make our lives difficult, the point is to make theirs difficult too. Let them worry after we go through the process. Let them tell more lies. Let this resonate with the media and lawyers and so on. Let them piss of more people.
aroch 13y ago
The enumerated powers of the executive does not allow the President to refers matters to SCOTUS. They can refer matters to Congress, committee, and agencies but not directly to the judiciary. This is [probably] one of the numerous checks to prevent cross branch manipulation since judges are often political appointees and not elected -- At the supreme court level they always are. However, SCOTUS can issue subpoena which can force (albeit with no enforcement) the executive to produce documents[1] The only instance in which I can imaging President Obama getting this before SCOTUS at, essentially, his own behest is to have DoJ bring suit against this program. Because it's a law from the Legislative branch he can challenge it's constitutionality...but I doubt that's a risk they want to take _____ 1: See the Arron Burr treason trial in which he asked for and was granted a subpoena duces tecum for Jefferson's private letters. This actually set a nice precedent as far as the NSA matter is concerned...This was under the Marshall court (for background, Marshall really really didn't like Jefferson) and in the majority opinion Marshall stated whether or not secrecy of content in a document impacts national safety is up for the Court not the President to decide. How accepted this is nowadays us not something I can answer.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Thank you very much for your reply. I think this answers it fully. So, could I petition them to ask for opinion Congress Judiciary Committee? I'm desperate for finding a way to make them state aloud that the Patriot Act is not breaking the Constitution. The law is there. It is bad. Most probably unconstitutional. How do I petition them to make them state in some way constitutionality of the Patriot Act? Whether they claim it is constitutional or not is not that important as imposing more political pressure on them. Let them lie more, make more people angry, etc. Are am I naive here too? ;-)
  - aroch 13y ago
    Well here's the thing, the SCOTUS can say "Hey, that's illegal!" but they have no enforcement powers. Public Safety (read: police / military) is under the purview of the executive and legislature, which is the only real way to enforce things[1]. If they want, both other branches can effectively ignore anything that comes out of the judiciary. In this case, this particular activity was ruled unconstitutional (Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections) back in 2011. _____ 1: See desegregation in Little Rock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
otterley 13y ago
No, it cannot - Federal Courts do not issue advisory opinions. To attain standing there must be a specific act that has taken place (or will imminently occur) that affects the interests of a party seeking to challenge the law. This is the so-called "case or controversy" requirement. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

venomsnake 13y ago

Well ... it does not matter. The deal is that the executive branch kinda likes the PATRIOT act. So they have no reason at all of challenging it. If the administration was by any way troubled by the widespread information gathering - they could just tune down and stop.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Of course. And I'm not that naive to believe otherwise. But that's not the point. The point is to have the petition signed by 100k people and have the Government to say in open they are not willing to request the Supreme Court to rule on it. They will have to say why. They make our lives difficult, the point is to make theirs difficult too. Let them worry after we go through the process. Let them tell more lies. Let this resonate with the media and lawyers and so on. Let them piss of more people.

aroch 13y ago

The enumerated powers of the executive does not allow the President to refers matters to SCOTUS. They can refer matters to Congress, committee, and agencies but not directly to the judiciary. This is [probably] one of the numerous checks to prevent cross branch manipulation since judges are often political appointees and not elected -- At the supreme court level they always are. However, SCOTUS can issue subpoena which can force (albeit with no enforcement) the executive to produce documents[1] The only instance in which I can imaging President Obama getting this before SCOTUS at, essentially, his own behest is to have DoJ bring suit against this program. Because it's a law from the Legislative branch he can challenge it's constitutionality...but I doubt that's a risk they want to take _____ 1: See the Arron Burr treason trial in which he asked for and was granted a subpoena duces tecum for Jefferson's private letters. This actually set a nice precedent as far as the NSA matter is concerned...This was under the Marshall court (for background, Marshall really really didn't like Jefferson) and in the majority opinion Marshall stated whether or not secrecy of content in a document impacts national safety is up for the Court not the President to decide. How accepted this is nowadays us not something I can answer.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Thank you very much for your reply. I think this answers it fully. So, could I petition them to ask for opinion Congress Judiciary Committee? I'm desperate for finding a way to make them state aloud that the Patriot Act is not breaking the Constitution. The law is there. It is bad. Most probably unconstitutional. How do I petition them to make them state in some way constitutionality of the Patriot Act? Whether they claim it is constitutional or not is not that important as imposing more political pressure on them. Let them lie more, make more people angry, etc. Are am I naive here too? ;-)
- aroch 13y ago
  Well here's the thing, the SCOTUS can say "Hey, that's illegal!" but they have no enforcement powers. Public Safety (read: police / military) is under the purview of the executive and legislature, which is the only real way to enforce things[1]. If they want, both other branches can effectively ignore anything that comes out of the judiciary. In this case, this particular activity was ruled unconstitutional (Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections) back in 2011. _____ 1: See desegregation in Little Rock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

otterley 13y ago

No, it cannot - Federal Courts do not issue advisory opinions. To attain standing there must be a specific act that has taken place (or will imminently occur) that affects the interests of a party seeking to challenge the law. This is the so-called "case or controversy" requirement. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).