• 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!

House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
[FONT=proxima_nova_rgregular]House Republicans on Friday filed a long-awaited lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of overstepping his executive authority when implementing his signature health care law.[/FONT][FONT=proxima_nova_rgregular]And though the suit is centered on the Affordable Care Act, the GOP moved on the legal action the morning after the president announced he will unilaterally grant temporary relief to millions of undocumented immigrants.[/FONT]
[FONT=proxima_nova_rgregular]


[/FONT]

[FONT=proxima_nova_rgregular]"Time after time, the president has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress. That's not the way our system of government was designed to work,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action."


Read more @: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

So it begins. Suspecting this to go absolutely nowhere. Just another stunt. [/FONT]
 
Assuming the GOP wins the lawsuit, exactly what action can be taken against Obama from this?
 
Truth be told the action has merit, by the rules if the executive branch cannot adhere to legislation for some reason then legislation has to revisit the issue on what is to be done to remedy the matter. In this case the action is right, Obama was not granted under ACA the ability to move dates around on the various stages of implementation for ability to or political reasons. Because we are off course for whatever reason, then ACA should have had another go in the legislative branch to bridge whatever the problems were.

We know why that did not happen though. Politics. Once the 112th Congress included a Republican House there was no way for Congress to agree on moving dates around and ACA would be dead in the water, a failed implementation with dates missed. The 112th House was busy trying to repeal ACA while Obama was making ACA implement on a politically safer schedule.

The whole thing is absurd but this immigration debate is going to make things far worse. This 114th Congress and Obama will mean 2 more years of no solutions, no compromise, and few acting within the confines of the Constitution. If anything, Obama fired the first shot backing Republicans into a corner. Obama clearly acted outside his authority and there is no real remedy other than this, perhaps follow up legislation, and possibly impeachment.
 
Assuming the GOP wins the lawsuit, exactly what action can be taken against Obama from this?

GOP leaders can use the White House sauna on alternate Thursday afternoons.
 
Read more @: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

So it begins. Suspecting this to go absolutely nowhere. Just another stunt. [/FONT][/COLOR]


"What" everything the Repubs do is a stunt.....huh? Did you note who their attorney is now?

Looks like they will go with all they can do.


Republican Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, who will serve as the new chairman for the House Homeland Security, warns Obama's action is a threat to American democracy and vows to use his new position to stop the "unconstitutional action."

As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I will use every tool at my disposal to stop the president’s unconstitutional actions from being implemented.”.....snip~

Obama: My Executive Action Isn't Amnesty and It's Lawful - Katie Pavlich
 



"What" everything the Repubs do is a stunt.....huh? Did you note who their attorney is now?

Looks like they will go with all they can do.


Republican Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, who will serve as the new chairman for the House Homeland Security, warns Obama's action is a threat to American democracy and vows to use his new position to stop the "unconstitutional action."

As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I will use every tool at my disposal to stop the president’s unconstitutional actions from being implemented.”.....snip~

Obama: My Executive Action Isn't Amnesty and It's Lawful - Katie Pavlich

Just like their las lawsuit. Lawyer who was helping the GOP said it had no basis and refused to take it.
 
Just like their las lawsuit. Lawyer who was helping the GOP said it had no basis and refused to take it.

Well, this time it is the Liberal Constitutional Lawyer and Professor Jonathon Turley.

Who has called for BO's overreach to be put in check.....and balanced government.

So not so much like the last two at all.....huh?
 
Well, this time it is the Liberal Constitutional Lawyer and Professor Jonathon Turley.

Who has called for BO's overreach to be put in check.....and balanced government.

So not so much like the last two at all.....huh?

Good luck. Its a stunt just like their 40 odd times to repeal the ACA.
 
Read more @: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

So it begins. Suspecting this to go absolutely nowhere. Just another stunt. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Why not wait until January 2015, when the Repubs will control both chambers of Congress, to undo everything from Mr. Obama
that they don't like. January 2015 will be the time to show that they are the party that can govern. Can't blame the prez anymore.
Filing a lawsuit at this point is just plain silly.
 
Assuming the GOP wins the lawsuit, exactly what action can be taken against Obama from this?

No action against the president unless congress wants to initiate actions such as censure or impeachment. Now how the ruling if that happens by the SCOTUS would affect the ACA is unknown. There are so many ways the SCOTUS could rule on this, from immediate impletation of the whole law to going back to the original dates that were moved and make what ever applied effective on those date. Anyone's guess.
 
Good luck. Its a stunt just like their 40 odd times to repeal the ACA.

How was it a stunt for Turley a liberal Law Professor and attorney to take on a case for Conservatives? Must mean there is something bigger than the Repubs party, huh?

There are those on the left that believe in a Constitution and Rule of Law.....as well as a Democratic Republic. Of that you can be assured.
 
No action against the president unless congress wants to initiate actions such as censure or impeachment. Now how the ruling if that happens by the SCOTUS would affect the ACA is unknown. There are so many ways the SCOTUS could rule on this, from immediate impletation of the whole law to going back to the original dates that were moved and make what ever applied effective on those date. Anyone's guess.

They also can write up a Letter of Disapproval. One from the people too. ;)

Publicly for the record......as in We the People Disapprove of your unlawful acts and lawlessness......



......now STFU and prepare for pasture.


Okay, I added the ending. As That's what I would tell him if I got to deliver the message.

Also to take that bass out of voice and remember who he is talking to. :lol:
 
How was it a stunt for Turley a liberal Law Professor and attorney to take on a case for Conservatives? Must mean there is something bigger than the Repubs party, huh?
Congrats. Does this mean its going to go anywhere and make it less of a stunt simply because he is a liberal?

There are those on the left that believe in a Constitution and Rule of Law.....as well as a Democratic Republic. Of that you can be assured.
See you keep on going back to the constitution. It was held up as constitutional. Using this rhetoric just proves its another stunt.
 
Assuming the GOP wins the lawsuit, exactly what action can be taken against Obama from this?
Historically, the SCOTUS can overturn an executive order if it's unclear the EO is supported by law and the Congress is vehemently against it.

In addition, Congress can pass legislation that overrides it, or a budget that excludes the EO funding, though the President can veto it .. quite the can of worms.

But, a new sitting President can issue an EO to rescind a previous sitting President's EO. :roll:

That's right, if a Republican is elected in 2016, let's say, he can immediately rescind Obamnesty with an EO of his own!

Obamnesty is really only a public relations manipulation of illegal aliens designed to move them along to Democratic Party membership, at quite the risk to these illegal aliens, and to throw down the gauntlet centerpiece of the 2016 Presidential election to begin mustering the Democratic Party troops to prepare for battle.

It has no real teeth.

His action point #3 doesn't grant anything permanent -- he was careful to say this is all "temporary" -- so his making of an amnesty list of those whom the INS agents can't deport, that list can be torn up by his successor at will. :shock:

The battle for 2016 has begun.
 
Last edited:
Read more @: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

So it begins. Suspecting this to go absolutely nowhere. Just another stunt. [/FONT][/COLOR]

As I posted before:

gop-immigration.jpg
 
Read more @: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

So it begins. Suspecting this to go absolutely nowhere. Just another stunt. [/FONT][/COLOR]

I always find it interesting when matters of legal/constitutional principle are simply reduced to political name calling and accusations of "another stunt".

Seems to me, most Americans would like to have the courts rule on the extent of a President's executive authority/ability to ignore law when a President's very oath of office has him declaring to uphold the laws of the republic.

Personally, I think courts are a good, dispassionate, forum for hashing out these differences.
 
Historically, the SCOTUS can overturn an executive action if it's unclear the EO is supported by law and the Congress is vehemently against it.

In addition, Congress can pass legislation that overrides it, or a budget that excludes the EO funding, though the President can veto it .. quite the can of worms.

But, a new sitting President can issue an EO to rescind a previous sitting President's EO. :roll:

That's right, if a Republican is elected in 2016, let's say, he can immediately rescind Obamnesty with an EO of his own!

Obamnesty is really only a public relations manipulation of illegal aliens designed to move them along to Democratic Party membership, at quite the risk to these illegal aliens, and to throw down the gauntlet centerpiece of the 2016 Presidential election to begin mustering the Democratic Party troops to prepare for battle.

It has no real teeth.

His action point #3 doesn't grant anything permanent -- he's was careful to say this is all "temporary" -- so his making of an amnesty list of those whom the INS agents can't deport, that list can be torn up by his successor at will. :shock:

The battle for 2016 has begun.

Of course they could. 10 bucks says there's no way they will.
 
Congrats. Does this mean its going to go anywhere and make it less of a stunt simply because he is a liberal?


See you keep on going back to the constitution. It was held up as constitutional. Using this rhetoric just proves its another stunt.


Sure, because he is one of the top Constitutional Attorneys in the Country. Uhm, that's active before the SCOTUS too.

Moreover he was one who the left would look to go to take on Repubs. So definitely a difference than being represented from other attorneys from the Right or alleged Independent status.
 
Is it better than the Senate jacuzzi though?

Well the Senate one does have lots of overweight guys in their sixties sporting man boobs so I guess it depends on your personal preference.
 
I always find it interesting when matters of legal/constitutional principle are simply reduced to political name calling and accusations of "another stunt".

Seems to me, most Americans would like to have the courts rule on the extent of a President's executive authority/ability to ignore law when a President's very oath of office has him declaring to uphold the laws of the republic.

Personally, I think courts are a good, dispassionate, forum for hashing out these differences.

It is a stunt though. I wonder if a court would even rule they have standing. Usually there has to be evidence that the plaintiff was harmed in some way.
 
Well the Senate one does have lots of overweight guys in their sixties sporting man boobs so I guess it depends on your personal preference.

Yeah but if they all get to use the WH sauna, then that'll just be filled with the same folks.
 
Back
Top Bottom