• 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

MMC said:
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?
Click to expand...

I suspect that Turley is in this for the money. The other issue that could stop this suit dead in its tracks is starting in Jan, this is a new congress who did not vote against the ACA.
 
rocket88 said:
Of course they could. 10 bucks says there's no way they will.
Click to expand...
And the gauntlets keep dropping.

Indeed, that's Obamnesty's subtextual commandment: gird for battle!
 
Ontologuy said:
And the gauntlets keep dropping.

Indeed, that's Obamnesty's subtextual commandment: gird for battle!
Click to expand...

Considering that there's basically no difference between the two major parties....they won't. They'll just have Fox start spinning the story that it was all their idea in the first place so they can take credit.
 
MMC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Last lawyer couldnt do ****. Its gonna be funny when this one cant find anything. Its typical the GOP will yell and scream about this for a week, then it will slowly, just like the last "lawsuit" fade away.
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Ontologuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Congress passing legislation should be pretty easy if they are 'vehemently' against it.

But they are not. At least not all of them. And the sensible part of the GOP knows by going ape**** over the issue t is going to really kill them with voters in 2016. But the dominant nutbag part of the party doesnt get that, and will quite likely torpedo the party over this issue over the next year.

Remember when the GOP said that immigration reform was their 'top issue' back in 2012? Obama has just forced them to actually make it their top issue. And all things point to the outcomes looking bad and nativist sentiment dominating. And we are probably going to see an amazing implosion as the Steve King's of the world become the mouthpiece of the GOP on immigration, and Boehner cries in his whiskey.
 
MMC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

That might work except for the fact that he really doesn't care one bit if we disapprove - it's just a bunch of words on a piece of paper that would mean nothing to him. Look at the response he made after the Supreme Court voted unanimously that he was over-reaching his authority. He basically told them in response "watch me do it again!" What he wants is more important to him, and we should just give him everything he wants and STFU! People like Jonathon Turley and others aren't ready to do that, though, since they know BHO doesn't have the authority to do anything he feels like doing, so here we go again via the legal system.
 
rocket88 said:
Considering that there's basically no difference between the two major parties....they won't. They'll just have Fox start spinning the story that it was all their idea in the first place so they can take credit.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing this "basically no difference between the two major parties" nonsense and wonder what the speakers are smoking!

Likely they're smoking Libertarian or Independent "tobacco".

If you don't like either party, okay, that's fair enough.

But to speak as if one is oblivious to the huge reality of the liberal Democrats that so greatly differs from the conservative Republicans in just obvious policy positions and associated behaviors alone ..

.. Well, I'm just sayin' "NO!" to your toking offer. ;)
 
Carleen said:
I suspect that Turley is in this for the money. The other issue that could stop this suit dead in its tracks is starting in Jan, this is a new congress who did not vote against the ACA.
Click to expand...


Its not for the money. Think like Dennis Kucinich.....wherein he told BO, that while he liked BO. He luved the Constitution more!



Law professor, Obama supporter and outspoken liberal Jonathan Turley, a man considered to be a champion of liberal and progressive causes, was interviewed on MSNBC's Hardball tonight and asked his opinion on John Boehner suing the president. Fill-in host Steve Kornacki asked him "Legally speaking" did Boehner have "any kind of a case here?" He responded by saying:


" Oh, I think there is a case against the president for exceeding his authority. I happen to agree with the president on many of his priorities and policies, but as I testified in Congress, I think that he has crossed the constitutional line."

Jonathan Turley: Obama Has Effectively Rewritten Laws, "He Has Crossed The Constitutional Line" | Video | RealClearPolitics



In comments to The Wall Street Journal last week, Mr. Turley said that Mr. Obama’s pending action is likely illegal given its scope. “Presidents have long claimed a high degree of discretion in the immigration area and courts have generally deferred to such decisions when they relate to priorities in enforcement,” he said. “However, the sheer size of this proposed change magnifies the already great concerns under the separation of powers.”.....snip~

House Republicans Hire Jonathan Turley to Pursue Obama Lawsuit - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
polgara said:
Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

That might work except for the fact that he really doesn't care one bit if we disapprove - it's just a bunch of words on a piece of paper that would mean nothing to him. Look at the response he made after the Supreme Court voted unanimously that he was over-reaching his authority. He basically told them in response "watch me do it again!" What he wants is more important to him, and we should just give him everything he wants and STFU! People like Jonathon Turley and others aren't ready to do that, though, since they know BHO doesn't have the authority to do anything he feels like doing, so here we go again via the legal system.
Click to expand...


That's alright if BO don't care Lady P.....lets ask his kids in a couple of decades.
evil6.gif
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm pretty sure that Congress passing legislation should be pretty easy if they are 'vehemently' against it.

But they are not. At least not all of them. And the sensible part of the GOP knows by going ape**** over the issue t is going to really kill them with voters in 2016. But the dominant nutbag part of the party doesnt get that, and will quite likely torpedo the party over this issue over the next year.

Remember when the GOP said that immigration reform was their 'top issue' back in 2012? Obama has just forced them to actually make it their top issue. And all things point to the outcomes looking bad and nativist sentiment dominating. And we are probably going to see an amazing implosion as the Steve King's of the world become the mouthpiece of the GOP on immigration, and Boehner cries in his whiskey.
Click to expand...
Your wishful party thinking is simply that.

The Republicans aren't going to just lie down and surrender the battle for the 2016 White House.

As long as there is an electoral college, there will be battleground states that can make an election just like in 2000 ..

.. And, the majority of the people in those states oppose Obamnesty. :shock:

So you can bet the Repubs are gonna push Obamnesty in the face of always-resident American citizens, all but insuring GOP victory in 2016.

It simply doesn't matter how many left-wingers in total population there are in California, New York, and Illinois.

What matters is the way things are right now, the same breakdown as it was in 2000: who gets the most electoral votes: http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/02/28/508270/ElectoralCollege2000.png.

If it's former Florida governor Jeb Bush, let's say, vs. Monica Lewinsky's impeached ex-boyfriend's wife, that alone will swing Pennsylvania to red and assure Florida remains red .. and the Dems are as good as .. Gored. :cool:
 
CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Millions of voters in the midterms showed what they thought! That's good enough for me. If Obama doesn't get to be a dictator, someone from the other party might also try if this bull**** isn't stopped. Wonder how the Dems would feel then?
 
polgara said:
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Millions of voters in the midterms showed what they thought! That's good enough for me. If Obama doesn't get to be a dictator, someone from the other party might also try if this bull**** isn't stopped. Wonder how the Dems would feel then?
Click to expand...


That's what BO was looking to avoid. Btw Avon couldn't leave a message. ;)
 
polgara said:
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Millions of voters in the midterms showed what they thought! That's good enough for me. If Obama doesn't get to be a dictator, someone from the other party might also try if this bull**** isn't stopped. Wonder how the Dems would feel then?
Click to expand...

Good afternoon Lady P.

The "your guy did it so my guy can do it" argument also amuses/befuddles me. If something is wrong and should be stopped, all right thinking people should be on board, regardless of who's leading at any given time. Illegality shouldn't be nuanced by ideology.
 
Lawsuit won't be going anywhere, as Congress has no standing in the case. Obamacare will be here until at least 2016. There are only 2 ways that the GOP can kill Obamacare.....

1) Refuse to fund it, via the power of the purse, and when Obama vetoes the legislation, get 2/3 vote in each chamber to override the veto.

2) Win the presidency, and keep both chambers of Congress in 2016, and then eliminate the filibuster entirely at that time.
 
Ontologuy said:
I keep hearing this "basically no difference between the two major parties" nonsense and wonder what the speakers are smoking!

Likely they're smoking Libertarian or Independent "tobacco".

If you don't like either party, okay, that's fair enough.

But to speak as if one is oblivious to the huge reality of the liberal Democrats that so greatly differs from the conservative Republicans in just obvious policy positions and associated behaviors alone ..

.. Well, I'm just sayin' "NO!" to your toking offer. ;)
Click to expand...
Conservative Republicans are not in charge. Establishment Republicans are. There is little difference between Democrats and Establishment Republicans.
 
MMC said:
That's what BO was looking to avoid. Btw Avon couldn't leave a message. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe, but maybe not. If the law interpretation changes, yes. If not, we can probably look for more of the same. "If at first you don't succeed,"...you know the rest.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon Lady P.

The "your guy did it so my guy can do it" argument also amuses/befuddles me.
Click to expand...
It's called precedent. One definition is - something done or said that can be used as an example or rule to be followed in the future.

If something is wrong and should be stopped, all right thinking people should be on board, regardless of who's leading at any given time. Illegality shouldn't be nuanced by ideology.
Click to expand...
If it's wrong it should be stopped. If it is wrong and, by silence, it was approved of before, why all the hub bub now? That's the question liberals, are asking.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree in principal, and I don't really think the issue should be partisan. The problem is there is a long line of POTUS exercising authority with very little pushback from Congress. It has always amazed me in a way for Congress to sit and watch their power getting stripped. The whole Unitary Executive argument from the Bush admin was an argument for unlimited authority on the part of the POTUS to direct the executive branch, and so if POTUS decided to not enforce a law with executive branch personnel, he had that right. Obama as far as I can tell has simply assumed that authority with the deadlines of the ACA.

So I would welcome a lawsuit in theory that tested those boundaries. From what I've read the difficulty is that drawing a clear line is very difficult without trampling on well established executive discretion. Here's one article: Obama Immigration Executive Action: Why It Will Be Legal | New Republic

Just a few quotes:

As the Supreme Court declared in United States v. Nixon, “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.”

In 1800, then congressman and later Chief Justice John Marshall stated, the president may “direct that the criminal be prosecuted no further” because it is “the exercise of an indubitable and constitutional power.”

In 2013, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit, appointed by George W. Bush, offered a strong defense: “The president may decline to prosecute certain violators of federal law just as the president may pardon certain violators of federal law,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “The president may decline to prosecute or may pardon because of the president’s own constitutional concerns about a law or because of policy objections to the law, among other reasons.”
Click to expand...

So how does one force the POTUS to levy penalties or criminal charges on companies that don't comply with ACA requirements without removing the discretion he has in enforcing thousands of other laws to the fullest extent? It's not an easy thing to do.
 
MMC said:
Its not for the money]
In comments to The Wall Street Journal last week, Mr. Turley said that Mr. Obama’s pending action is likely illegal given its scope. “Presidents have long claimed a high degree of discretion in the immigration area and courts have generally deferred to such decisions when they relate to priorities in enforcement,” he said. “However, the sheer size of this proposed change magnifies the already great concerns under the separation of powers.”.....snip~

House Republicans Hire Jonathan Turley to Pursue Obama Lawsuit - Washington Wire - WSJ
Click to expand...

That's the problem from what I've read - all Presidents have exercised immigration discretion, so the question is how do we draw that line. We can only deport about 400,000 per year with current resources, so it's not OK presumably to say, "We will not deport ________ " but is it then OK to just not bring any of them up in front of the deportation panels, and only choose to prosecute people not in that category?

Another related question is with regard to pot in the states that now allow it. It's still against federal law, so would Turley require the POTUS to enforce pot laws in Colorado? He seems to support the POTUS not cracking down on pot sellers in states where it's legal. See here.

Point is it's very hard to want the POTUS to have discretion, but only so much and only to do what you want him to enforce, but still retain the discretion to not enforce other stuff, like pot laws.
 
BWG said:
It's called precedent. One definition is - something done or said that can be used as an example or rule to be followed in the future.


If it's wrong it should be stopped. If it is wrong and, by silence, it was approved of before, why all the hub bub now? That's the question liberals, are asking.
Click to expand...

The more you give lawlessness free rein, the more lawlessness will reign.
 
JasperL said:
I agree in principal, and I don't really think the issue should be partisan. The problem is there is a long line of POTUS exercising authority with very little pushback from Congress. It has always amazed me in a way for Congress to sit and watch their power getting stripped. The whole Unitary Executive argument from the Bush admin was an argument for unlimited authority on the part of the POTUS to direct the executive branch, and so if POTUS decided to not enforce a law with executive branch personnel, he had that right. Obama as far as I can tell has simply assumed that authority with the deadlines of the ACA.

So I would welcome a lawsuit in theory that tested those boundaries. From what I've read the difficulty is that drawing a clear line is very difficult without trampling on well established executive discretion. Here's one article: Obama Immigration Executive Action: Why It Will Be Legal | New Republic

Just a few quotes:



So how does one force the POTUS to levy penalties or criminal charges on companies that don't comply with ACA requirements without removing the discretion he has in enforcing thousands of other laws to the fullest extent? It's not an easy thing to do.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments - one of the most reasoned responses to the OP that I've seen.

It still amazes me, frankly, that a country that was born out of the tyranny of a monarch so readily gave what seem to me regal powers to a single man/woman who happens to hold the Presidency.
 
JasperL said:
That's the problem from what I've read - all Presidents have exercised immigration discretion, so the question is how do we draw that line. We can only deport about 400,000 per year with current resources, so it's not OK presumably to say, "We will not deport ________ " but is it then OK to just not bring any of them up in front of the deportation panels, and only choose to prosecute people not in that category?

Another related question is with regard to pot in the states that now allow it. It's still against federal law, so would Turley require the POTUS to enforce pot laws in Colorado? He seems to support the POTUS not cracking down on pot sellers in states where it's legal. See here.

Point is it's very hard to want the POTUS to have discretion, but only so much and only to do what you want him to enforce, but still retain the discretion to not enforce other stuff, like pot laws.
Click to expand...

I like your analogy, with the exception that those pot laws are counterbalanced by State legislation that legalizes pot use. There are no such "amnesty" laws established in border States, that I know of, that would be consistent with the approach the President is taking. In fact, I'd say the will of the majority in those States is likely just the opposite.
 
JasperL said:
That's the problem from what I've read - all Presidents have exercised immigration discretion, so the question is how do we draw that line. We can only deport about 400,000 per year with current resources, so it's not OK presumably to say, "We will not deport ________ " but is it then OK to just not bring any of them up in front of the deportation panels, and only choose to prosecute people not in that category?

Another related question is with regard to pot in the states that now allow it. It's still against federal law, so would Turley require the POTUS to enforce pot laws in Colorado? He seems to support the POTUS not cracking down on pot sellers in states where it's legal. See here.

Point is it's very hard to want the POTUS to have discretion, but only so much and only to do what you want him to enforce, but still retain the discretion to not enforce other stuff, like pot laws.
Click to expand...


His creation of New Amnesty Program is where he overreaches.....the rest is the expansion of his DACA.



How is Obama justifying this amnesty?

The Office of Legal Counsel memo released before Obama's speech cites Obama's Article II Section 3 constitutional duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as the source of his power to grant this amnesty.

The memo reasons that since there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the country today, and DHS only has the resources to remove 400,000 illegal immigrants every year, Obama must choose which immigrants to deport and which to ignore. This "prosecutorial discretion" power, the memo claims, allows Obama to choose which illegal immigrants get work permits, which illegal immigrants will continue to be ignored, and which illegal immigrants will be deported.

Under this legal theory, Obama could give all current 11.3 million illegal immigrants work permits and driver's licenses, as long as he kept deporting at least 400,000 illegal border crossers every year.....snip~
 
MMC said:
His creation of New Amnesty Program is where he overreaches.....the rest is the expansion of his DACA.



How is Obama justifying this amnesty?

The Office of Legal Counsel memo released before Obama's speech cites Obama's Article II Section 3 constitutional duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as the source of his power to grant this amnesty.

The memo reasons that since there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the country today, and DHS only has the resources to remove 400,000 illegal immigrants every year, Obama must choose which immigrants to deport and which to ignore. This "prosecutorial discretion" power, the memo claims, allows Obama to choose which illegal immigrants get work permits, which illegal immigrants will continue to be ignored, and which illegal immigrants will be deported.

Under this legal theory, Obama could give all current 11.3 million illegal immigrants work permits and driver's licenses, as long as he kept deporting at least 400,000 illegal border crossers every year.....snip~
Click to expand...

Here's the problem MMC. Obama can certainly determine that illegal aliens will not be prosecuted. That is wholly within his power as chief executive. However, Obama cannot claim that these illegals are here legally by virtue of his order, and reward them with work permits and so on. That is not within his power. That power resides with congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom