Certainly, the president is expected to safeguard the Constitution by vetoing unconstitutional acts of Congress. This is especially true because many laws can only be brought before the courts in a collateral way, if at all.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Under our constitutional system, the executive executes the laws that Congress has passed. It should not be executing laws that Congress has rejected.
The president and his open border allies may hate the fact that the Constitution gets in the way of their political agenda, but it's up to Congress to take bold action and stop this lawlessness.
The Constitution gives the president the power to appoint, upon the advice and consent of a majority of the Senate, and it plainly does not give a minority of senators any right to interfere with that process.
We live in a period in which political disagreements are routinely handed over to the courts. Whenever you think that the president is wrong, you might well cry out that he has violated the Constitution - and ask federal judges to rule accordingly.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.
The Constitution grants only Congress - not the president - the power 'to borrow money on the credit of the United States.'
If a president can enforce a part of a law and delay a part of a law, then does he have a power to not enforce any law he so chooses? If he can allow illegal aliens to freely run across our border, can he force legal citizens out of the country? Where would be the end of his power?
Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
In order for the Constitution to work, you have to have law-abiding people. You have to have people willing to obey the Constitution, willing to follow the law. Obama doesn't care. He is the law.
Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution.