• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

First time in history- President sued by House

A

Anonymous

Guest
Nancy Pelosi says U.S. House 'has never sued a sitting president in all of U.S. history'

True

The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to sue President Barack Obama for allegedly overstepping the powers of his office.

While the suit raises thorny legal questions about the limits of presidential power, it’s also being used by both sides to fire up their base in advance of the midterm elections. The suit, spearheaded by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was approved largely along party lines. Democrats argued that it’s an example of the Republican majority playing politics rather than tackling urgent policy issues, such as immigration.

Indeed, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., used the looming vote to approve the suit in a recent fundraising pitch, as reported by NBC News.

"Boehner is planning a vote to sue the president," Pelosi wrote. "The House of Representatives has never sued a sitting president in all of U.S. history. And if they do it, impeachment may very well be the next step."

We wondered whether Pelosi is correct that "the House of Representatives has never sued a sitting president in all of U.S. history."

We found that she’s right the House as a whole has never sued the president. However, we think it’s worth noting that individual lawmakers and groups of lawmakers have sued the president in the past -- frequently. In fact, we found at least 14 instances in the last four decades alone.

This doesn’t make Pelosi’s carefully worded claim inaccurate, but it's worth adding important context.

We should note that these challenges to presidential authority generally failed, particularly challenges over whether Congress or the president has the right to initiate military action. Often, the suits’ Achilles heel was the courts’ determination that the lawmakers lacked the "standing" -- basically, a demonstrable injury -- to file such a suit. This succession of negative rulings for Congress has presented the plaintiffs against Obama with an uphill legal climb, analysts say.

Here’s a rundown of the 14 lawsuits we found:

Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities vs. Nixon (1974). This was one of the Watergate-era cases involving what evidence President Richard Nixon had to turn over to investigators that heightened the pressure on Nixon to resign.

Drummond vs. Bunker (1977). William R. Drummond, a citizen of the Panama Canal Zone, sued President Jimmy Carter to stop his administration from negotiating about handing over the then-U.S.-held canal zone to Panama, arguing that only Congress possessed that right. Six members of Congress intervened in the case alongside Drummond, arguing that the executive branch was depriving them of their constitutionally protected vote.

Goldwater vs. Carter (1979). Several lawmakers, led by Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., sued Carter, arguing that the president had bypassed Congress by ending a defense pact with Taiwan.

Crockett vs. Reagan (1982). Sixteen senators and 13 House members asked a federal court to rule that the dispatching of several dozen U.S. military personnel to El Salvador by President Ronald Reagan contradicted Congress’s war powers and the Foreign Assistance Act.

Sanchez-Espinoza vs. Reagan (1983). Twelve House members joined with 12 Nicaraguan citizens and two American citizens seeking damages and a declaration that Reagan had violated war powers restrictions by pursuing the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government.

Conyers vs. Reagan (1984). Eleven House members sued Reagan, arguing that his use of military force in Grenada had usurped Congress’s war powers.

• Lowry vs. Reagan (1987). Ten House members sued Reagan on war powers grounds, this time over the president’s approval of escort operations for reflagged Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian Gulf.

• Dellums vs. Bush (1990). One senator and 53 House members sued President George H.W. Bush to stop him from attacking Iraq without approval from Congress during the run-up to what became the Persian Gulf War.

Raines vs. Byrd (1997). Six members of Congress who had voted against giving the president the authority to veto individual items in bills -- rather than just entire bills -- sued over the act’s constitutionality.

Chenoweth vs. Clinton (1999). Four House members sued President Bill Clinton over his creation by executive order of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, saying it exceeded his authority as president.

Campbell vs. Clinton (2000). Thirty-one members of Congress sued Clinton on war powers grounds for his decision to send military forces to participate in a NATO-organized campaign of airstrikes in the former Yugoslavia.

Kucinich vs. Bush (2002). Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, sued President George W. Bush over the administration’s unilateral withdrawal from an anti-ballistic missile treaty, arguing that the executive branch could not do that without Congress’ consent.

Doe vs. Bush (2003). Twelve House members joined with several dozen service members and their families to sue Bush on war-powers grounds, seeking to stop a United States-led invasion of Iraq.

Kucinich vs. Obama (2011). Kucinich also sued Bush’s successor, Obama, on war-powers grounds, saying that his intervention in Libya was unconstitutional.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman Pelosi, said her statement is "accurate" because "she is clearly referring to the ‘House of Representatives,’ not individual members of Congress."

Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, agreed that Pelosi has some justification for singling out a lawsuit by the whole House. Having a majority of the House on board "suggests the grievance may be more legitimate," Roosevelt said, though he added that this scenario also "suggests that the House should be able to use the powers the Constitution gives it -- our familiar system of checks and balances -- rather than trying to enlist the judiciary in a political struggle."



Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, agreed that Pelosi has some justification for singling out a lawsuit by the whole House. Having a majority of the House on board "suggests the grievance may be more legitimate," Roosevelt said, though he added that this scenario also "suggests that the House should be able to use the powers the Constitution gives it -- our familiar system of checks and balances -- rather than trying to enlist the judiciary in a political struggle."

Definite sign of the dysfunctional House of Representatives... They can't agree on anything positive...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, agreed that Pelosi has some justification for singling out a lawsuit by the whole House. Having a majority of the House on board "suggests the grievance may be more legitimate," Roosevelt said, though he added that this scenario also "suggests that the House should be able to use the powers the Constitution gives it -- our familiar system of checks and balances -- rather than trying to enlist the judiciary in a political struggle."

Yep---Definite sign of the dysfunctional Congress ... They can't agree on anything positive- like the V.A. benefits, immigration, how to keep highway construction from shutting down because of lack of funding-- BUT their priority is being the first Congress in history to sue the President :roll: ...

And like the law professor insinuated- I doubt if they get an answer from the court as the Federal Judge threw out an earlier suit on Obamacare from a Senator because it had no standing- and he believed it should be handled politically - not in the courts...

So far, legal experts have reacted to Boehner’s potential lawsuit with the rhetorical equivalent of guffawing until their morning coffee runs out their noses. This might include Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sniffed at another political lawsuit because the plaintiffs lacked standing — that is, someone seeking “relief for an injury that affects him in a personal and individual way,” as Roberts wrote.

Earlier this week, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush threw out a lawsuit by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin against a health care provision, saying the Tea Party Republican had failed to show how he had been personally harmed by the law.

Another irony of the law suit-- Republicans now wanting legislating from the bench :???:

Another problem: Republicans have complained for decades about “activist judges” doing the work that legislators are supposed to do. Judges should be referees, not lawmakers or micro-managers. But here, Boehner would be asking a court to step in and require that President Obama’s signature law be managed a certain way.

Presidents routinely delay, modify or defer enforcement of certain laws. President George W. Bush decided — like some kind of monarch! — to waive penalty fees on seniors who missed a sign-up deadline for prescription drug coverage in 2006. He was ignoring a part of his own law. And what Wall Street-backed Republican is complaining about the many delays in implementing the Dodd-Frank Act?

That Bush appointee who threw out Senator Johnson’s claim, Judge William C. Griesbach, sent a warning shot in Boehner’s direction with his language. He wrote that “disputes between the executive and legislative branches over the extent of their respective powers are to be resolved through the political process, not by decisions issued by federal judges.”

The political process. You know — votes and things, lawmaking. That would require the House to do something. Ha! A bill to raise the minimum wage will not even come up for a vote. Immigration reform is dead for the year, Boehner said recently — no vote allowed. Even a fellow Republican, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, noted that if Boehner really wanted to do something to prevent the president from issuing more executive orders, he could, um, pass legislation.

Too late for that. After next week, it’s vacation — for all of August, and into September. That will be followed by another loooooong break, from the first week of October until Election Day in November. This will give Boehner’s nonperforming lawmakers plenty of time to ask a dispirited electorate to return them so they can sit on their hands for another two years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/opinion/timothy-egan-Congresss-Next-Big-Idea-Sue-Obama.html?_r=0
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
If the congress believes the president has violated the law or over stepped his powers.... The congress should use the powers provided by the constitution, namely impeachment.

The problem is the do nothing senate would not convict their boy, no slur intended, of anything ever.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Such a waste of time.


If this is all they, Congress ,has to do , then they need to only legislate part time and get a job at the Piggly Wiggly the rest of the time.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Such a waste of time.


If this is all they, Congress ,has to do , then they need to only legislate part time and get a job at the Piggly Wiggly the rest of the time.

Do either of you assclowns feel any shame whatsoever for actually having voted for that sorry excuse of a ''leader of the free world'?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
kolanuraven said:
Such a waste of time.


If this is all they, Congress ,has to do , then they need to only legislate part time and get a job at the Piggly Wiggly the rest of the time.

Do either of you assclowns feel any shame whatsoever for actually having voted for that sorry excuse of a ''leader of the free world'?


We're talking about CONGRESS here.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Whitewing said:
kolanuraven said:
Such a waste of time.


If this is all they, Congress ,has to do , then they need to only legislate part time and get a job at the Piggly Wiggly the rest of the time.

Do either of you assclowns feel any shame whatsoever for actually having voted for that sorry excuse of a ''leader of the free world'?


We're talking about CONGRESS here.

No doubt your record is equally impressive there.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Since Old Timer Jackson Lee imagines what falls out of Pelosi's mouth is golden, I wonder if he also believes her comment that Hamas is a "humanitarian organization"? The Quataris told her so, ya know.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Whitewing said:
kolanuraven said:
Such a waste of time.


If this is all they, Congress ,has to do , then they need to only legislate part time and get a job at the Piggly Wiggly the rest of the time.

Do either of you assclowns feel any shame whatsoever for actually having voted for that sorry excuse of a ''leader of the free world'?


We're talking about CONGRESS here.

WRONG

First time in history- President sued by House

Are you quitting down at the Piggly Wiggly?

Oh I forgot you got a trust fund check coming in, you don't have to work down there with your friends
 

Steve

Well-known member
Yep---Definite sign of the dysfunctional Congress ... They can't agree on anything positive

so of ALL the hundreds of bills passed by the house,.. how many of them made it to the senate floor..



356 bills made it through the House and are languishing in the Senate.

Additionally, according to the congresswoman, 98 percent of those bills were passed with bipartisan support. She also pointed out that 200 of the bills were passed in the House with unanimous support from the entire chamber and more than 100 were passed with 75% support of House Democrats.

Numbers never lie: Over 50% of the 352 bills sitting on Harry Reid's desk passed the House unanimously

darn facts ...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
Yep---Definite sign of the dysfunctional Congress ... They can't agree on anything positive

so of ALL the hundreds of bills passed by the house,.. how many of them made it to the senate floor..



356 bills made it through the House and are languishing in the Senate.

Additionally, according to the congresswoman, 98 percent of those bills were passed with bipartisan support. She also pointed out that 200 of the bills were passed in the House with unanimous support from the entire chamber and more than 100 were passed with 75% support of House Democrats.

Numbers never lie: Over 50% of the 352 bills sitting on Harry Reid's desk passed the House unanimously

darn facts ...

Better question how many of the bills the House passed were threatened to be vetoed by Obama if they passed . The reason for the law suit was because the Congress has the Constitutional Rights to right laws and the President has the Constitutional duty to ENFORCE THEM AS WRITTEN but when his supporters in the Senate and House backslap his law breaking vetos and executive orders, he is going to go right on telling the Republicans to stick it he is going to DO IT HIS WAY.

Hint to Oldtimer and Kola this is not a friggin DICTATORSHIP there are laws and Obama has push, broke and tramped the way the US Government was set up by the Founding Fathers and even Liberal Democrat supporting Constitutional Expert/Professors are testifying to Congress that Obama is stepping WAY OVER THE LINE WITH HIS ACTION. He should be impeached but any mention of that will send the trough feeders ( those able to work but chose not to as the government benefits are too easy to get) to the polls and risk the Republicans chances of ever taking back control and fixing the entitlement programs the trough feeders are living on. Once the takers pass the 50% mark the US is doomed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sorry folks- Congress is not made up of just a House of Representatives- it also has a Senate... And those two need to give and take and compromise or nothing gets passed like is occurring... And allow differing bills to go into conference committees...

And there is one more card on the table- that is the President of the United States- and the House can pass a zillion bills- but if the President has already said he won't sign them as they exist-and Repubs say they won't compromise on them- its a waste of time for the Senate to take them up...

But with the deep bipartisan split- and even the split within the parties (Repubs and Tea Partiers) very little is going to get compromised...It isn't Boehners fault nor is it Reids fault...

Thus we have a dysfunctional Congress- playing games putting party politics over what is best for the country...

How many of those 200 bills passed by the House were bills against Obamacare or trying to kill Obamacare which the House wasted most of this session voting on :???: ... They weren't going to pass the Senate nor get the Presidents signature- so essentially they were wasting time and not earning their salary...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
So is Reid "earning his salary" by letting over 200 bills just sit on his desk and collect dust? At least if he ran them through and your lib colleagues voted them down, it would at least LOOK like the Senate was doing something besides taking a years long coffee break.

Are you really that dumb?

Oh, right.....decades of alcohol abuse...my bad.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
But with the deep bipartisan split- and even the split within the parties (Repubs and Tea Partiers) very little is going to get compromised..

really..

356 bills made it through the House and are languishing in the Senate.

Additionally, according to the congresswoman, 98 percent of those bills were passed with bipartisan support. She also pointed out that 200 of the bills were passed in the House with unanimous support from the entire chamber and more than 100 were passed with 75% support of House Democrats.

Numbers never lie: Over 50% of the 352 bills sitting on Harry Reid's desk passed the House unanimously

seems like FACTS show that the only two in DC that will NOT compromise is Harry Reid and President Obama

it doesn't matter how many times you and obama say it is the republicans fault ,.. . it still isn't true..
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sorry folks- Congress is not made up of just a House of Representatives- it also has a Senate... And those two need to give and take and compromise or nothing gets passed like is occurring... And allow differing bills to go into conference committees...

And there is one more card on the table- that is the President of the United States- and the House can pass a zillion bills- but if the President has already said he won't sign them as they exist-and Repubs say they won't compromise on them- its a waste of time for the Senate to take them up...

But with the deep bipartisan split- and even the split within the parties (Repubs and Tea Partiers) very little is going to get compromised...It isn't Boehners fault nor is it Reids fault...

Thus we have a dysfunctional Congress- playing games putting party politics over what is best for the country...

How many of those 200 bills passed by the House were bills against Obamacare or trying to kill Obamacare which the House wasted most of this session voting on :???: ... They weren't going to pass the Senate nor get the Presidents signature- so essentially they were wasting time and not earning their salary...

Bull Crap when you have a President and Leader of the Senate claiming the Republican House's bill is dead on arrival even before the House has voted on the bill, hell even before the bill is written, you know it does not matter what the hell the Republicans pass as the Dems are still in the mind set of We Won We Write The Bills, even though the Voters handed them a historical loss in the 2010 election because of their out of control crap.

Obama is in charge of implementing the friggin bills that pass and he is not living up to his duties even on Democrat down the line passed bills so why in the hell do you have any confidence he is going to implement anything that the Republicans pass? In Obamanation it is Obama's way or the highway so stop trying to blame those, The Republican, that are not BACKSLAPPING Obama's spending the US into the poor house.

Tell us Oldtimer why when people, including the Democrat's, backslapped Bush's spending you did nothing but B*TCH about it, but now that people are saying enough is enough on the Obama's tripling down on the debt you expect everyone to just shut up and vote for what ever Obama wants even when it is going to bankrupt not just your kids but their kids and grandchildren?

Obama is the worst President in the History of the US and you are just too stupid to realize the US is going down in every way possible under Obama's NON LEADERSHIP. Again Hint the US is not a Dictatorship and Obama does not have the right to write laws and rewrite those passed by Congress because they don't match his POLITICAL AGENDA. Obama is destroying the US Constitution with every executive order written to CHANGE CONGRESS PASSED BILLS. The US is fast becoming a land of lawlessness and Obama is the one enforcing the lawlessness from the Oval Office and he is being supported by a corrupt Leader of the Senate and even more corrupt AG. Not to forget he is being supported by idiots like you that will blame anyone but him for the dysfunction of his corrupt Administration of law breakers, spies and radical left wingnuts.

Just once I would love to see you man up and admit Obama is destroying the US Constitution and needs to be stopped. We all know when the Republicans take back the Oval Office in 2016 and if a Republican President was caught doing half the crap Obama is getting away with, with your support, you will be standing right beside Harry Reid wanting to stop such actions.

Want to bet Oldtimer that the Senate filibuster rules will be put back in place as soon as Reid is demoted to the leader of the MINORITY in November, You can bet the Senate's fall session after the November election will be used to pass laws that will change all the rules back to what they were before Harry decided they were not needed to protect the minority in the Senate from the kind of crap Obama and Harry have been doing. Funny how the Dems don't care for rules when they are being used to control them but when the tables turn well there is nothing more important is there Oldtimer. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Sorry folks- Congress is not made up of just a House of Representatives- it also has a Senate... And those two need to give and take and compromise or nothing gets passed like is occurring... And allow differing bills to go into conference committees...

And there is one more card on the table- that is the President of the United States- and the House can pass a zillion bills- but if the President has already said he won't sign them as they exist-and Repubs say they won't compromise on them- its a waste of time for the Senate to take them up...

But with the deep bipartisan split- and even the split within the parties (Repubs and Tea Partiers) very little is going to get compromised...It isn't Boehners fault nor is it Reids fault...

Thus we have a dysfunctional Congress- playing games putting party politics over what is best for the country...

How many of those 200 bills passed by the House were bills against Obamacare or trying to kill Obamacare which the House wasted most of this session voting on :???: ... They weren't going to pass the Senate nor get the Presidents signature- so essentially they were wasting time and not earning their salary...

Bull Crap when you have a President and Leader of the Senate claiming the Republican House's bill is dead on arrival even before the House has voted on the bill, hell even before the bill is written, you know it does not matter what the hell the Republicans pass as the Dems are still in the mind set of We Won We Write The Bills, even though the Voters handed them a historical loss in the 2010 election because of their out of control crap.

But Tam- you forget that the Dems now control 2 of the 3 legs in making a law-- the Executive branch and the Senate -- so they should have more say in what gets taken up and which is just wasting time... If House members really want to pass legislation they need to sit down and right bi-partisan bills - within both the House and Senate...

The Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014 started off on an encouraging note – senators advanced the legislation Monday with a vote of 82-12– but like other popular bills before it, died under the weight of an amendment fight.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hunting-fishing-bill-dies-sportsman-bill-108763.html#ixzz39Ms9E3QX

But often with the political spatting that exists today- and everyone thinking they should get their way- it doesn't work... ex.- the bi-partisan Sportsman Bill that was backed by all- until both sides wanted to start adding pro or anti gun amendments and muddying the waters... Reid shut it down and said no amendments (like he should have) and so the kids in the Senate said "if you can't play my way I'll take my ball and go home" and the country/sportsmen missed out on having a good law....

And like you say- that could change after the next election-- but for now that is the way it sits...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Sorry folks- Congress is not made up of just a House of Representatives- it also has a Senate... And those two need to give and take and compromise or nothing gets passed like is occurring... And allow differing bills to go into conference committees...

And there is one more card on the table- that is the President of the United States- and the House can pass a zillion bills- but if the President has already said he won't sign them as they exist-and Repubs say they won't compromise on them- its a waste of time for the Senate to take them up...

But with the deep bipartisan split- and even the split within the parties (Repubs and Tea Partiers) very little is going to get compromised...It isn't Boehners fault nor is it Reids fault...

Thus we have a dysfunctional Congress- playing games putting party politics over what is best for the country...

How many of those 200 bills passed by the House were bills against Obamacare or trying to kill Obamacare which the House wasted most of this session voting on :???: ... They weren't going to pass the Senate nor get the Presidents signature- so essentially they were wasting time and not earning their salary...

Bull Crap when you have a President and Leader of the Senate claiming the Republican House's bill is dead on arrival even before the House has voted on the bill, hell even before the bill is written, you know it does not matter what the hell the Republicans pass as the Dems are still in the mind set of We Won We Write The Bills, even though the Voters handed them a historical loss in the 2010 election because of their out of control crap.

But Tam- you forget that the Dems now control 2 of the 3 legs in making a law-- the Executive branch and the Senate -- so they should have more say in what gets taken up and which is just wasting time... If House members really want to pass legislation they need to sit down and right bi-partisan bills - within both the House and Senate...

The Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014 started off on an encouraging note – senators advanced the legislation Monday with a vote of 82-12– but like other popular bills before it, died under the weight of an amendment fight.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hunting-fishing-bill-dies-sportsman-bill-108763.html#ixzz39Ms9E3QX

But often with the political spatting that exists today- and everyone thinking they should get their way- it doesn't work... ex.- the bi-partisan Sportsman Bill that was backed by all- until both sides wanted to start adding pro or anti gun amendments and muddying the waters... Reid shut it down and said no amendments (like he should have) and so the kids in the Senate said "if you can't play my way I'll take my ball and go home" and the country/sportsmen missed out on having a good law....

And like you say- that could change after the next election-- but for now that is the way it sits...

Oldtimer the House of Representatives is the part of the government that writes the SPENDING bills and due to the historical lose the voters handed the Dems back in 2010, Ms you have to pass the bill to learn what is in it Pelosi and the Dems no longer have control of the House, the REPUBLICANS do. For anything to be considered BIPARTISAN the Dems need to learn they no long have total control but share the law writing responsibilities with the Republicans. Obama has proven he doesn't have brains enough to write a bill so please do not rely on him and his White House minions to come up with anything that might get Bipartisan support as they can't even convince his own party to support the crap he puts out. :roll:

BTW please explain to us again how over 300 bills can be passed with Bipartisan support in the House yet never see the light of day in the Senate? Could it be because Harry Stonewall Reid is the really problem and you just can't admit being Bipartisan is the last damn thing you are going to see until Harry and his Golf playing buddy in the White House are GONE. Nope all House bills are dead on arrival in the Senate and Obama is threatening Reid even if he does take a vote and they pass he is going to veto the bill. Yep sound like your hero's are really looking to solve the humanitarian crisis down at the border that they created by OBAMA EXECUTIVE PEN. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Bull Crap when you have a President and Leader of the Senate claiming the Republican House's bill is dead on arrival even before the House has voted on the bill, hell even before the bill is written, you know it does not matter what the hell the Republicans pass as the Dems are still in the mind set of We Won We Write The Bills, even though the Voters handed them a historical loss in the 2010 election because of their out of control crap.

But Tam- you forget that the Dems now control 2 of the 3 legs in making a law-- the Executive branch and the Senate -- so they should have more say in what gets taken up and which is just wasting time... If House members really want to pass legislation they need to sit down and right bi-partisan bills - within both the House and Senate...

The Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014 started off on an encouraging note – senators advanced the legislation Monday with a vote of 82-12– but like other popular bills before it, died under the weight of an amendment fight.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hunting-fishing-bill-dies-sportsman-bill-108763.html#ixzz39Ms9E3QX

But often with the political spatting that exists today- and everyone thinking they should get their way- it doesn't work... ex.- the bi-partisan Sportsman Bill that was backed by all- until both sides wanted to start adding pro or anti gun amendments and muddying the waters... Reid shut it down and said no amendments (like he should have) and so the kids in the Senate said "if you can't play my way I'll take my ball and go home" and the country/sportsmen missed out on having a good law....

And like you say- that could change after the next election-- but for now that is the way it sits...

Oldtimer the House of Representatives is the part of the government that writes the SPENDING bills and due to the historical lose the voters handed the Dems back in 2010, Ms you have to pass the bill to learn what is in it Pelosi and the Dems no longer have control of the House, the REPUBLICANS do. For anything to be considered BIPARTISAN the Dems need to learn they no long have total control but share the law writing responsibilities with the Republicans. Obama has proven he doesn't have brains enough to write a bill so please do not rely on him and his White House minions to come up with anything that might get Bipartisan support as they can't even convince his own party to support the crap he puts out. :roll:

BTW please explain to us again how over 300 bills can be passed with Bipartisan support in the House yet never see the light of day in the Senate? Could it be because Harry Stonewall Reid is the really problem and you just can't admit being Bipartisan is the last damn thing you are going to see until Harry and his Golf playing buddy in the White House are GONE. Nope all House bills are dead on arrival in the Senate and Obama is threatening Reid even if he does take a vote and they pass he is going to veto the bill. Yep sound like your hero's are really looking to solve the humanitarian crisis down at the border that they created by OBAMA EXECUTIVE PEN. :mad:

How many of those bills are just repeat bills slightly differently worded on subjects Reid and Obama told them were DOA before they even voted?

This was over a year ago- and was already the 38th bill to kill Obamacare- how many more like that are in those numbers?

05/16/2013

The House of Representatives held another vote to repeal Obamacare Thursday afternoon.

The House voted to repeal Obamacare 229-195. However, the bill will have little hope of passing in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The decision to hold a vote to repeal Obamacare -- which has already been done 37 times -- was made by Republican leaders looking to appease freshman GOP lawmakers.

I've never been a Reid fan - but at some time the House needs to come to their senses and skip on to items they can actually get done... This sending bill after bill to repeal Obamacare has not been the smartest thing they've done- and it and Cruz's losing the country $ filibustering because of it is not helping the Repub party or Congress as a wholes standing...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
You're constantly worried about seeing more laws enacted yet say nothing when the Messiah ignores those already on the books.
 
Top