Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1868-05-08
Extracts from Mr.. Boutwell's Argu-
THE PRESIDENT MUST EXECUTE THE
LAWS. N

THE PRESIDENT MUST EXECUTE THE
LAWS. N
If law be in fact unconstitutional
it may be repealed by Congress, or it
may, when case duly arises, be an
nulled in it's unconstitutional features
by the Supreme Court Of the United
States. The repeal of the law is a
legislative act; the declaration by the
Court that it is unconstitutional is a
judicial act: but the power to repeal
or annuI, or to set aside law of the
United States is in no aspect of the
case an executive power. To the
President in the performance of his
executive duties all laws are alike
He can enter into no inquiry as to
their expediency or constitutionality
All laws are presumed to be consti.
tutional, and whether in fact constitu-
tional or not, it is the duty af the ex-
ecutive so to regard them while they
have the form of law. When stat
ute is repealed for its unconstitution-
atty, or for any other reason, it ceases
to be law in form and in fact. When
a statute is annulled in whole or in
part by the opinion of competent
judicial tribunal, from that moment
it ceases to be a law. But the re,
spondent and the counsel for the re-
spondent will seek in vain for any au-
thority or color of authority in the
Constitution or the Ia ms of the CONT
ry by which the President is clothed
with power to make any distinction
upon his own Judgment, or upon the
Judgment of any friends or advisers,
whether private or official persons,
between the several statutes of the
country, each and every one of which
ne is, by the Constitution and by his
oath of office, required faithfully to
execute. Hence it follows that the
crime of the President is not, either
in fact or as set forth in the articles
of impeachment, that he has violated
a constitutional law; but his crime is
that he has violated law, and in his
defence no inquiry can be made wheth
er the law is constitutional for mas
much as he had no constitutional pow
err to inquire for himself whether the
law was constitutional or not, SO it /;
no excuse for him that he did unlaw
fully so inquire and came to the con
clusion that the law was unconstitu
tional.
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TENURE
OF-oFFCE BILL NOT A QUESTION AT ISSUE
! 1t follows, from the authorities al
ready quoted, and the position found
ed thereon, that there can be no IL
quiry here and now by this tribuna
whether the act in questionable &C
entitled "An act regulating the tenur
of certain civil Offices is in fact cor
stitutional or not. 1t was and is til
law of the land. 1t was enacted by
strict adherence to constitutions
forms. 1t was and is, binding upo
all the officers and departments o
the government. The Senate, for til
purpose Of deciding whether the II
spondelt is innocent or guilty, can eI
ter into no inquiry as to the constit
tionality of the act, which it was ii
Presidents duty to execute, and whic
upon his own answer, and by repea
ne hf ntenitiionai i wiifnlly, deliberate
set aside and violated.
: GOOD MOTIVE NO EXCUSE.
a A public officer can neither plea
2 nor prove good motives to refute
< control his own admission that he hf
= Intentionally violated a public law.
s Take the case of the President
e with reference to his duty under h
oath to take care that the laws
y faithfully executed, he can enter in
:, no inquiry as to whether those Law
r are expedlent or constitutional,
1t otherwise. And inasmuch as it is II
n possible for him, to enter lawfully i
e to any such inquiry. it is alike impo>
II ible for him to plead or to prove thu
f having entered into any such inqui
which was itself unlawful, he was 90
f erned by a good motive in the rest
s, which he reached, and in his acti
IN thereupon. Having no right to inqui
ut whether the laws were expedient
n. constitutional, or otherwise, if he
IS so inquire, and if upon such inqui
s. he came to the conclusion that,
le any reason, he would not execute t
e. law according to the terms of the la
De then he wilfully violated his oath
IN Office and the Constitution of the On
It. ed States. The necessary, the inc
IN table presumption in law is, that
~ acted under the influence of bad n
tn tives in so doing, and no evidence c
as be introduced controlling or colori
an III any degree this necessary presun
as ton of the law.
i'd Having, therefore. no right to
u terrain any motive contrary to his c.
stitutional obligation to execute
er laws, he cannot plead his motive.
tic asmuch as he can neither plead 7
be prove his motive, the presumption
he the law must remain that in violat
IS. his oath of Office and the Constitut
to, of the United States he was infuen,
be by bad motive. The magistrate v
cd willfully breaks the laws in violat
ut of his oath to execute them, insu
rt, and outrages the common nature
'lk his countrymen when he asserts t
. their laws are so bad that they
~, servo tn no hrokop The 10 +bo