• 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

rocket88 said:
There's absolutely no chance of this being an election year stunt. Nope, none whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Oh, it absolutely is likely influenced by this being an election year. That doesn't mean it's any less legitimate to bring the suit. If anything, going off the post of mine you quoted, the fact that they've had this complaint for multiple years now and only are now deciding to "****" rather than "get off the pot" (the phrase I used in my post you quoted which is hardly a kind one towards republicans) is definitely worthy of criticism.

There's a large difference between criticizing the timing of the lawsuit and criticizing the notion of the lawsuit.

Filing suit against the Administration because members of congress feel they've overstepped the bounds of the constitution is ABSOLUTELY a reasonable notion and one that we shouldn't just want, but demand, out of our various branches of government. Part of the largest job that the various branches have is to act as checks and balances. The President has exercised some of his power to "check" congress by using signing statements to denote things that are unconstitutional in his opinion, for instance. The Congress should be exercising theirs by bringing suit on issues they feel the President is acting unconstitutionally in their opinion. Which allows the judicial branch to exercising theirs by judging the constitutionality of the actions. There is nothing condemnable with regards to that general notion.

Waiting till you're less than half a year out from the next election to finally actually exert your "check" however is something that can be reasonable condemned. As I said....IF the republicans, and others, in congress have had such issues then its incumbant on them to **** or get off the pot. I think they should've **** a lot earlier than they are, but I am in general happy to see that they're finally going to do one or the other as opposed to just staying on the crapper.
 
Does anyone know the last lawsuit by a Congress at a President over XO's ?
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh, it absolutely is likely influenced by this being an election year. That doesn't mean it's any less legitimate to bring the suit. If anything, going off the post of mine you quoted, the fact that they've had this complaint for multiple years now and only are now deciding to "****" rather than "get off the pot" (the phrase I used in my post you quoted which is hardly a kind one towards republicans) is definitely worthy of criticism.

There's a large difference between criticizing the timing of the lawsuit and criticizing the notion of the lawsuit.

Filing suit against the Administration because members of congress feel they've overstepped the bounds of the constitution is ABSOLUTELY a reasonable notion and one that we shouldn't just want, but demand, out of our various branches of government. Part of the largest job that the various branches have is to act as checks and balances. The President has exercised some of his power to "check" congress by using signing statements to denote things that are unconstitutional in his opinion, for instance. The Congress should be exercising theirs by bringing suit on issues they feel the President is acting unconstitutionally in their opinion. Which allows the judicial branch to exercising theirs by judging the constitutionality of the actions. There is nothing condemnable with regards to that general notion.

Waiting till you're less than half a year out from the next election to finally actually exert your "check" however is something that can be reasonable condemned. As I said....IF the republicans, and others, in congress have had such issues then its incumbant on them to **** or get off the pot. I think they should've **** a lot earlier than they are, but I am in general happy to see that they're finally going to do one or the other as opposed to just staying on the crapper.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and would add that this should have been done with Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 as well. Maybe this will be the turn of the evolving of the empirical presidency. So Obama gets busted for what many others have gotten away with. Tuff breaks, but if it reverses the trend, so be it.
 
And this comes on the heels of yet another 9-0 decision against the Obama Administration by the SCOTUS. Note, before some posters try to blather on about the "GOP SCOTUS"....that is NINE - ZERO, as in no dissent. As in even Kagan and Sotomayer, Obama appointees, agreed. This joins Sackett v. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and United States v. Jones amongst others as instances where this SCOTUS has voted UNANIMOUSLY against the actions of this Administration.

Regardless of your opinion on the timing of this lawsuit, the fact that the lawsuit is being brought forth is not ridiculous. Our government is founded on a notion of checks and balances. This administration is not bereft of instances where the action taken on the part of the Executive Branch is found to be unconstitutional. If the Congress feels that the President is acting in a manner outside the bounds of what the Executive can do then it's incumbant on them in our form of government to take the time to craft a case and put forward a challenge.

Note, expecting the initial statement of the case being told to the Media to contain every detail and deep legal analysis is ridiculously dishonest and an obvious ploy.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
And this comes on the heels of yet another 9-0 decision against the Obama Administration by the SCOTUS. Note, before some posters try to blather on about the "GOP SCOTUS"....that is NINE - ZERO, as in no dissent. As in even Kagan and Sotomayer, Obama appointees, agreed.
Click to expand...
Isn't it nice to see the four DEM appointees not playing politics?
Especially with the two Justices you pointed out coming from Obama, as if that should matter .
 
Zyphlin said:
Regardless of your opinion on the timing of this lawsuit, the fact that the lawsuit is being brought forth is not ridiculous. Our government is founded on a notion of checks and balances. This administration is not bereft of instances where the action taken on the part of the Executive Branch is found to be unconstitutional. If the Congress feels that the President is acting in a manner outside the bounds of what the Executive can do then it's incumbant on them in our form of government to take the time to craft a case and put forward a challenge.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit is clearly pandering to the TEAs.
A shot across the Obama bow, threatening him not to make any more XOs on ACA or even think about them on Immigration.
Yet Boehner can't tell us what he's suing over yet, just that he's suing :lamo

Note, expecting the initial statement of the case being told to the Media to contain
every detail and deep legal analysis is ridiculously dishonest and an obvious ploy.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard any of this.
I will expect just as concise a report on Monday with the Hobby Lobby ruling .
 
Montecresto said:
I agree with you, and would add that this should have been done with Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 as well. Maybe this will be the turn of the evolving of the empirical presidency. So Obama gets busted for what many others have gotten away with. Tuff breaks, but if it reverses the trend, so be it.
Click to expand...

This isn't the first of the many firsts directed at Obama and it won't be the last .
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh, it absolutely is likely influenced by this being an election year. That doesn't mean it's any less legitimate to bring the suit. If anything, going off the post of mine you quoted, the fact that they've had this complaint for multiple years now and only are now deciding to "****" rather than "get off the pot" (the phrase I used in my post you quoted which is hardly a kind one towards republicans) is definitely worthy of criticism.

There's a large difference between criticizing the timing of the lawsuit and criticizing the notion of the lawsuit.

Filing suit against the Administration because members of congress feel they've overstepped the bounds of the constitution is ABSOLUTELY a reasonable notion and one that we shouldn't just want, but demand, out of our various branches of government. Part of the largest job that the various branches have is to act as checks and balances. The President has exercised some of his power to "check" congress by using signing statements to denote things that are unconstitutional in his opinion, for instance. The Congress should be exercising theirs by bringing suit on issues they feel the President is acting unconstitutionally in their opinion. Which allows the judicial branch to exercising theirs by judging the constitutionality of the actions. There is nothing condemnable with regards to that general notion.

Waiting till you're less than half a year out from the next election to finally actually exert your "check" however is something that can be reasonable condemned. As I said....IF the republicans, and others, in congress have had such issues then its incumbant on them to **** or get off the pot. I think they should've **** a lot earlier than they are, but I am in general happy to see that they're finally going to do one or the other as opposed to just staying on the crapper.
Click to expand...

It's a legitimate suit, but since the whole House (including Boehner) is running for re-election in a few months....

As long as the GOP retains the House, we won't hear anything else about it. There isn't much danger of that not happening, but I wonder if Cantor losing put the fear of "God" into Boehner. The question is if they can win the Senate which will be a lot more tricky. My own prognostication is that it remains as it is. A couple of seats here or there will change, but not the majority.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is very relevant to how often such things have been done. With Obama too many act like's well beyond the pale when in fact he's right with what has been done. Bush pushed it a lot, and nary a complaint from conservatives or libertarians. Much of what they have called unconstitutional has held up in the courts. The fact is those who hate Obama hate more than they reason.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is very relevant to how often such things have been done. With Obama too many act like's well beyond the pale when in fact he's right with what has been done. Bush pushed it a lot, and nary a complaint from conservatives or libertarians. Much of what they have called unconstitutional has held up in the courts. The fact is those who hate Obama hate more than they reason.
Click to expand...

It's not "How many". It's "What were they?"
 
Cantor is still pulling the strings through McCarthy and Boehner IMO.
As he promised, he will push his agenda through the end of July when he resigns as ML, with August recess.
and Heaven help those AGOPs on his **** list.
rocket88 said:
Of course it is, Cantor losing really brought that out.
Click to expand...
We'll see if this new McC has the nads to shut down the government in the Fall.
I say the GOP gives a little, all part of the Priebus-maneuvering behind the scenes, as with the Senate primaries.
 
You should go to work for Boehner.
He hasn't figured out how to verbalize that yet.
MaggieD said:
It's not "How many". It's "What were they?"
Click to expand...

And we're back full circle to ACA aren't we?
With immigration lawsuits just in case.

I think it's fair to say this is the Speaker v. Presidency, versus the present actors,
since we have the last three decades of this being debated on dp constantly .
 
MaggieD said:
It's not "How many". It's "What were they?"
Click to expand...

That's the new mantra. As I noted earlier, at first it was how many. I linked several I see every day from conservatives show they think he has given more than anyone else. But even when we put that lie aside, there is really little difference in the what. Bush certainly came much closer to breaking the law. Only liberals complained then. Everything with Obama for some reason gets over exaggerated.

Some reading:

To sue the president, Republicans are tying themselves in ideological knots. After howling about excessive lawsuits, they are embracing long-shot litigation. After lamenting activist judges, they are now insisting that judges be more activist and shed their long-standing reluctance to adjudicate disputes between the elected branches.

Even some conservative scholars argue that lawmakers probably don’t have a legal standing for such a suit. If Republicans persuade the courts to grant them standing, the case could take years to work its way through the system, at which point Obama will be gone. Adding to the charade, the taxpayer-funded legal fight would be waged under the authority of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is known by the acronym “BLAG” and is bipartisan only in name because it is controlled by the House majority.

But the real problem with the lawsuit approach is that it misunderstands the cause of the problem: congressional dysfunction. Lawmakers, hamstrung by disagreement, have created a power vacuum, and presidents have stepped in to fill it. The solution is not to sue, but to legislate, which means to compromise — and this is something Boehner’s troops have been unwilling to do.

Dana Milbank: John Boehner wants to sue President Obama - The Washington Post

Indeed, at a certain point, Boehner’s own lawsuit — putting its legal merits aside — will neatly reveal that to be the real problem here.

Paul Kane puts his finger on the nub of the matter: “Boehner declined to spell out which specific actions would be addressed in the suit.”

The lawsuit, Kane suggests, will at some point have to specify which executive actions by the president constitute a failure to “faithfully execute the laws of our country,” justifying this dramatic step by Republicans. Yet the raising of any specifics will only serve as a reminder of the fronts on which Republicans have refused to legislate.

(snip)

HOUSE GOP LAWSUIT CARRIES POLITICAL RISKS: NBC’s First Read crew nails it:

With just 121 bills becoming law in the entire 113th Congress (compared with 136 at this point in the historically unproductive 112th Congress), they need something to show their constituents and base voters back home. “See, we’re standing up to the president,” they can say….While the lawsuit move will certainly fire up conservative voters almost four months out until the midterms, it does come at a risk for Republicans. With a summer that’s going to be dominated by hearings on Benghazi and the IRS — and now with a vote on this lawsuit coming next month — non-base voters can legitimately ask: What are you doing to improve our lives, help the economy, and make sure we have extra money in our pockets?

Morning Plum: Boehner scratches GOP base’s impeachment itch - The Washington Post
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Our congress critters have no vote on EOs at all - they are like recess appointments in that respect.
Click to expand...
Congress can overturn most executive orders by passing a law. E.g. Congress could pass a law that explicitly restricts the EPA from regulating CO2.
 
AJiveMan said:
Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power | Fox News

Where did the crybaby get his gonads at? Did he buy them or grow them? :lol:

Leader says House plans to sue Obama



How can an overly sensitive wimp come up with something like this? did he drink some tea or something?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS just ruled today that the President disregarded the Constitution in his sidestepping the Congress with his appointments to the NLRB.

This suit may follow that path as well.

Not a good week for Obama.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Unfortunately for those of us that would like to actually see a president held accountable. But Boehner is, as you point out, less interested in holding a president accountable than he is on drumming up mid term election support. Plus, he's not going to be interested in pursuing something that could be used against him, or his party at least, in the future. Holding the democratic president accountable by the GOP guarantees the next GOP president is held accountable, something neither party is interested in. And so the people continue to play the charade.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The SCOTUS just ruled today that the President disregarded the Constitution in his sidestepping the Congress with his appointments to the NLRB.

This suit may follow that path as well.

Not a good week for Obama.
Click to expand...


I love it. Great news and long over do. Where was SCOTUS during the Bush administration!?!?
 
Boo Radley said:
That's the new mantra. As I noted earlier, at first it was how many. I linked several I see every day from conservatives show they think he has given more than anyone else. But even when we put that lie aside, there is really little difference in the what. Bush certainly came much closer to breaking the law. Only liberals complained then. Everything with Obama for some reason gets over exaggerated.

Some reading:

To sue the president, Republicans are tying themselves in ideological knots. After howling about excessive lawsuits, they are embracing long-shot litigation. After lamenting activist judges, they are now insisting that judges be more activist and shed their long-standing reluctance to adjudicate disputes between the elected branches.

Even some conservative scholars argue that lawmakers probably don’t have a legal standing for such a suit. If Republicans persuade the courts to grant them standing, the case could take years to work its way through the system, at which point Obama will be gone. Adding to the charade, the taxpayer-funded legal fight would be waged under the authority of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is known by the acronym “BLAG” and is bipartisan only in name because it is controlled by the House majority.

But the real problem with the lawsuit approach is that it misunderstands the cause of the problem: congressional dysfunction. Lawmakers, hamstrung by disagreement, have created a power vacuum, and presidents have stepped in to fill it. The solution is not to sue, but to legislate, which means to compromise — and this is something Boehner’s troops have been unwilling to do.

Dana Milbank: John Boehner wants to sue President Obama - The Washington Post

Indeed, at a certain point, Boehner’s own lawsuit — putting its legal merits aside — will neatly reveal that to be the real problem here.

Paul Kane puts his finger on the nub of the matter: “Boehner declined to spell out which specific actions would be addressed in the suit.”

The lawsuit, Kane suggests, will at some point have to specify which executive actions by the president constitute a failure to “faithfully execute the laws of our country,” justifying this dramatic step by Republicans. Yet the raising of any specifics will only serve as a reminder of the fronts on which Republicans have refused to legislate.

(snip)

HOUSE GOP LAWSUIT CARRIES POLITICAL RISKS: NBC’s First Read crew nails it:

With just 121 bills becoming law in the entire 113th Congress (compared with 136 at this point in the historically unproductive 112th Congress), they need something to show their constituents and base voters back home. “See, we’re standing up to the president,” they can say….While the lawsuit move will certainly fire up conservative voters almost four months out until the midterms, it does come at a risk for Republicans. With a summer that’s going to be dominated by hearings on Benghazi and the IRS — and now with a vote on this lawsuit coming next month — non-base voters can legitimately ask: What are you doing to improve our lives, help the economy, and make sure we have extra money in our pockets?

Morning Plum: Boehner scratches GOP base’s impeachment itch - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

To assume my post is part of any "new mantra" is to greatly underestimate the intelligence of Americans. That's not the party line. That's mine. It's only common sense. I think we'll find, when the chips are down, Americans have more common sense than we typically give them credit for.
 
Montecresto said:
I love it. Great news and long over do. Where was SCOTUS during the Bush administration!?!?
Click to expand...

No one filed the needed lawsuits, or at the very least, the ones that were filed weren't written up properly or argued properly in court regarding the Constitution.
 
The Congress failing to pass legislation does not excuse a President from taking unconstitutional action. IF the action is unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional regardless of whether Congress "Failed to legislate" (Which is and of itself is a dishonest biased presentation that ASSUMES that the purpose of congress is to simply PASS LAWS, as opposed to PASS BENEFICIAL LAWS. That it's somehow the duty of every congressman to simply get things passed, regardless of whether or not they believe it's necessary, useful, or represents their constituents well).

If the lawsuit occurs, whether or not the President was acting beyond the scope of his constitutional powers will be determined by the courts. However, complaining that “congress didn’t pass things!” (and let’s be honest, it’s “Congress didn’t pass things we wanted it to pass) is not going to likely be a legitimate defense despite the opinions of these liberal commentators.

The continual harping on Bohner not going into in depth legal analysis and specifics regarding the suit is ridiculous. There’s no reason, nor intelligent need, to do such at this point. Undoubtedly an effort to actually put together the brief will be underway. Strategically it is advantageous to avoid specifics, thus allowing the opposition to better craft a defense, until such point that you HAVE to give it. Making assumptions about what the intent of the lawsuit is natural; presenting that assumption as if it’s definitely the truth, OR acknowledging that there are MULTIPLE potential assumptions but settling on the one that makes no logical sense when compared to reality as opposed to the assumptions that DOES…not so much.

One can speculate and comment and criticize the political nature of this all you want; but the criticism over the notion of DARING to actually challenge executive authority is ridiculous.

Nevermind the ever tried and true effort of screaming “BUSH” as loud as possible; a desperate plea for hypocrisy that itself is hypocritical in nature with its one sided aimed. If we are to assume that Obama is acting similarly to what Bush did, but republicans didn’t complain then, then what does it say about those Democrats that did complain then? What does it say of the President whose harsh critiques of executive orders and executive actions as a method of bypassing the normal process were a part of his electoral campaign, but whose actions are now being questioned. It’s always a wonderful kneejerk reaction to go “Bush Bush Bush”, but at BEST that simply calls into question the hypocrisy of those making the accusations…NOT the legitimacy of the accusations themselves. But this hypocritical attack on hypocrisy is not actually meant as a means of arguing against the accusations; rather, it’s purpose is simply as a distraction and diversion and nothing more.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No one filed the needed lawsuits, or at the very least, the ones that were filed weren't written up properly or argued properly in court regarding the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Point! Too bad.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much. Courts rarely want to get in the middle of a slap-fight between the two branches. Most of the time, the courts focus on how a law gets interpreted, not in slapping down executive acts.

For example, the ACA ruling was not "executive vs legislative." It was a law passed by Congress, and the suits tested whether that law was constitutional.

Further, in order to bring a suit, the filer must prove that they have actually been impacted by that suit. So if Boehner wants to sue Obama because he didn't enforce a specific immigration law, odds are very good that he won't have standing.


To the Democrats - Boehner has every right to file a lawsuit. It is part of the process.
Click to expand...
*shrug* If my neighbor's dog tears up my yard, I also have the right to file a lawsuit. That doesn't mean it's the best choice.

I gotta say though, it's pretty clear this is just a stunt, and it won't stop Obama from using executive orders. The plaintiffs may not have standing; there's no way this will get through the courts fast enough to have any effect; it's transparently obvious that it's a sop to the hard right. My guess is they figure they know they can't impeach him, and even trying will make him a martyr.


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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much. It's interpretations of the laws as passed. So if the law as written gives the EPA latitude in regulating CO2 -- something that has been legislated several times, by the way -- that's not really a question of the separation of powers.


Suing the president? No big deal. It's been done many times during past administrations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much. ;) It is certainly not common for Senators to sue the President, they would more typically hold a hearing (as they did with Iran-Contra). Or, if it's serious enough, start impeachment proceedings.
 
MaggieD said:
To assume my post is part of any "new mantra" is to greatly underestimate the intelligence of Americans. That's not the party line. That's mine. It's only common sense. I think we'll find, when the chips are down, Americans have more common sense than we typically give them credit for.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't speaking of you personally. But for many it has switched from one to other, and for others they still hold on to him doing more than others.

As for Americans, the vast majority don't pay that much attention, many for legitimate reasons. Most find republicans and congress as poor as Obama, and prefer actual work to this silliness. That said, the partisans are running this circus and not rational Americans.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is very relevant to how often such things have been done. With Obama too many act like's well beyond the pale when in fact he's right with what has been done. Bush pushed it a lot, and nary a complaint from conservatives or libertarians. Much of what they have called unconstitutional has held up in the courts. The fact is those who hate Obama hate more than they reason.
Click to expand...

You like to point out it's relevant and that Bush did it more and no one complained, but I haven't seen you quote a single executive order that Bush passed that Democrats or anyone else in Congress or the country specifically claimed was unconstitutional. It has been pointed out here, specifically, as an example, that Obama lacked the constitutional authority to alter the timelines specifically outlined in the ACA as adopted by congress. Why don't you post up some examples of Bush doing the same thing and then we can have a discussion. Until then, your posts are just empty partisan rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom