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

House will sue Obama

A

Anonymous

Guest
Boehner: House will sue Obama

By Russell Berman - 06/25/14 12:30 PM EDT

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday said he plans to sue President Obama on behalf of the House over his frequent use of executive actions that Republicans believe are beyond his authority.


During his weekly Capitol press conference, the Speaker accused the president of violating his oath of office by not “faithfully executing the laws of our country.” But Boehner said the lawsuit would not lead to an attempt to remove Obama from office.


“This is not about impeachment,” Boehner said. “This is about his faithfully executing the laws of our country.”


The Speaker would not say what specific executive actions the House would challenge, though Republicans have long complained that Obama has exceeded his authority in the various delays the administration has announced in implementing the Affordable Care Act, as well as the president’s enforcement of immigration laws.



A lawsuit could take years to wind through the courts and outlast the Obama presidency. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday called the move “subterfuge,” but Boehner denied it was designed to gin up the Republican base ahead of the November midterm elections.


“This is about defending the institution in which we serve,” he said. “You know, if you look back over the last 235 years of our history, there’s been a movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch and the inherent powers of the legislative branch.

“And what we’ve seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch,” the Speaker continued. “I believe the president is not faithfully executing the laws of our country, and on behalf of the institution and the Constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the Congress.”



A Boehner aide said more details on the lawsuit could be made available Wednesday afternoon..


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/210532-boehner-house-will-sue-obama#ixzz35g2dKAUT
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

This is what the Democrats should have done 10 years ago- when Bush was setting all the precedents Obama is now using ...

I believe we need a SCOTUS ruling on such issues as signing statements, and executive mandates.... And its too bad Congress does not try to push the Supreme Court into taking supervisory control (like they did in the Bush hanging chads election issue) and expedite a ruling rather than have it linger in the courts for years...

BUT- since I'm not sure either party wants to give up their "man in the White House" having these tools/powers available to him-- I see this lingering in the court for years...

AND if a Republican should happen to win and get in the White House, I wonder if the Repubs will continue the case all the way to the Supreme Court- or just let it drop ... :???:
 

Brad S

Well-known member
First, OT quit the lie that you're not aligned with The Party. The lie is way past tired.

Second, when did Bush make recess appointments when congress was in session?

False equivalency is just another deceit tactic of the left that only fools the lemmings.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
First, OT quit the lie that you're not aligned with The Party. The lie is way past tired.

Second, when did Bush make recess appointments when congress was in session?

False equivalency is just another deceit tactic of the left that only fools the lemmings.


Sorry Brad- I know its tough for folks that are card carrying cult followers to believe- but there still are some Independent folks out there that think for themselves... I belong to no party- but probably identify most closely with the Libertarian thinking--- fiscally/economically conservative- more tolerant of social issues- and oppose foreign aid or our involvement as World policemen ...

Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The question tho is what qualifies as recess? Does paying a Senator to fly back and forth to pound the gavel every day while all other Senators are gone qualify as having the Senate in session :???:

While I don't like recess appointments- I think also an Administrator/ President has to have a staff to operate-- and when a dysfunctional Congress can't act- they need a method to get their appointees into place...

I support a law change that gives the Senate only two months after the President nominates someone to have to vote yea or nay (straight majority) on the nominated person (do away with allowing one Senator stopping an appointment- and playing pork games with it)... And if the Senate refuses to vote in that time period - that appointee is automatically confirmed...

The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

Over the years- dysfunctional weak or rubberstamp Congress's have given the Administrative Branch much more discretion/power by refusing to do their job and giving that authority to the President, cabinet, and bureaucrats...

That's why I think it would be interesting to see the SCOTUS come out with some definitive opinions-- but I doubt we will .....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Old Bullshytter, you can claim to "closely follow Libertarian thinking", but we all know that's secret code for you being a card carrying Democrat.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Looks to be unConstitutional, until obama wins an appeal...

WASHINGTON — In an extended argument that contained large doses of constitutional history and practical politics, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed skeptical of the Obama administration’s contention that it could bypass the Senate to appoint officials during short breaks in the Senate’s work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/politics/justices-voice-doubts-on-obama-recess-appointments.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that found the president's recess appointments to a labor agency unconstitutional.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/obama-supreme-court_n_3156759.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President. He last convened the group in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Boehner and Congress lost the case involving the Defense of Marriage Act when the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional- which essentially changed that law and will eventually legalize same-sex marriage across the entire country....

Which brings up an interesting scenario- the SCOTUS could again rule against Congress- and give the Executive Branch more authority to act in the absence of a functional/functioning Congress .... :shock: :???:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President. He last convened the group in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Boehner and Congress lost the case involving the Defense of Marriage Act when the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional- which essentially changed that law and will eventually legalize same-sex marriage across the entire country....

Which brings up an interesting scenario- the SCOTUS could again rule against Congress- and give the Executive Branch more authority to act in the absence of a functional/functioning Congress .... :shock: :???:

There are always so many problems with your babblings that it's hard to know where to start. But let's start with a simple fact, and that is that the president takes an oath to uphold the law.....not decide which laws he likes and doesn't like, which ones he'll honor and those to which he'll give a middle finger. He's supposed to uphold all of them. Do you agree, yes or no? Easy answer, yes or no?

Secondly, while the scotus might make a ruling that gives the executive branch more power, rest assured it has absolutely nothing to do with "the absence of a functional/functioning congress". The congress functions every day, and is functioning just fine. It's only in Fatmanland that it doesn't function and that's because the fatman hates it when there aren't ever-increasing layers of laws being passed upon the American people.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
My oldest is in DC right now interning for the summer. After talking to her tonight about her days activities, I'll guaran-damn-tee you that Congress is functioning.

Is is even possible that a human can be as dead from the azz both ways as OT is and still function?
 

Steve

Well-known member
and when a dysfunctional Congress can't act-

interesting,...

The question tho is what qualifies as recess? Does paying a Senator to fly back and forth to pound the gavel every day while all other Senators are gone qualify as having the Senate in session Say what?

While I don't like recess appointments- I think also an Administrator/ President has to have a staff to operate

care to explain?

the GOP congress is acting,.

it is the dysfunctional democrat lead senate that is NOT doing it's job..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Justice Elena Kagan, appointed to the high court by Obama himself, warned Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. that when it comes to deciding when the Senate is in recess, “the history is entirely on the Senate’s side, not on your side.”

oops...

I guess the liberals shouldn't have started the practice..



Referred to as “pro forma sessions,” the Senate would be gaveled in for a few minutes just to deny Obama the authority to make recess appointments, just as Democrats once did with President George W. Bush.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President. He last convened the group in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Boehner and Congress lost the case involving the Defense of Marriage Act when the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional- which essentially changed that law and will eventually legalize same-sex marriage across the entire country....

Which brings up an interesting scenario- the SCOTUS could again rule against Congress- and give the Executive Branch more authority to act in the absence of a functional/functioning Congress .... :shock: :???:

There are always so many problems with your babblings that it's hard to know where to start. But let's start with a simple fact, and that is that the president takes an oath to uphold the law.....not decide which laws he likes and doesn't like, which ones he'll honor and those to which he'll give a middle finger. He's supposed to uphold all of them. Do you agree, yes or no? Easy answer, yes or no?

No- His oath is to the Constitution... He swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability...

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This may often mean challenging the laws Congress pass's... Remember Congress is not perfect either...

A good example was shown with DOMA- it was unconstitutional- so the Attorney General advised so- at which Obama quit enforcing it and dropped governments backing of the challenge to SCOTUS.... Boehner and crew picked up the appeal- and were eventually defeated when it was shown that it was unconstitutional...

In most states- the executive branch thru the Attorney General have the authority/duty to decide on the which laws are enforceable and Constitutional... And once the Attorney General of that state rules on a law's constitutionality that ruling stands until overturned by a court of jurisdiction....

This is the issue the Supreme Court needs to decide- should a President/Administration be forced to enforce laws they believe unconstitutional-- or do they have the discretionary authority to disregard and challenge them...

Just like the Bush administration did with Guantanamo imprisonments with no hearings/trials where the attorneys wrote a finding that it was legal- and followed that finding until the Courts overruled it-- the Obama administration has written findings involving the legality/Constitutionality of each action they have taken- and the precedents/court rulings they are using to make that decision....Now its up to the Courts to decide on each of these issues (which Boehner hasn't outlined yet)...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Whether the President has the right to refuse to execute a law, passed during the term of a predecessor, or over his veto, because he deems it unconstitutional, is an entirely different question from that just considered. Here the President has to deal not with a measure in the process of enactment, as is the case when the veto is exercised, but with a bill that has passed through all this constitutional forms of enactment, and has become a law, and it would seem that he has no option but to enforce the measure. The President has not been given the power to defeat the will of the people or of the legislature as embodied in law.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/767-Obligation-Of-The-President-To-Enforce-Laws-Believed-By.html#.U6uI-7GP5f0#ixzz35i3bdHGH
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The errors in this argument are sufficiently plain. In the first place, the President does not stand upon the same footing as regards the Constitution, as does the private citizen. The President is an agent selected by the people, for the express purpose of seeing that the laws of the land are executed. If, upon his own judgment, he refuse to execute a law and thus nullifies it, he is arrogating to himself controlling legislative functions, and laws have but an advisory, recommendatory character, depending for power upon the good-will of the President. That there is danger that Congress may by a chance majority, or through the influence of sudden great passion, legislate unwisely or unconstitutionally, was foreseen by those who framed our form of government, and the provision was framed that the President might at his discretion use a veto, but this was the entire extent to which he was allowed to go in the exercise of a check upon the legislation. It was expressly provided that if, after his veto, two-thirds of the legislature should again demand that the measure become a law, it should thus be, notwithstanding the objection of the Chief Executive. Surely there is here left no further constitutional right on the part of the President to hinder the operation of a law.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/767-Obligation-Of-The-President-To-Enforce-Laws-Believed-By.html#.U6uI-7GP5f0#ixzz35i4X3Ant
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
According to the legal encyclopedia, American Jurisprudence,:

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.”
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)


In my previous column, I basically discussed the topic of same-sex marriage, but in this instance I will use a couple of other topics.

Let’s say a state legislature decides to take away a woman’s right to vote or brings back segregation laws. The nation has already decided on these two issues. A woman is guaranteed the right to vote as guaranteed by the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, segregation laws were ruled unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.




 "The president and governors take an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution."
So, are these laws automatically unconstitutional or do they need to be ruled so by the courts yet again since they pertain to different laws?
This is also somewhat being played out in the religious freedom bills that are coming up in states like Arizona, which would protect people and businesses from lawsuits for denying goods or services to people based on religious convictions — including members of the LGBT community.

These laws seem to be quite similar to the old segregation laws and would be in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the same way. So if they are enacted, does the governor or state attorney general have the responsibility to defend these laws in court? The definition found in the American Jurisprudence would indicate ‘no’ since the law is already null and void.


When it comes to the federal executive (the president), remember the oath of office he or she must take: “[...] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And though the oaths of office for the various state governors might be different, they are still similar in their overall message… to uphold their state constitution and the U.S. Constitution as no law may violate this document.

Some laws are a bit murkier and the courts need to make a decision regarding their constitutionality. But, when it comes to laws that are in clear violation, it would seem the government doesn’t really have the responsibility to defend the law in court (or even enforce the law) as the law is already null and void from the start.

I have to agree with this author on enforcing laws that are in clear violation of previous court rulings... He outlines a few more examples...
I'm glad to see the Congress challenge this to (hopefully) get a clear ruling on what discretion the executive branch has...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
The errors in this argument are sufficiently plain. In the first place, the President does not stand upon the same footing as regards the Constitution, as does the private citizen. The President is an agent selected by the people, for the express purpose of seeing that the laws of the land are executed. If, upon his own judgment, he refuse to execute a law and thus nullifies it, he is arrogating to himself controlling legislative functions, and laws have but an advisory, recommendatory character, depending for power upon the good-will of the President. That there is danger that Congress may by a chance majority, or through the influence of sudden great passion, legislate unwisely or unconstitutionally, was foreseen by those who framed our form of government, and the provision was framed that the President might at his discretion use a veto, but this was the entire extent to which he was allowed to go in the exercise of a check upon the legislation. It was expressly provided that if, after his veto, two-thirds of the legislature should again demand that the measure become a law, it should thus be, notwithstanding the objection of the Chief Executive. Surely there is here left no further constitutional right on the part of the President to hinder the operation of a law.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/767-Obligation-Of-The-President-To-Enforce-Laws-Believed-By.html#.U6uI-7GP5f0#ixzz35i4X3Ant

Indeed. Swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and you swear to uphold the law. Yes or no fatman?
 
Top