• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power

Obama is out of control and must be stopped.

ExecutiveOrders_FourYearTerms.jpg

What are the nature of the orders?
 
No I can't see that because I'm not that naive. Posting a chart that shows quantity is totally irrelevant to the constitutionality of each and every executive order it covers. Just because Carter had over 300 executive orders doesn't mean that even a single one of them was inappropriate or unconstitutional. If Obama has one that is unconstitutional and Carter has 300 that aren't, then Obama has abused the provision and Carter has not. It's that simple - can't you see the problem with that?

Violating the constitution is not a crime. No legislation or any act deemed to be unconstitutional and over-turned by the courts...is followed by a criminal case.

An EO, or any other egregious provison, is not a criminal act...unless ajudicated as such. If a EO is deemed to be unconstitutional it first has to be challenged before a court; If it is deemed to be—in fact—unconstitutional, then that ends the matter.

People are conflating unconstitutional acts with high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
Violating the constitution is not a crime.
No legislation or any act deemed to be unconstitutional and over-turned by the courts...is followed by a criminal case.
We now see the new Boehner tack to the right after Cantor;
just a coincidence he announced it the day after the Cochran Dems were unleashed by the GOP Elite.

An EO, or any other egregious provison, is not a criminal act...unless ajudicated as such.
If a EO is deemed to be unconstitutional it first has to be challenged before a court;
If it is deemed to be—in fact—unconstitutional, then that ends the matter.
People are conflating unconstitutional acts with high crimes and misdemeanors.
The purpose is to keep the TEA-pees riled up at Obama.
The problem may be the TEAts may run Roberts and Alexander out of the Senate .
 
When he actually does it and then sees the process through...then I will care more then now...which is barely.

Right now, it's just talk...which from 95+% of Washington politicians means almost NOTHING to me.
 
No matter what Boehner does to deflect from his own party's civil war, it won't work.
someone will eventually lead a third party, the Libertarians if you will.
It will take a billionaire like Perot to bankroll it, especially to be competitive in all 50 states for governors, senators, representatives, statehouses, local .
 
No matter what Boehner does to deflect from his own party's civil war, it won't work.
someone will eventually lead a third party, the Libertarians if you will.
It will take a billionaire like Perot to bankroll it, especially to be competitive in all 50 states for governors, senators, representatives, statehouses, local .

And it still won't be enough, I don't believe that the Koch's want to drain their bankrolls, risking it all for someone who might not be electable in the first place. Voters need to like and have confidence of the person they're going to vote for, which the GOP lacked in '08 & '12.
 
And it still won't be enough, I don't believe that the Koch's want to drain their bankrolls, risking it all for someone who might not be electable in the first place. Voters need to like and have confidence of the person they're going to vote for, which the GOP lacked in '08 & '12.

I could only stand about 15 minutes of Scarborough this AM, chearing for Blacks voting GOP and snearing at McDaniel's sore losers.
The very sore losers slow Joe supports in getting rid of pork-barrel Cochran.

As for Boehner, the lawsuit won't cover up for the lack of rider-free bills out of the House.
As long as Boehner tries to get 218 votes from his own caucus to pass a bill, we're ****ed .
 
I believe that each branch of our government should be upset when another branch encroaches on its responsibility. Where there is disagreement between the Legislative and the Executive, it is reasonable to take it to the Judicial.
 
The way I see this it's just another in a long line of symbolic endeavors taken up by the house that is destined to go nowhere. They may have just as well voted to defund Obama Care... again.

Passive-aggressive politics on parade.
 
Violating the constitution is not a crime. No legislation or any act deemed to be unconstitutional and over-turned by the courts...is followed by a criminal case.

An EO, or any other egregious provison, is not a criminal act...unless ajudicated as such. If a EO is deemed to be unconstitutional it first has to be challenged before a court; If it is deemed to be—in fact—unconstitutional, then that ends the matter.

People are conflating unconstitutional acts with high crimes and misdemeanors.

Not me. Show me where I said anything about criminal acts or high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
Obama is out of control and must be stopped.

ExecutiveOrders_FourYearTerms.jpg

Since this tired over simplification always gets brought up it's nice to just be able to relink to things I've said before rather than waste my time retyping responses to standard dishonest talking points (edited down to remove the direct claims to the original poster it was responding to):

Peoples complaints are generally beyond simple "how many".

If people were claiming specifically that Obama is doing too many EO's or suggestnig EO's inherently are beyond a Presidents authority, then you'd be correct in posting this link. However, that's not what people are claiming...but you're just attacking a strawman of your own creation by acting like their focus is on one thing.

If I say a player is making poor decisions shooting the ball and he turns raound and goes "But coach! I only shot the ball 8 times and Johnson over there shot it 12! How dare you criticize me" that doesn't necessarily counter my point. Johnson's shots may've been high percentage while the other players wasn't. Johnson's may've been uncontested while the other players were while being double teamed. Johnson's may've been on set plays after ball movement, where as the other players were from him hogging the ball and putting up a shot.

There could be all sorts of factors as to why I say he was making a poor decision shooting; but he just throws out one metric and declares a win.

This instance an attempt to pidgeon hole an argument. A large part of the argument regarding Obama and executive actions is not the volume, but the type of actions being under gone. Additionally, the issue is not even singularly resolving around "Executive Orders" but a mass of executive action undertaken...both through EO's and directives via Executive Administrations.

When it comes to EO's, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson laid the foundation for the three types that exist.
Those issued persuant to an expressed or implied authorization of Congress. In these cases the POTUS's authority is maximum, with an EO being invalid only if what it does is outside the scope of the governments power.

The next are those with a "Zone of Twilight"; instances where a President acts singularly based on his independent power and Congress has not spoken on the issue. Here, the validity of the EO is a bit more questionable and depends on the imperatives of the event and contemporary imponderables.

Finally, there are those that are incompatable with the expressed or implied will of Congress. This is the flip side of the first instance and is where the POTUS's authority is at it's lowest. The EO would only be constitutional if it's something a court could disable the congress from being able to act on.

Justice Jackson pointed out that instances falling in that last category are ones where the notion of checks and balances within our government becomes at stake.

Focusing singularly upon the "amount" is a dishonest reading of peoples complaints, basically placing blinders on and deciding to argue the path of least resistance rather than take any effort to honestly understand their complaints.

It is not simply the number but rather the method and style in which it's being done.

The issues with regards to immigration is a wonderful example of this. Proponents of the President will note that he was simply focusing enforcement towards certain problems and away from others. A legitimate defense. However, also legitimate is the opponents of the President's point that many of the designations that the Obama administration made for determining enforcement closely match a law that was attempted to be passed by congress and failed. As such, you're have an issue of an Executive Order that is incompatable with the expressed will of Congress. It was a course of action specifically dealt with in Congress and was unable to come to pass. That causes a greater question regarding the legitimacy of that executive order beyond one that was done in line with what Congress stated.

This is why it's foolish when people keep throwing out pure volume numbers as if every executive order or action is equal and the same.

The changing of implimentation dates within the passage of Obamacare is another legitimate issue. For example, the law laid out SPECIFIC dates that certain factors had to occur. And while they did provide for exemptions, they highlighted that said exemption couldn't come into effect until 2017. When congress clearly includes a specific date, and clearly includes that an exemption can't be done until 2017, it's difficult to argue that expressed OR implied will of the congress was that changing to a date sometime between those two points was perfectly okay. Yet that has not stopped exemption after exemption being issued by the Administration regarding the employee mandate.

These are the type of issues that people have when talking about his over reach of powers and not simply "how many". Continually posting up the same tired chart of "how many" is a poor debate tactic based upon intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to strawman that does a horrendous job of actually offering up substantitve counter arguments to the claims being made.
 
it is about time someone decided to put at stop to that the non-sense going on up there.
obama changes every law he doesn't like which is illegal and against the constitution he doesn't have the power to change and create law yet he does it anyway.
took them long enough.

Here's the deal. If Obama's legal team feels that something is unconstitutional in a bill, then Obama does a signing statement saying so, and as the chief executive, is enforcing the constitution. On the other hand, congress may feel that what Obama signed against IS constitutional. At this point, then we have a conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government. How do we end the impasse? Easy. The judicial branch makes the call. But in order for that to happen, a lawsuit must be filed, which is where Boehner comes in.

To the Democrats - Boehner has every right to file a lawsuit. It is part of the process. Whenever there is a dispute between the legislative and executive branches, that is where the judical branch comes into play.

To the Republicans - It's not an abuse of power by the president. It's a different interpretation of the constitution, which of course needs to be ironed out. Suing the president? No big deal. It's been done many times during past administrations. SCOTUS will make the final call here, one way or the other. This is not an earth shaking event.

To EVERYBODY - The Democrats will scream "douche bag" at the Republicans, and the Republicans will scream "douche bag" at the Democrats, just like has happened many times in the past, but the political process will continue. Never mind the spin by both political parties.

Now how about those Astros?...... Um, never mind that either.
 
About damn time I say. Republicans have been complaining about this for some time. Ultimately, put up or shut up. If you honestly believe that the Obama Administration has been taking significant steps that are exceed the powers of the Executive then it's the duty of those in congress to attempt to provide that check and balance. If members of Congress...and note that some Democrats have even voiced concern on this issue...believe that the Executive Branch is oversteping its bounds then it's incumbant on them to take action to combat that. Whether that's impeachment to remove the POTUS or bringing suit in an effort to invalidated the actions taken, SOME sort of check needs to be done if that's what they honestly believe is occuring.

What will come of such a suit is an entirely different question, but based on what's been said for years this is the proper act on the part of congress. And I prefer them bringing suit over attempting impeachment at this time.
 
Great.

"People" usually means more then one...or other than you.

Well, usually, when you quote a post of another member, it's customary to actually be responding to something they said and not implying something they didn't say and leaving a totally false impression.
 
Since this tired over simplification always gets brought up it's nice to just be able to relink to things I've said before rather than waste my time retyping responses to standard dishonest talking points (edited down to remove the direct claims to the original poster it was responding to):

and your argument would be a sound one if the republicans behind the threat of court action identified that XO, or particular array of XOs, which should be found exceeding the scope of presidential authority
in the absence of that specificity, it is reasonable to conclude boehner's gesture is directed at the magnitude of instances when Obama's XOs have been executed
i look forward to seeing from the GOP (or libertarian) side exactly what about Obama's XOs should be found by the court to be extra-Constitutional
 
About damn time I say. Republicans have been complaining about this for some time. Ultimately, put up or shut up. If you honestly believe that the Obama Administration has been taking significant steps that are exceed the powers of the Executive then it's the duty of those in congress to attempt to provide that check and balance. If members of Congress...and note that some Democrats have even voiced concern on this issue...believe that the Executive Branch is oversteping its bounds then it's incumbant on them to take action to combat that. Whether that's impeachment to remove the POTUS or bringing suit in an effort to invalidated the actions taken, SOME sort of check needs to be done if that's what they honestly believe is occuring.

What will come of such a suit is an entirely different question, but based on what's been said for years this is the proper act on the part of congress. And I prefer them bringing suit over attempting impeachment at this time.

There's absolutely no chance of this being an election year stunt. Nope, none whatsoever.
 
Well, usually, when you quote a post of another member, it's customary to actually be responding to something they said and not implying something they didn't say and leaving a totally false impression.

Not around here it's not. People tell me what I really mean all the time. Ask Zyphlin.
 


It is good to see Fox finally admitting that the Bush years weren't squeaky clean either. Cavuto's point is the same as mine - it's an election year stunt.
 
It's back to ACA with the GOP, as Boehner darts back-and-forth from "select" to IRS to ACA trying to create a mindset of "scandal" for the election.
Announcing the suit the day after the GOP Elite's win in Mississippi is just a coincidence.

And with the SCOTUS just ruling against Obama this AM with Senate recess appointees with more rulings to come,
Boehner finally realized this is his Court and it will do his bidding.

It's all abouit Obama's XO's on ACA from what I hear GOPs say .
and your argument would be a sound one if the republicans behind the threat of court action identified that XO, or particular array of XOs, which should be found exceeding the scope of presidential authority
in the absence of that specificity, it is reasonable to conclude boehner's gesture is directed at the magnitude of instances when Obama's XOs have been executed
i look forward to seeing from the GOP (or libertarian) side exactly what about Obama's XOs should be found by the court to be extra-Constitutional

This is also a thin-veiled shot ascross the bow at any future XO's, preemptive if you will.
With Boehner saying it isn't about impeachment, while his members acknowledge they have the 218 votes .
 
First of all, this is all just a PR stunt by Bonehead to rally up the base for mid-term elections. He hasn't actually done ANYTHING really to stop Obama in the past when he could have.

Basically this will continue until a new president is voted in and if it is a GOP president, watch all this anger over XOs just dissapear from the GOP because they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot with their old used power. However, if it is a Dem president, they will continue the lawsuit to try and prevent a Dem president from using XOs.

Bottomline is this, whether the right likes it or not Obama is using a power they all enjoyed as well. This is why I have been against XOs, because eventually you will get a president that will abuse it. It gets worse with each presidency on the scope of XOs.
 
Boehner is suing, but he doesn't know what he's suing over yet.
This is what the last three plus years can be summed up as . :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom