Question for lawyers--could Congressmen take Obama to federal court?

[Danglars]

Question: does Congress (or any Congressmen) have standing to take Obama to federal court, or even seek a fast-tracking to the SCOTUS, to seek a ruling on the Constitutionality of the amnesty Exec orders? I think it would have to be them, as the putatively directly injured party. This wouldn't be a political question, even though it's a disagreement between the political branches. It'd be a straightforward Constitutional question to the SCOTUS--does the President have the authority under Article II and case law attendant to it to do what he just did for illegals?

I'm not thinking about the politics of this (although I full expect that to arise as a discussion in this thread). I mean can it, theoretically, happen? If it can't, why not?

[DumbAss Tanker]

No, I don't think so.  "Congress," as a whole, already has the power to supersede any such act by legislation or even impeachment if the act was sufficiently egregious, so the Court would just punt it back to Congress for it not being 'Ripe' for judicial decision.  A member or members of Congress who did not speak for the whole institution has no more standing than anyone else.

[Bad Dog]

No, I don't think so.  "Congress," as a whole, already has the power to supersede any such act by legislation or even impeachment if the act was sufficiently egregious, so the Court would just punt it back to Congress for it not being 'Ripe' for judicial decision.  A member or members of Congress who did not speak for the whole institution has no more standing than anyone else.

The "normal" rersponse would be for Congress to de-fund whatever agency was going to pay for it (see Contras).  However Dirty Harry would probably bury any bill to that effect.

[5412]

Question: does Congress (or any Congressmen) have standing to take Obama to federal court, or even seek a fast-tracking to the SCOTUS, to seek a ruling on the Constitutionality of the amnesty Exec orders? I think it would have to be them, as the putatively directly injured party. This wouldn't be a political question, even though it's a disagreement between the political branches. It'd be a straightforward Constitutional question to the SCOTUS--does the President have the authority under Article II and case law attendant to it to do what he just did for illegals?

I'm not thinking about the politics of this (although I full expect that to arise as a discussion in this thread). I mean can it, theoretically, happen? If it can't, why not?

Hi,

I suspect some group could sue in court and then find the right judge to issue a temporary injunction.

In the meantime congress passes a law basically rescinding the order.  It easily passes the house and dies in the senate.  What the stupid politicians don't get is the 90+% poll numbers in favor of totally shutting down the illegals in this country. 

If, by some remote chance Reid cannot control the senate and it goes to BO for his signature, then he vetos it and political hay is made once again.

regards,
5412