Debate on Boners lawsuit against the president
|
youlie
|
Posted 10:00 pm, 07/31/2014
|
Boner is an idiot. No debate on that point.
|
|
Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener
|
Posted 8:18 pm, 07/31/2014
|
And for those of you bringing up about the Democrats suing Bush.... "Deceiving Congress With Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs To Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq." is not really the same as "because he's like a dictator!".
Even though your guys are trying as hard as they can to make the two equal.
|
|
empowers
|
Posted 8:18 pm, 07/31/2014
|
Go on You Tube and type in Obama Admits He Is A Muslim. Watch it and know there is no way he is not the one doing the talking promoting Islam.
|
|
Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener
|
Posted 8:13 pm, 07/31/2014
|
They might as well bring a suit against him charging him with being a black Democrat. I mean, let's just cut through the ****.
|
|
smokerking
|
Posted 11:59 am, 07/31/2014
|
They aren't going to go head with a lawsuit without conferring with legal council that has told them that they have a leg to stand on.
|
|
Umpire
|
Posted 11:45 am, 07/31/2014
|
IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE IN THE BUSH CASE, THE HOUSE HAD STANDING. IN THE OBAMA CASE, THEY DON'T.
AGAIN YOU numbn*ts DON'T KNOW HOW THE GOVERNMENT OR THE COURT SYSTEM OPERATES.
|
|
Repub-we-can
|
Posted 11:36 am, 07/31/2014
|
Its different, Bush is a Republican
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 11:15 am, 07/31/2014
|
kenc (view profile)
| Posted 8:22 pm, 07/30/2014
| | What a stupid bunch , they haven't done anything but whine , complain, and threaten, now they want to waste time and money on this crap.
| Did you feel the same way when the Democrats sued Bush? House Democrats Sue President Bush Over Withdrawal From ABM Treaty (Desperation Tactics 2002)Associated Press | Jun 11, 2002 | Jim Abrams Posted on 6/11/2002 3:48:15 PM by Lance RomanceHouse Democrats Sue President Bush Over Withdrawal From ABM Treaty By Jim Abrams Associated Press WriterPublished: Jun 11, 2002 WASHINGTON (AP) - Thirty-one House members filed suit against President Bush Tuesday in an effort to block the president from withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States officially leaves the treaty on Thursday, six months after Bush announced his intentions to do so. The Pentagon plans an earth-breaking ceremony on Saturday at Fort Greely, Alaska, to begin construction on the first portion of a new missile interceptor system. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, the lead plaintiff, said the president does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty and should first seek the consent of Congress. "The Constitution of the United States is being demolished and we need to challenge that in court," he said. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also names Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell as defendants. The plaintiffs are all Democrats, except for one independent who usually votes with Democrats. It states that while the Constitution is silent on the role of Congress in treaty terminations, treaties have the status of "supreme law of the land" equivalent to federal laws and that laws can be repealed only by an act of Congress. "I am troubled that many in Congress appear willing to cede our constitutional responsibility on this matter to the executive branch," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. He tried unsuccessfully Monday to bring a resolution to the Senate floor stating that the president cannot withdraw from the treaty without Senate approval. Kucinich last week tried to get the House to vote on a similar resolution, but House Republicans unanimously rejected a motion to bring the issue to a vote. GOP lawmakers generally support the administration's decision to withdraw from the treaty, which prohibited the United States and the Soviet Union from building major missile defenses and has been an impediment to the administration's plans to move ahead with a missile defense system. "This is so far out of touch," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., a longtime proponent of a missile defense system. "The end of the ABM treaty marks a significant milestone" enabling the Pentagon to adjust to post-Cold War changes and emerging threats, he said. The lead lawyer for the House lawmakers, Peter Weiss, said they are asking the court for expedited treatment of their suit. But he said that even if the court does not act by the Thursday withdrawal date, a later decision agreeing that the president must first get congressional consent could be retroactive. In House debate last week, Republicans argued that past presidents have terminated dozens of treaties without consulting Congress. Kucinich pointed to an 1835 House vote blocking President Jackson from pulling out of a treaty with France. In 1979 the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., sued President Carter over his decision to terminate a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan when he established diplomatic relations with the Beijing government. The Supreme Court, without ruling on the constitutional issue, vacated or threw out an appeals court ruling in favor of Carter and ordered it sent back for reconsideration. Four of the justices said it was a political matter that should be decided between Congress and the president
|
|
empowers
|
Posted 8:52 am, 07/31/2014
|
Here it comes. Some may not like it but it is on it's way.
|
|
kenc
|
Posted 8:47 am, 07/31/2014
|
Wonder when Congress will start doing the job they were elected to do.
|
|
smokerking
|
Posted 8:45 am, 07/31/2014
|
The Republicans have sent several bills to the senate. They may be flawed in one area or the other but Mr. Reid is the one blocking each and every vote by not bringing it to the floor.
|
|
phantom poet
|
Posted 8:14 am, 07/31/2014
|
Wow.. You liberals don't understand much about our Constitution do you?
You sure have posted a lot of useless junk trying to defend the indefensible.
In a nutshell... The presidents JOB is to "faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress".
It is not his job to make law, change law, or make up new laws as he goes along.
He has done all that, and more. That makes him "lawless".
And besides, if it were a republican president violating his oath of office as Obama has done hundreds of times, everyone one of you drones would be on here posting the same things I just did, about what a lawless republican president we have, and you would want him thrown out of office, and shot.
Obama is a crook, period. It's as plain as the fact that liberals are notorious hypocrites.
And once again, you libs live up to your reputation.
Hypocrites. Weird, weird hypocrites.
|
|
HIPPIEGIRL
|
Posted 7:14 am, 07/31/2014
|
I think the American people should sue Congress  but I am sure they would pass a bill that would make that illegal...... 
|
|
yousaywhat
|
Posted 7:10 am, 07/31/2014
|
Obama Empties Both Barrels and Tears Boehner's Lawsuit Against Him To Shreds
By: Jason Easley
Wednesday, July, 30th, 2014, 12:52 pm
snip//
Obama said that people's struggles are more important than the phony scandals. He said, "Imagine how much further along the economy would be if Congress was doing its job too. We'd be doing great." The president added that if Congress felt the same sense of urgency that the American people did we could help a lot more families.
Later the president said that Republicans keep blocking and voting down every idea that would have an impact on middle class families. Obama said, "They haven't been that helpful. They haven't been as constructive as I would have hoped." Obama later told Congress to come on and help a little bit, "Stop being mad all the time. Stop just hating all the time."
The president said that the main vote that House Republicans have scheduled for today is to decide whether or not to sue me for doing my job. He said, "But think about this, they have announced that they are going to sue me for taking executive actions to help people. So you know, they're mad because I'm doing my job, and, by the way, I told them, I said I'd be happy to do it with you. So the only reason I am doing it on my own is because you don't do anything, but if you want let's work together. Everybody recognizes this is a political stunt, but it's worse than that, because every vote they're taking like that is a vote they are not taking to actually help you. When they had taken fifty votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, that was time they could have spent working constructively to help you on some things. By the way, do you know who's paying for the suit they are going to file? You. No, no, you're paying for it, and it's estimated that by the time the thing is done, I would have already left office, so it's not a productive thing to do."
The president ripped Boehner's lawsuit apart in a few minutes and demonstrated why this obvious political move is such a disaster for the Republican Party. Democrats have been easily able to turn the lawsuit into an indictment of Republican priorities. The president didn't have to say that the lawsuit is a waste of time and money. He let the Republican actions speak for themselves. His comments focused on the opportunity costs behind the Republican decisions to vote dozens of times to repeal the ACA, and file lawsuits.
The key word in the president's remarks was productive. The one political hurdle that congressional Republicans can't overcome is how unproductive they have been. The president didn't need to treat Boehner's lawsuit as a threat to his presidency because it isn't. He also doesn't need to whip up Democratic outrage. Democrats are already livid. President Obama tore apart Speaker Boehner's lawsuit in the best way possible. He treated it like the joke it is while pointing out why the Republicans have got to go.
America deserves better than John Boehner's breadless circus, and President Obama is making sure that the American people understand that they are getting ripped off by the House Republican sideshow.
|
|
onlyinthefalls
|
Posted 6:49 am, 07/31/2014
|
Repub, if that were the case then the Supreme Court would never have to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress. I believe the term Executive Immunity will start coming up as this is discussed in the coming days and predict that the court will dismiss this case, if it is ever brought, due to lack of standing by Congress in such an action.
|
|
onlyinthefalls
|
Posted 6:47 am, 07/31/2014
|
Goldsmith wrote this article recently about this subject.
President Obama has exercised executive power aggressively � as did his predecessor, albeit in different ways. I don't have time to parse and compare the differences, but in a nutshell (and simplifying a lot), the Obama administration has asserted enormous discretion under the "take care" clause to not enforce certain federal statutes, while President Bush embraced a very broad conception of the Commander-in-Chief and related exclusive executive powers in declining to enforce certain federal statutes, and both presidential administration's deployed the power of interpreting federal statutes in self-serving ways. It is pointless to try to assess whether President Obama is "better" or "worse" than President Bush on this front. But I think that both administrations acted in good faith in interpreting executive powers aggressively, and that both administrations might have gone too far � and violated the separation of powers � in some of its aggressive assertions of power. It is important to note that most Presidents in American history � and every single great one � have deployed executive power in unprecedentedly aggressive ways, and were accused of being dictatorial. Clinton Rossiter correctly noted that if a president is not "widely and persistently accused in his own time of �subverting the Constitution,' he may as well forget about being judged a truly eminent man by future generations." Rossiter was not saying that lawlessness is a guarantee of greatness. But the legal line between presidential and congressional powers is often broad and fuzzy, and presidents often must act within the fuzzy area (and sometimes beyond it) to achieve the great and important goals that they believe they are charged with by virtue of elections and the office of the presidency. When the president succeeds � when he achieves through aggressive executive power the vital goals of which the country approves � the constitutional aggressiveness tends to be overlooked or downplayed. Think Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan, among others. Of course, Presidents go too far, sometimes abusively, sometimes not. And most acts of aggressive presidential power do not serve great or lofty ends. But this would not have remotely surprised the framers, who purposefully created a strong Executive branch, fully aware that it would go too far in some instances. Nor would the framers have been surprised that Congress would not always like the President's interpretations of his own powers or his exercises of such power, and would try to fight back. The framers expected this � they expected that Congress, in protecting its own interests, would keep the President in check if he went too far (with "too far" being defined, almost always, contextually). The framers likely would have been surprised, however, that Congress as an institution would seek to vindicate its own institutional interests by suing the President in an Article III court. They would have expected instead that Congress would use its own political tools to fight back politically to preserve its prerogatives. As Andy McCarthy notes in a terrific excoriating the proposed lawsuit for President Obama's supposed executive overreach, "unlike private citizens for whom courts are the only protection against executive lawlessness, Congress has its own superior constitutional weapons for reining the president in: the power to deny funding that the administration needs and the power to impeach wayward executive officials." Congress can also cause the President misery on many other dimensions. But it takes a lot of work for Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibilities of investigation and oversight and pushback. So much easier to call in the lawyers and authorize them to bring a high-profile lawsuit, especially with mid-terms around the corner! And so one can only sigh when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who should be leading the charge against the President in his committee, instead defends the lawsuit on the grounds of "people standing up for the balance of power." I agree with McCarthy that the lawsuit will almost certainly fail, and should fail, for lack of congressional standing. Conservative legal thought used to maintain that standing was a vital element of the separation of powers, and used to resist institutional congressional lawsuits against the presidency as a constitutional solecism. But apparently not any more.
|
|
Repub-we-can
|
Posted 6:40 am, 07/31/2014
|
I'm sure they consulted with someone having just a little more knowledge with law than you do.
|
|
onlyinthefalls
|
Posted 6:36 am, 07/31/2014
|
Can the President be sued without his permission? I would have thought sovereign immunity would have been in place.
|
|
youlie
|
Posted 6:23 am, 07/31/2014
|
Boner and his republitard minions sure love wasting taxpayers money don't they ? Wonder if they will do any actual work before the election, or just keep on mooching and whining like babies?
|
|
|
