• 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!

Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 36.5%
  • No

    Votes: 27 51.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 11.5%

  • Total voters
    52
Simple question: Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

I realize president Obama has not utilized numbers wise the quantity of executive orders that a lot of his predecessors have. But I think the quality of his executive orders has exceeded all other presidents and gone possibly beyond the realm of being constitutional. Even so, I am not a fan of the lawsuit. Congress as a co-equal branch has the power to reign in the president if it had the desire. The fact the Republican House wants to and the Democratic controlled Senate does not, does not negate the power of congress if congress as a whole wanted to act.



If the Democrats in congress are willing to let the president have his way, a sort of an imperial president. That is not the courts problem, it is a political problem. I doubt if a federal judge will even hear the case. But if one does I am sure he will throw it right back at congress and basically say if you think the president has overstepped his bounds, then use your own powers and do something about it.
 
I just wish Republicans would cut the pretext.

This is nothing but a way to appease their hardliners and raise campaign cash.

For a legislative body that cannot even ban it's own members from insider trading, Congress of any party affiliation has no right to sit in judgement of anyone as one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet.
 
Actually, they're pretty much identical on everything. Foreign policy, immigration, drug policy, expansion of executive power, Bush wrote the Patriot Act while Obama extended it, government surveillance, the debt ceiling, both have significantly increased the national debt, civil liberties, and more. Face it: you like Obama because he's a Democrat. It's better to acknowledge it and fix it than to continue denying it.

Here's an article you should look into:

The Humble Libertarian: Bush 2.0: 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. Bush

One is a religious fanatic who thinks god told him to wage holy war on the Muslims, fought to oppress gays, opposed gender equality, and had as his only economic policy helping his rich buddies get richer at the expense of everyone else, which is why we have a big recession. The other did not do those things. Turns out there are a lot more issues than just the ones you care about.

I return to my original question, though. What are congressional Republicans asking the court to do?
 
Simple question: Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

I voted yes. I seriously doubt Obama will still be in office when this lawsuit reaches the SCOTUS. I agree with the lawsuit because it will set straight what a president can and can't use an executive order for. I seriously doubt you would want a president who is actually conservative to use executive orders to deny funding to planned parenthood and use another executive order to stop the affordable care act without the approval of congress and senate.
 
Obama needs to be taught a lesson.

1. He doesn't want to enforce the laws of the land...unless they are to his political advantage.

2. He complains about Republicans in Congress not doing what he wants them to do...for not working with him...but he doesn't work with the Republicans and he doesn't complain about the Democrats in Congress blocking every attempt the Republicans make to work things out.

3. He uses this as an excuse to take the law into his own hands by means of EO's.

4. The President cannot write laws...enforce laws that are not written...change laws that have been passed by Congress.

If the Republicans prevail in the lawsuit, Obama will be taught a lesson. Whether he actually LEARNS the lesson is another thing. He also has a history of ignoring court rulings. He has actually earned a contempt of court ruling in the past. I suspect he'll earn another one soon.
 
I realize president Obama has not utilized numbers wise the quantity of executive orders that a lot of his predecessors have. But I think the quality of his executive orders has exceeded all other presidents and gone possibly beyond the realm of being constitutional. Even so, I am not a fan of the lawsuit. Congress as a co-equal branch has the power to reign in the president if it had the desire. The fact the Republican House wants to and the Democratic controlled Senate does not, does not negate the power of congress if congress as a whole wanted to act.



If the Democrats in congress are willing to let the president have his way, a sort of an imperial president. That is not the courts problem, it is a political problem. I doubt if a federal judge will even hear the case. But if one does I am sure he will throw it right back at congress and basically say if you think the president has overstepped his bounds, then use your own powers and do something about it.


and the only "real power" that the house wields is the power of the purse

yeah....i dont think many on that side want to use that power right before an election

the time to use that has passed.....

but if this continues, i wouldnt be surprised to see them use it once november elections are over
 
i guess that is what we are going to find out...isnt it?

those on the left are aghast....what laws? what has he done?

those on the right are perplexed that those on the left cant see through their rose colored glasses

so....we will get a judge, and a federal court to decide

or at least i think that is where this will end up....

Usually when you sue someone you sue someone over a specific point.... And usually when you claim someone is doing something illegal you lay out speicifcs of what that person is doing that is illegal.
 
Usually when you sue someone you sue someone over a specific point.... And usually when you claim someone is doing something illegal you lay out speicifcs of what that person is doing that is illegal.


havent you read the lawsuit

what do you think it says?
 
What specific executive actions has Obama taken that violate this?[/QUOTE
Those situations are stated in the action. Read it.

To suggest this action is only partisan politics is a lack of awareness or simply ignoring the Contitutional structure of this Republic and political history.

Enjoy the read, then opine on your observations.

Have a great day DS

Thom Paine
 
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States



when you read the law, and it says "may" that is at the discretion of the president to do.

when you read the law, and it says "shall" that is something the president must do, its mandatory
 
havent you read the lawsuit

what do you think it says?

"He did not faithfully uphold the elections and he used illegal authority to enact laws". Again Ill ask you what has he done that is illegal?
 
"He did not faithfully uphold the elections and he used illegal authority to enact laws". Again Ill ask you what has he done that is illegal?

is that all it said?

or are there specifics laid out in the suit?

btw...i am not an attorney....nor do i portray one on a debate forum board

i read what you read....

you can agree with the suit or not....no skin off my nose one way or the either

maybe you should call the speaker if you need to know what he was thinking

but...something tells me you are just trying to bait me into an argument

thanks...but no thanks
 
is that all it said?

or are there specifics laid out in the suit?

btw...i am not an attorney....nor do i portray one on a debate forum board

i read what you read....

you can agree with the suit or not....no skin off my nose one way or the either

maybe you should call the speaker if you need to know what he was thinking

but...something tells me you are just trying to bait me into an argument

thanks...but no thanks

Just saying if you think someone should be sued shouldnt you know at least some of the details for why he is being sued instead of just jumping behind rhetoric?
 
But executive orders are completely legal and constitutional.

Executive orders are wonderfully manipulative tools to use when you can't get congress to do exactly what you want them to; especially after disparaging them in public.

What a uniter.
 
"He did not faithfully uphold the elections and he used illegal authority to enact laws". Again Ill ask you what has he done that is illegal?

While I don't believe impeachment is in any way reasonable or intelligent at the moment, there is legitimate argument behind the notion that his failure to notify congress prior to the prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl was an illegal act.

I don't believe any of his executive orders or the rest of his executive actions have been "illegal", as I don't believe that he did any of them with clear and purposeful intent to violate the constitution but truthfully believed he was acting faithfully in line with the constitution, but I do think there's a reasonable argument to be made that some of his executive orders and actions have potentially been unconstitutional in that they're outside the scope of what the President can do within the realm of our checks and balances.
 
Just saying if you think someone should be sued shouldnt you know at least some of the details for why he is being sued instead of just jumping behind rhetoric?


what did i vote on the poll?

and you seem to be apprehensive about the subject....care to expound on why?
 
sure, I support it.... it won't be successful ( the courts will kick it back to congress to handle as a political problem), but I support it nonetheless.


nothing bad can come from it... only good.
 
and the only "real power" that the house wields is the power of the purse

yeah....i dont think many on that side want to use that power right before an election

the time to use that has passed.....

but if this continues, i wouldnt be surprised to see them use it once november elections are over

I think if the GOP can gain the senate, the next two years will be mighty interesting.
 
What statement? That they're hypocrites and or that they're are too focused on petty partisanship to do anything productive? Those are really the only statements being made by this move IMHO.

Both side are too partisan to be productive. The statement is dissatisfaction. Obama said "So sue me", so they are. :shrug:
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063615043 said:
Executive orders are wonderfully manipulative tools to use when you can't get congress to do exactly what you want them to; especially after disparaging them in public.

What a uniter.

Who do executive orders apply to? What do congressional laws apply to? Answer that and you will know the drastic difference.
 
Remember, these are the same republicans who shut down the government once because they couldn't get their way. Don't expect them to be rational.
 
Simple question: Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

I do, because I think that this the power of the executive branch has been pushed much further than it was ever meant to. It's not a question of executive authority as many on the left would like it to be, it's more a question of a president who chooses unanimously to break the law on numerous occasions. No president, neither Republican or Democrat, should have the power to choose which laws they want to follow or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom