Congressional members don’t have the power to rule a presidential act unconstitutional

Good Day World!

It’s apparent that some Republicans in Congress weren’t as aware of the Constitution as they claimed to be.

What other reason would there be for challenging the president’s acts as unconstitutional?

A quick look at Constitutional Law shows that issue was decided over 100 years ago by the Supreme Court in 1803.

They never had a chance of prevailing over Obama and the Democrats in their attempt to condition funding for the Department of Homeland Security on a repeal of the administration's immigration directives. 

The bottom line:

However heartfelt the rhetoric, members of Congress don't have the power to rule a presidential act unconstitutional.

Only the courts can do that.

As Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho pointed out in a recent AP article, "When there are differences of opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, a court makes that determination.”

Simpson was giving a gentle refresher course on the Constitution to those on his own side of the aisle.

The tea party-aligned, bitter-end Republican losers had outrage, and in the House, an unbending unwillingness to compromise that some of their own rank and file judged counterproductive.

The result was a rout.

Republicans can expect the same result the next time around if they try to bend (or willingly ignore) Constitutional Law. The irony, of course, is that those ultra conservative House members are always talking about upholding the Constitution.

Yet, when you look at – or research – the so-called tea party crowd’s twists on the Constitution, it’s obvious their interpretation is flawed and not the original intent of the Founding Fathers. 

Time for me to walk on down the road…