Groundhog Day.....Republican style

[kolanuraven]

First 2 headlines this AM are:


"IMPEACH" and "Boehner threatens Gov't shut down"



Don't you people know anything else???

 

[hopalong]

Link Please!!!!!

 

[iwannabeacowboy]

Beats the hell out of trillions more of debt, more people jobless, and even more corruption.

Since you were silent through all that, you really should just keep your trap shut now.

 

[Whitewing]

Now that adults will be running the country what you'll see is legislation passed and handed to the Ditherer-in-chief for either signature or veto.

The lines will be quite clear for 2016 though I suspect the number of OT-type voters will still outnumber the productive citizens remaining in the country.

 

[Mike]

First 2 headlines this AM are:


"IMPEACH" and "Boehner threatens Gov't shut down"



Don't you people know anything else???

Such an elementary question for a supposed grownup. :roll:

Here's something "else". Buckwheat is about to allow 5-10 Million more illegal immigrants goods and services furnished by yours truly, the U.S. taxpayer, in order to pad the Voter Rolls in favor of the "Stupid" ones..

 

[Brad S]

Clearly, if a president that wasn't connected to the party wrote an executive order making social stupidity optional, the socialists would wail impeach until they had no more breath.

Anyone suggesting the pubs are going to be responsible for a shutdown is stupid or dishonest. If you suggest Isreal is a Christian nation, I have a pretty good idea which. Remember, the socialist handlers tricked and laughed at the stupid ACA supporters-I wasn't one of them.

 

[hypocritexposer]

If obama vetoes a continuing resolution, then it would be him that is shutting down the government

 

[Steve]

First 2 headlines this AM are:


"IMPEACH" and "Boehner threatens Gov't shut down"



Don't you people know anything else???

If you look at how Obama decided to over-ride our Constitution on Illegal immigration and will fail to enforce the nations laws he is setting up a fight...

but it is a fight he wants... republican congressional leaders asked for time to work on the issue..

Obama said no...

this is after he controlled BOTH houses for two years.. and didn't even try to put forward even a modest fix..

this is a fight obama wants...

his rational seems that it leaves the congress only three options...

1. impeach... (already off the table if you listen to R leadership)

2 Budget show down...

3. file a lawsuit..

Obama thinks all three are losers for the republicans.. so he is going to shove it in their face...

but to be honest... Republicans know the Constitutional remedies are losers "politically" for them as well...

so they can come up with another strategy.. or deal with it..

either way we as Americans are the real losers on this battle..

it removes the checks and balances and leaves US with a dictator..

hope you are happy..

 

[Steve]

in 2008 the House Judiciary Committee, acting on a resolution from the full
House of Representatives, was able to convince the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that it had standing to sue the White House for its failure to make subpoenaed witnesses and documents available. In its decision, the court emphasized the distinction between suits brought by individual congressional plaintiffs asserting abstract and diffuse injuries and suits brought by organs of Congress alleging institutional harms.

Many citizens and lawmakers expressed concern over the content and scope of several of President Bill Clinton's executive orders and land proclamations. Congress responded with hearings and the consideration of several bills designed to curb the President's authority to issue such directives. In an exceedingly rare act, the courts reacted by striking down one of President Clinton's executive orders

In 1952, the Supreme Court decided the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), also known as "The Steel Seizure Case." At the height of the Korean War, President Truman was faced with a strike of the nation's major steel producers by the U.S. Steel Workers of America. Instead of invoking the emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act (which had been passed by Congress over Truman's veto) to prevent the union from striking or using the Defense Production Act (which would have legally allowed seizure of the plants), Truman passed over Congress and issued an executive order seizing their production facilities and kept management in place. A federal judge issued an injunction barring the government from holding the steel plants and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared that the President had no power to act, except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress]/b].

so maybe the Republicans need to learn a new word..

Injunction..

 

[Steve]

Seems SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue..

It was Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion, however, which the Youngstown decision will be remembered for. Justice Jackson noted that the President's authority to issue executive orders (EO) and proclamations can be broken down into three categories:

(1) Those issued pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress. Here the president's authority is at its maximum. The EO is invalid only if the federal government as a whole lacks authority to do what the EO does.

(2) Those based upon undefined powers that lay in a "zone of twilight" where the President acts solely on the basis of his independent power and Congress has not spoken. Congressional inactivity or indifference may sometimes enable measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, the validity of the EO depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

(3) Those incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, and thus rely solely upon his constitutional authority. Here presidential EO power is at its lowest, and must be scrutinized with caution before being taken, because the EO is only constitutional if a court can disable the Congress from acting on the subject.

With regard to this third type of EO, Justice Jackson warns that what is at stake is the American system of checks and balances – the very equilibrium established by our constitutional system

I saw pass an act of congress expressly prohibiting the action.. and ask for the SCOTUS to place an injunction on the executive order..

sadly even the 4th option is a win for the president.. and another political loss for the republicans..

time to forget about politics... and do what is best for the country... not just for today.. but for our future..

 

[Whitewing]

First 2 headlines this AM are:


"IMPEACH" and "Boehner threatens Gov't shut down"



Don't you people know anything else???

If you look at how Obama decided to over-ride our Constitution on Illegal immigration and will fail to enforce the nations laws he is setting up a fight...

but it is a fight he wants... republican congressional leaders asked for time to work on the issue..

Obama said no...

this is after he controlled BOTH houses for two years.. and didn't even try to put forward even a modest fix..

this is a fight obama wants...

his rational seems that it leaves the congress only three options...

1. impeach... (already off the table if you listen to R leadership)

2 Budget show down...

3. file a lawsuit..

Obama thinks all three are losers for the republicans.. so he is going to shove it in their face...

but to be honest... Republicans know the Constitutional remedies are losers "politically" for them as well...

so they can come up with another strategy.. or deal with it..

either way we as Americans are the real losers on this battle..

it removes the checks and balances and leaves US with a dictator..

hope you are happy..

I say the solution is simple. Pass legislation that the American people can understand and that they clearly want signed into law. Put it on the Ditherer-in-Chief's desk and when he comes in from his golf game he can either sign it or veto it....and the donk party can deal with explaining the vetos.

 

[Brad S]

"IMPEACH" and "Boehner threatens Gov't shut down"


I'm enjoying the bitterness and vitriol coming from the socialists. I know it's wrong to laugh at the retarded, but I can't help myself. Wish I was ambitious enough to compose a stupidity stockpile from this poster.

 

[hypocritexposer]

They're not intelligent enough to think for themselves, or analyze the issues.

They will foloow people like Gruber and obama over the cliff.

and Gruber and obama count on their stupidity...

 

[hypocritexposer]

Defiance: Bypassing Congress on amnesty, and the rest of President Obama's double-down response to the voters' rejection of his policies, should shock no one. "Never let up" is one of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals."

What a difference from even the Times' token "conservative" columnist David Brooks, who once upon a time declared of Democrats' success in the 2006 midterm elections: "The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq War, the Republican Party and President Bush."

We didn't hear then from the establishment media about a "down but not out" George W. Bush pressing ahead. We did hear right after the new Congress convened in 2007, however, from none other than one Sen. Barack Obama that "removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008" was "what the American people demanded in the November election."

In the 2014 November election, there was "a stunning electoral judgment" against President Obama and his policies — which the president himself during the campaign conceded were on the ballot — and "what the American people demanded" was that he be stopped.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111414-726628-obama-embraces-anything-goes-decade-after-deploring-it.htm