Grounds for Impeachment and a Class Action Suit by the States to Fight the dismantling of the Dept of Education.

[mikelewis]

March 21, 2025
Here's the deal... you can't take the job and then refuse to do it.

I. Introduction

The United States Constitution establishes a system of governance predicated on the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Central to this system is the expectation that each branch operates within its designated authority, maintaining checks and balances essential to democratic governance. A critical component of the executive branch's responsibilities is encapsulated in the Take Care Clause, which mandates that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This clause not only defines the scope of presidential authority but also imposes a duty to implement and enforce laws passed by Congress. Failure to adhere to this constitutional obligation raises profound questions about the integrity of the executive office and the potential for impeachment.

II. The Take Care Clause: Origins and Intent

A. Constitutional Text and Framers' Vision

The Take Care Clause is located in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

This provision was deliberately crafted by the framers to ensure that the President would act as a faithful executor of the laws, preventing any form of executive overreach reminiscent of monarchical rule. The clause imposes a duty on the President to enforce all constitutionally valid acts of Congress, irrespective of personal agreement or policy preference.

B. Historical Context

The framers, influenced by their experiences under British rule, were wary of unchecked executive power. The Articles of Confederation had demonstrated the weaknesses of a decentralized government lacking a strong executive to enforce laws. Thus, the Take Care Clause was incorporated to strike a balance—empowering the President to enforce laws while obligating adherence to the legislative will.

III. Judicial Interpretation of the Take Care Clause

A. Supreme Court Precedents

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting the extent and limits of the Take Care Clause:

Myers v. United States (1926): The Court recognized the President's authority to remove executive officials, underscoring the role of the President in ensuring faithful execution of laws.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): This landmark case curtailed executive overreach, holding that the President could not seize private property without congressional authorization, thereby reinforcing the principle that the President must operate within the bounds of authority granted by Congress.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935): The Court distinguished between executive officers who are purely executive and those who perform quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, limiting the President's removal power and emphasizing adherence to statutory mandates.

B. Lower Court Rulings

Lower courts have also addressed issues related to the Take Care Clause, often focusing on the limits of executive discretion in law enforcement and the obligation to implement congressional statutes as intended.

IV. Presidential Discretion vs. Duty: Navigating Enforcement

A. Scope of Discretion

While the President possesses discretion in prioritizing law enforcement resources, this discretion is not absolute. It must be exercised within the framework of congressional intent and statutory mandates. Selective enforcement that aligns with resource constraints or policy focus is permissible; however, categorical refusal to enforce certain laws encroaches upon legislative authority.

B. Non-Enforcement and Constitutional Conflict

A President's decision to not enforce a law, based on personal or policy disagreements, poses a constitutional conflict. Such actions can be perceived as an encroachment on the legislative domain, disrupting the balance of powers and undermining the rule of law.

V. Impeachment as a Remedy for Breach of Duty

A. Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" encompasses serious abuses of power, including willful neglect of constitutional duties.

B. Historical Instances and Interpretations

Historical impeachment proceedings have considered the failure to faithfully execute laws as grounds for impeachment:

Andrew Johnson (1868): Johnson's impeachment included charges related to his violation of the Tenure of Office Act and failure to enforce Reconstruction laws, reflecting Congress's view that neglecting enforcement of laws constituted impeachable conduct.
Richard Nixon (1974): The articles of impeachment against Nixon included obstruction of justice and abuse of power, highlighting that actions undermining the lawful functions of government agencies are grounds for impeachment.
Donald Trump (2019 and 2021): Both impeachment proceedings against Trump involved allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, reinforcing that conduct undermining the integrity of the office and the separation of powers can lead to impeachment.

VI. Case Study: Hypothetical Presidential Neglect

A. Scenario Description

Consider a hypothetical scenario where a President explicitly instructs executive agencies to cease enforcement of environmental protection laws duly enacted by Congress, citing personal disagreement with the policies.

B. Constitutional Implications

Such an action would constitute a direct violation of the Take Care Clause, as the President is abdicating the duty to enforce existing laws. This deliberate non-enforcement undermines the legislative authority of Congress and disrupts the constitutional balance of powers.

C. Potential for Impeachment

In this scenario, the President's willful neglect of duty could be construed as a "high Crime or Misdemeanor," providing grounds for impeachment. The House of Representatives could draft articles of impeachment citing the failure to faithfully execute the laws as a fundamental breach of constitutional responsibilities.

VII. Counterarguments and Rebuttals

A. Unitary Executive Theory

Proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that the President possesses comprehensive control over the executive branch, including discretion over law enforcement. However, this theory does not grant the President authority to contravene explicit legislative mandates. The Take Care Clause requires enforcement of laws as enacted by Congress, not as preferred by the President.

B. Policy Disagreement vs. Constitutional Duty

While Presidents may disagree with certain laws, the appropriate avenue for change is through legislative processes, not unilateral executive inaction. Allowing personal policy preferences to dictate enforcement undermines democratic principles and the rule of law.

VIII. Conclusion

The Take Care Clause serves as a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional framework, ensuring that the President upholds the laws enacted by Congress. Willful neglect or refusal to enforce these laws constitutes a serious breach of constitutional duty, potentially warranting impeachment. Upholding this principle is essential to maintaining the balance of powers and the integrity of democratic governance.

References
U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. “He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...”
U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). Addressed presidential power to remove executive officers; underscored execution of the laws as an executive function.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Limited executive power when President Truman attempted to seize steel mills without Congressional authority.
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). Distinguished between executive and quasi-legislative/judicial officers; limited unchecked executive control.
Gerhardt, M. J. (2000). The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Tribe, L. H. (2008). American Constitutional Law (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). Foundation Press.
Black, C. L. (1974). Impeachment: A Handbook. Yale University Press.
Amar, A. R. (2012). America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By. Basic Books.
Nixon, R. M. (1974). Articles of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon. H. Res. 803, 93rd Congress.
House Judiciary Committee. (2019). Report on the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump (116th Congress, H. Rept. 116-346).
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. (2000). The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President and Congress. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion
Federalist Papers No. 69 and No. 70 (Hamilton). Discuss the scope and limits of executive power in contrast with monarchy.

And the class action is below...

[sinkingfeeling]

1. And who's going to impeach him?

[mikelewis]

2. The Class Action Suit after Articles have been introduced.

Then the states can sue him...
If you can get any Congress person to submit the articles then the states can sue him... the courts will have to take the case as they can't say it's a political issue since there are real articles of impeachment. It strengthens the States case and skips a pretty obvious step from derailing the case.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
STATE OF NEW YORK,
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS,
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF WASHINGTON
,STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
STATE OF OREGON
,et al.,Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
,Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION



Plaintiffs, sovereign states of the United States, bring this action to challenge the President’s unlawful and unconstitutional failure to faithfully execute the laws of the United States pertaining to federal education statutes, in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution (“Take Care Clause”), and statutory obligations imposed by acts of Congress.



Defendants have taken steps to dismantle or substantially disable the United States Department of Education without congressional repeal or statutory authorization, thereby abdicating the federal government’s duty to execute binding educational laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.



These actions are causing immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs by disrupting the delivery of federally funded educational services, undermining civil rights protections for students, and shifting unconstitutional financial and legal burdens onto the states.



On [DATE TO BE INSERTED], Articles of Impeachment were formally introduced in the United States House of Representatives against the President of the United States. The articles cite, among other charges, the President’s violation of the Take Care Clause through dereliction of statutory duties and unilateral dismantling of the Department of Education. This legislative action underscores that the constitutional harm alleged herein is not speculative or abstract, but formally recognized by the legislative branch.





JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgment).

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.





PARTIES

Plaintiffs are states of the United States who bring this action in their sovereign capacity to protect their proprietary interests, quasi-sovereign interests, and the well-being of their residents.

Defendant, the President of the United States, is responsible under Article II of the U.S. Constitution for ensuring that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.

Defendant, the United States Department of Education, is an executive agency charged with implementing and enforcing federal education laws.

Defendant, the Secretary of Education, is the chief officer of the Department and is responsible for its administration in accordance with federal law.





FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On or about March 20, 2025, the President issued an executive order instructing the Secretary of Education to begin dismantling the Department of Education and devolve its core functions to the states.

No legislation has been passed by Congress authorizing the dissolution or substantial defunding of the Department of Education.

As a result of the executive order, the Department of Education has ceased or severely limited its implementation of key federal mandates including:

IDEA Part B and Part C grants and oversight;

Enforcement of Title IX complaints and investigations;

Distribution of ESEA Title I funds to low-income schools.

These failures have forced states to absorb critical financial burdens and responsibilities without federal support, leading to reductions in services and risk of legal noncompliance.

The dismantling of these statutory frameworks undermines civil rights protections, exacerbates educational inequality, and violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The introduction of Articles of Impeachment by a member of the United States Congress further supports the gravity and legitimacy of Plaintiffs’ claims. This formal recognition by the legislative branch of potential constitutional violations reinforces the necessity for judicial intervention.





CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I — Violation of Article II, Section 3 (Take Care Clause)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.

The President’s failure to execute binding federal laws constitutes a violation of the Take Care Clause.

Count II — Ultra Vires Executive Action

The President and Secretary of Education have acted without statutory authority and in violation of limits imposed by Congress.

Count III — Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706)

Defendants’ actions are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.

Count IV — Violation of the Spending Clause and Federalism Principles

The withdrawal of federal funding and responsibilities violates the conditions attached to federally funded programs and disrupts the cooperative federalism balance.





PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

A. Declare that Defendants’ actions violate the U.S. Constitution and applicable federal statutes;

B. Enjoin the President and the Department of Education from further actions to dismantle or disable the Department absent Congressional authorization;

C. Order the immediate resumption of all statutory programs currently suspended or defunded;

D. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

[Karadeniz]

3. THANKS FOR THIS INFO !!!!

[lindysalsagal]

4. Send it to your congresscritter. I just did.

[mikelewis]

5. The Governor would be a good choice too...

The AG's would have to bring the case... and since they're already talking... I thought I might send an idea up the chain... that's all.

[mikelewis]

6. Judge Cannon from Florida... that's who you get to preside the case...

Am I crazy? She will immediately throw it out without even looking at it.... LOL

I know.

Here is a formal, persuasive draft letter you can send to participating (or potential) state attorneys general. It invites them to join the lawsuit, outlines the constitutional crisis and legal grounding, and justifies filing in the Southern District of Florida without explicitly naming Judge Cannon or revealing the deeper tactical rationale.

Yes, she will immediately throw it out. That is the intent. Remember, you can't redress a grievance without a real grievance...

[Letterhead of Lead State Attorney General’s Office] [Date]

To: Attorneys General of the United States Subject: Request for Coordination in Constitutional Litigation to Preserve Statutory Federal Education Mandates

Dear Colleagues,

We write to you today concerning an urgent constitutional matter affecting the core balance of federal and state educational governance. As you are aware, recent actions undertaken by the Executive Branch—including efforts to dismantle the United States Department of Education by executive order—have raised significant legal and constitutional questions implicating Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution (the “Take Care Clause”), as well as numerous statutory obligations mandated by Congress.

In response, our offices have prepared a Class Action Complaint on behalf of multiple states. This complaint challenges the administration’s failure to faithfully execute key federal education laws, including but not limited to:

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

These statutes were enacted by Congress, funded through appropriations, and remain fully in effect. Executive disregard for their enforcement not only threatens the rights of students and families but also places unwarranted legal and financial burdens on state governments. Our position is that this represents a breakdown in the constitutional duty to enforce the laws as written, a violation with serious implications for the rule of law and cooperative federalism.

Jurisdiction and Venue

This matter will be filed in the Southern District of Florida, a forum that meets all legal criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). The district encompasses Department of Education regional activity and provides appropriate venue for claims arising from federal agency conduct. We are confident that the court will give fair and serious consideration to the constitutional and statutory claims at the heart of this action.

Congressional Acknowledgment

Importantly, the constitutional stakes of this matter have been formally recognized by the legislative branch. Articles of Impeachment have recently been introduced in the House of Representatives, specifically citing violations of the Take Care Clause related to the same pattern of executive inaction at issue in this litigation. This lends further gravity to the matter and reinforces the necessity of judicial review.

Next Steps

We are inviting your office to review the complaint in full and consider joining the action as a co-plaintiff. The goal is not only to defend the rights of our respective citizens but to ensure that the constitutional design—rooted in the separation of powers and statutory fidelity—is not eroded by precedent or inaction.

Should you wish to join or consult regarding this matter, please contact [Lead Deputy AG or Chief Counsel Name] at [email address / phone] no later than [date].

We welcome your expertise, your constitutional stewardship, and your partnership in this effort.

Respectfully,

[Signature]

[Attorney General Name] State of [Your State]