Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 234

Thread: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

  1. #161
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,258

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Its not fair to put the burden of our southern border's immigration issue solely on the backs of the border states. It is a national issue and those few states can't afford the cost of our national immigration on their own.
    It isn't, but that's exactly what Obama has done with his refusal to enforce existing law.

  2. #162
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,140

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Regardless of your political leanings, don't you want to ensure that your President doesn't overstep the bounds of what a single person should be able to do vis-a-vis the legal/justice system in your country?
    Sure, but that doesn't change the legalities of a lawsuit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    They don't have to Impeach.....they can write up a letter of Disapproval and Censure.
    Sounds to me that such a letter would be the equivalent to a written reprimand but would such a letter really mean to this or any other sitting POTUS? I mean, really now. Does Congress really think that by putting their displeasure of a Presidential action in writing means he'll suddenly stop doing whatever he believes is within his legal power to do under the law? Sure, you get such a letter into the historical record but in the grand scheme of things it means absolutely nothing.

    Conservatives, States Set to Launch Legal Blitz Against Obama Over Immigration.....

    Opponents said there will likely be a three-pronged legal approach to stymie Obama's moves: Congress could sue the president for constitutional overreach, states could file lawsuits arguing the action strains local finances, or individuals could try to prove they've been harmed by the order. Just hours after the speech, an Arizona sheriff filed suit arguing the reform is unconstitutional.....snip~

    Conservatives, States Set to Launch Legal Blitz Against Obama Over Immigration - Video
    And these articles explain why each and every such lawsuit will fail.

    1. Political ply; a prelude to "hopeful" impeachment. Top Republican Admits That Lawsuits Against Obama Are Setting Up Impeachment

    2. A brief historical summary of why such a lawsuit will fail; SCOTUS has already ruled in favor of the President for immunity on such presidential action when done in the best interest of the country. Can you sue the president? Kucinich just did.

    3. Legal precedent against allowing such lawsuits against the President for two very obvious reasons: a) tying up the legal system, and b) Impeachment in and of itself. Lawsuits against Obama face steep hurdles

    Good luck, GOP. Unless it can be proven that the President's delay on implementing the employer mandate tax in Obamacare was not done in the best interest for the country, this will be a fight the GOP will lose.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Sounds to me that such a letter would be the equivalent to a written reprimand but would such a letter really mean to this or any other sitting POTUS? I mean, really now. Does Congress really think that by putting their displeasure of a Presidential action in writing means he'll suddenly stop doing whatever he believes is within his legal power to do under the law? Sure, you get such a letter into the historical record but in the grand scheme of things it means absolutely nothing.


    And these articles explain why each and every such lawsuit will fail.

    1. Political ply; a prelude to "hopeful" impeachment. Top Republican Admits That Lawsuits Against Obama Are Setting Up Impeachment

    2. A brief historical summary of why such a lawsuit will fail; SCOTUS has already ruled in favor of the President for immunity on such presidential action when done in the best interest of the country. Can you sue the president? Kucinich just did.

    3. Legal precedent against allowing such lawsuits against the President for two very obvious reasons: a) tying up the legal system, and b) Impeachment in and of itself. Lawsuits against Obama face steep hurdles

    Good luck, GOP. Unless it can be proven that the President's delay on implementing the employer mandate tax in Obamacare was not done in the best interest for the country, this will be a fight the GOP will lose.


    No they don't think he will stop doing whatever he wants. Its for the record.....does the letter of Disapproval go down on The record? Is it like a stain or black mark on a record? Its not suppose to do anything other than that.


    As for the attorney deal.....do you think a Border State can sue for all the services it has to provide? Why do Attorney General's think that is so?

  5. #165
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Excellent - so now step up and provide that answer that has been given many times in this very thread - what exact law can you point to that Obama has violated with this action?
    I posted this once, now let's see if you read it this time...

    1. Distorting Prosecutorial Discretion

    President Obama claims he is entitled to overhaul immigration laws in the name of “prosecutorial discretion.” It is one of those wonderfully fungible phrases in the law. Elastic because it is vague and ambiguous. Useful because it can be easily abused. Mr. Obama has appropriated this doctrine to argue he has near boundless discretion to amend, revise, waive or suspend the execution of immigration laws. As chief executive, he is empowering himself to decide what laws may be enforced or ignored and what persons may come or go across our southern border irrespective of what the law actually states.

    In past decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned the executive branch that its prosecutorial discretion, while broad, is not “unfettered.” It is subject to restrictions. The doctrine may not be used to adopt a sweeping policy of non-enforcement of the law. It applies only to decisions not to prosecute or expel specific individuals or small groups of people, typically for exigent reasons like war, civil unrest or political persecution.

    By contrast, President Obama is bestowing a wholesale, blanket amnesty for an entire class of nearly 5 million people. He is doing so not for the reasons allowed by law, but for purposes that appear to be purely political. This is a flagrant abuse of prosecutorial discretion. His expansive action exceeds his authority in ways that none of his predecessors ever envisioned. And it is a radical departure from any of the executive actions issued by previous presidents.

    It is true that President Ronald Reagan utilized executive action in 1987 to grant a limited deportation reprieve to certain spouses and young children of immigrants. But his action was a logical and direct extension of, not a departure from, an existing amnesty law Congress had already passed. His exemption and a subsequent extension by his successor, President George H. W. Bush, were later incorporated into a new law passed by Congress. The point is instructive. The actions by Reagan and Bush are not a supporting precedent for Mr. Obama, but an important limiting principle of presidential authority.

    However, President Obama has commandeered this elastic doctrine of prosecutorial discretion and stretched or manipulated it beyond all recognition and reason. It has become his political Gumby toy with which he exerts his will whenever he fails to get his way with Congress. He contorts the word “discretion” to adopt a capacious policy -- his own policy -- to ban full enforcement of a duly enacted immigration statute. He treats the doctrine as a magical incantation shielding his arbitrariness.

    2. Usurping Legislative Authority

    Our Constitution clearly delineates a separation of powers. Congress is vested with writing laws and the President is charged with executing those laws. This is especially true when it comes to immigration.

    At the end of the 19th century, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had “plenary power” (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.”

    Yet President Obama has decided to usurp this power by unilateral directive, unconstrained by established checks and balances. In so doing, he is granting himself extra-constitutional authority and upsetting the carefully balanced separation of powers. He is also subverting the nucleus of our constitutional design: the rule of law.

    3. Breaching His Sworn Duty

    President Obama’s decision that existing laws shall not be enforced against some 5 million illegal immigrants violates his sworn constitutional duty. Article II, Section 3 requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Nowhere is it written that the chief executive is granted the latitude to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. He cannot ignore or nullify laws he does not like because the constitution gives him no power not to execute laws. To infer such latitude would invite an authoritarian rule anathema to our founding fathers’ vision. President Obama admitted as much when he said, “The fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.” He was specifically talking about immigration laws.

    In 1996, Congress passed a law which requires federal immigration agents to deport illegal immigrants, with few exceptions. The statutory language is mandatory. Thus, whatever prosecutorial discretion which may have existed previously, was specifically eliminated by that legislative act. Yet, the President is now, in effect, ordering those agents to break the law. He cannot, on his own, engage in a de facto repeal of this law by executive action. To do so would be, quite simply, lawlessness and a dereliction of his duty.

    If President Obama can refuse to enforce a valid federal law affecting millions of people, are there any limits to his powers? After all, he has frequently threatened, “Where Congress won’t act, I will.” What is to stop him from rewriting other laws with which he disagrees? Or to act where Congress has declined or refused to act? Can he abolish certain tax laws because Congress chooses to keep them? Can he banish all sources of energy except renewables to advance his agenda on climate change? If so, why even have a legislative branch of government? What’s the point of a Constitution which enumerates and circumscribes powers and duties?

    Men like Madison, Jefferson and Adams were keenly aware of the tyranny and corruption of authority concentrated in too few hands. They knew the thirst for power posed an existential danger to those who cherish freedom. Their genius was in crafting a sustaining document that would end the arrogance of one man rule and protect the inherent rights of all men. They knew that absolute power corrupts.

    And they feared future presidents like Mr. Obama.

    In the history of our republic, no president has dared turn his high office into an instrument of unrestrained power. They held too much respect for their fellow citizens than to abuse or misuse the principles of our democracy. Even Lincoln’s actions to preserve the nation during the Civil War were grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.

    But, like the title of his autobiography, Mr. Obama’s measure of himself seems defined by the word “audacity.” It is no more evident than now.

    Three things that are illegal about Obama's immigration plan | Fox News
    Ultimately we will have to wait to see what the courts say, but just as you believe that he is within his power, and broke no law, I believe he has....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    No they don't think he will stop doing whatever he wants. Its for the record.....does the letter of Disapproval go down on The record? Is it like a stain or black mark on a record? Its not suppose to do anything other than that.


    As for the attorney deal.....do you think a Border State can sue for all the services it has to provide? Why do Attorney General's think that is so?
    I assume you presume that by not pursuing illegals in border states, the public service systems would be overwhelmed in those states. I don't think these states would be subject to any harm simply because illegal aliens are already using said systems. Furthermore, federal and in some cases state laws allow it (i.e., access to public health services, enrollment in public schools, English language training, etc.). Law enforcement might trying to claim they would be overwhelmed, but the EO provides provision to go after those illegal aliens who commit criminal acts AND deport them.

    So, I don't think the states could make such claims considering most if not all are already fully engaged in providing such public services even before this EO was ever made. As such, individuals and the states would not have legal stating to claim legal, moral, financial or even social harm.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,721

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post



    Ultimately we will have to wait to see what the courts say, but just as you believe that he is within his power, and broke no law, I believe he has....
    thank you for posting that - again. I missed it the first time.

    I think much of what you posted is what many here have already stated - past presidents of both parties have expanded executive powers and have gotten away with it due to a wiling Congress and Courts which failed to stop them. This has been going on for a very long time now.

    So why the line in the sand now at this time and with this President over this issue?

    Please let me correct one false impression: I do NOT think the actual powers in the US Constitution support the actions of Obama here. I further think they are NOT what what was written nor envisioned for the powers of the President.

    My point is different: that particular ship has long ago sailed and Congress and the Courts have been complicit in allowing the expansion of the imperial presidency. So today we are at a situation where the balance of power is indeed out of whack and not what the Constitution wanted it to be.

    So we then enter a political realm as to what to do about it and how.

    I agree with you that the courts will have the final say. In the end, I strongly suspect that the actions will be upheld and ruled as legal.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-24-14 at 12:15 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I assume you presume that by not pursuing illegals in border states, the public service systems would be overwhelmed in those states. I don't think these states would be subject to any harm simply because illegal aliens are already using said systems. Furthermore, federal and in some cases state laws allow it (i.e., access to public health services, enrollment in public schools, English language training, etc.). Law enforcement might trying to claim they would be overwhelmed, but the EO provides provision to go after those illegal aliens who commit criminal acts AND deport them.

    So, I don't think the states could make such claims considering most if not all are already fully engaged in providing such public services even before this EO was ever made. As such, individuals and the states would not have legal stating to claim legal, moral, financial or even social harm.


    If they have to use a states services.....then grievances can be shown. Also the Fed will more than likely have to reimburse. Which I'll bet they would do, rather than let it get to SCOTUS.

  9. #169
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Sure, but that doesn't change the legalities of a lawsuit.
    Good morning Rocket - I'm missing your point. You don't believe the House has standing to launch such a lawsuit?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  10. #170
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    thank you for posting that - again. I missed it the first time.

    I think much of what you posted is what many here have already stated - past presidents of both parties have expanded executive powers and have gotten away with it due to a wiling Congress and Courts which failed to stop them. This has been going on for a very long time now.

    So why the line in the sand now at this time and with this President over this issue?

    Please let me correct one false impression: I do NOT think the actual powers in the US Constitution support the actions of Obama here. I further think they are NOT what what was written nor envisioned for the powers of the President.

    My point is different: that particular ship has long ago sailed and Congress and the Courts have been complicit in allowing the expansion of the imperial presidency. So today we are at a situation where the balance of power is indeed out of whack and not what the Constitution wanted it to be.

    So we then enter a political realm as to what to do about it and how.

    I agree with you that the courts will have the final say. In the end, I strongly suspect that the actions will be upheld and ruled as legal.
    Well stated hay....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •