Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power

CanadaJohn said:

No, our Supreme Court has no legislative power nor can they initiate a move to legislate - the role I spoke of was advisory in that they would be asked their view on the constitutionality of direction the government may be considering where there is contention about the powers of government to act as it relates to our constitution and our charter of rights. It helps government get it right the first time and is only used in serious national policy matters. Our Supreme Court isn't considered anywhere near as political as yours is, so perhaps people in America would consider such a move as giving your court too much power.

Click to expand...

I guess I miss understood what you meant. I can see where running things thru them before any major changes were made would be a good thing.

You're right about our Supreme Court being too political. It's a not supposed to be that way but the last 20 years or so it getting more and more so.

CanadaJohn said:

I don't disagree, but Presidents are protected in the sense that they generally don't try to extend their influence/power except in areas where their party is likely to agree. You mention "torture", what the right and the Bush administration would call "advanced interrogation tactics" - you'd be hard pressed to find any members of the Republican Party who'd disagree with the administration's position - many Democrats agreed as well, tacitly or explicitly. Just as most Democrats agree with the Obama administration pushing back the ACA timelines so that they can get past the November elections relatively unscathed. And Democrats were standing in Congress, cheering the President on, when he announced during the SOTU address that he had a big pen and he was going to us it.

As Washington becomes more confrontational, more polarized, you are going to have fewer members of Congress who will put up with gentle erosion of their power. It's a natural progression. I doubt very much that the next Republican President who finds him/herself with a Democrat controlled or partially controlled Congress will have it any easier.

Click to expand...

You can call torture whatever you want. But the Bush era practice was a departure from what historically set the US apart from other countries.

Debates arose over the legality of the techniques—whether or not they had violated U.S. or international laws (such as the UN Convention against Torture) and whether they constitute torture. In 2005 the CIA destroyed many videotapes depicting prisoners being interrogated under torture; an internal justification was that what they showed was so horrific they would be "devastating to the CIA", and that "the heat from destroying is nothing compared to what it would be if the tapes ever got into public domain."[2][3][4][5] The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez stated that waterboarding is torture — "immoral and illegal," and in 2008, fifty-six House Democrats asked for an independent investigation.[6][7][8][9]


Enhanced interrogation techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ludin said:

it is about time someone decided to put at stop to that the non-sense going on up there.
obama changes every law he doesn't like which is illegal and against the constitution he doesn't have the power to change and create law yet he does it anyway.
took them long enough.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the Boehner lawsuit is not likely to have any timely effect. It will likely be a year or two after "Hussein" Obama is out of office before there is a ruling and even then it can be appealed. Or some leftwing federal judge will strike it down. What's needed are immediate constitutional challenges and withholding of funding.

Boo Radley said:

Having trouble on my iPad. I'll have to them one at a time:

Through the unconstitutional power of Executive Orders (i.e. dictatorial power to issue decrees), Obama has positioned himself to stand alongside the most heinous dictators in history. Since taking office, President Obama signed 923 Executive Orders in the first 40 months of his term, many times more than any other president to date.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/john...president-of-the-united-state/326192404147496


If you don't get the implications you're not paying attention. How many warnings do you need?


Scary!
923 Executive Orders in 40 Months


During my lifetime, all Presidents have issued Executive Orders, for reasons that vary, some more than others.


When a President issued as many as 30 Executive Orders during a term in Office, people thought there was something amiss.

Obama's has issued 923 Executive Orders in 40 months, page 1

Obama Signs 923 Executive Orders in 40 Months !!! | TeaPartyWPBFL

World Fast News - Financial: OBAMA HAS ISSUED 923 EXECUTIVE ORDERS SO FAR.

Wake Up America!! 923 EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN 40 MONTHS… | My Underwood Typewriter

I get one of these twice a week from the conservatives I know in the south. They call the fact checkers part of the liberal media. I have no idea how to address them.

Click to expand...

I don't think tiny extreme right wing blogs and anonymous chain emails really count for very much, although the fact that I never read either explains why I've never heard it. Almost all the mainstream criticism of Obama's executive orders and even from people on sites like this has been because of the supposed unconstitutionality of specific orders rather than the number.

When I heard about this yesterday, I damned near fell out of my chair from laughing so hard! At first, I thought it was a joke.

If Boehner truly believed the President was over-stepping his bounds and not "faithfully executing the law," he and his House Republican cohorts should be drafting articles of impeachment instead of trying this extremely questionable legal end-round. No way will it hold up in court. You'd have to prove that any and ALL Executive Orders where purposely set in motion so as to circumvent standing law. Moreover, as I've said time and time again, most EO's are directed towards members of his Cabinet on how the carry out policy in accordance with applicable law in order to maintain good social order. Boehner defeats his own purpose when he, himself, does not specify which law the President has violated.

This is nothing more than political theater by an outgoing House Speaker. It'll never go anywhere. Folks should read this in-depth study on "The President as Law Enforcer". It puts the President's use of EO's in prospective.

Objective Voice said:

When I heard about this yesterday, I damned near fell out of my chair from laughing so hard! At first, I thought it was a joke.

If Boehner truly believed the President was over-stepping his bounds and not "faithfully executing the law," he and his House Republican cohorts should be drafting articles of impeachment instead of trying this extremely questionable legal end-round. No way will it hold up in court. You'd have to prove that any and ALL Executive Orders where purposely set in motion so as to circumvent standing law. Moreover, as I've said time and time again, most EO's are directed towards members of his Cabinet on how the carry out policy in accordance with applicable law in order to maintain good social order. Boehner defeats his own purpose when he, himself, does not specify which law the President has violated.

This is nothing more than political theater by an outgoing House Speaker. It'll never go anywhere. Folks should read this in-depth study on "The President as Law Enforcer". It puts the President's use of EO's in prospective.

Click to expand...

Impeachment would be a political stunt. No chance of passing the Senate. This at least has a shot. I do not think either side wants an imperial President. We gave up some liberty under Bush in the name of security. Huge mistake, as was much of Bush's presidency. That being said we need to get to a government of checks and balances. Not have one branch that dominates the other two as we have now.

Anagram said:

I don't think tiny extreme right wing blogs and anonymous chain emails really count for very much, although the fact that I never read either explains why I've never heard it. Almost all the mainstream criticism of Obama's executive orders and even from people on sites like this has been because of the supposed unconstitutionality of specific orders rather than the number.

Click to expand...

you right, it was never about the numbers. By last count that I know President Obama is credited with 147 EO's. here is snopes on what the guy said:

snopes.com: President Obama's 923 Executive Orders

Boehner and his cohorts are upset because they view the president as using the EO to bypass congress, the unconstitutionality of some and changing written law to suit what he will enforce and what he will not enforce. In the past the SCOTUS has refused to hear cases like this because it involved co-equal branches. Boehner may have a problem finding a federal judge that will accept his lawsuit, time will tell.

washunut said:

Impeachment would be a political stunt. No chance of passing the Senate. This at least has a shot. I do not think either side wants an imperial President. We gave up some liberty under Bush in the name of security. Huge mistake, as was much of Bush's presidency. That being said we need to get to a government of checks and balances. Not have one branch that dominates the other two as we have now.

Click to expand...

I think your wrong about the imperial presidency. As long as the president is of your party and your in congress, you are willing to cede any power the president wants. It is only when the president is of the other party that you want congress to take back some of their powers and reign the in the president in.

Anagram said:

I don't think tiny extreme right wing blogs and anonymous chain emails really count for very much, although the fact that I never read either explains why I've never heard it. Almost all the mainstream criticism of Obama's executive orders and even from people on sites like this has been because of the supposed unconstitutionality of specific orders rather than the number.

Click to expand...

Oh, as I said, I get them posted on fb at least twice a week. The lie becomes the truth for far too many.

ObamacareFail said:

Unfortunately the Boehner lawsuit is not likely to have any timely effect. It will likely be a year or two after "Hussein" Obama is out of office before there is a ruling and even then it can be appealed. Or some leftwing federal judge will strike it down. What's needed are immediate constitutional challenges and withholding of funding.

Click to expand...

actually i think he can appeal right to the SCOTUS rather than go through the entire court system. even if they rule after the fact it will at least set a precedent on what the president can and can't do.

ludin said:

actually i think he can appeal right to the SCOTUS rather than go through the entire court system. even if they rule after the fact it will at least set a precedent on what the president can and can't do.

Click to expand...

Time will tell.

Captain America said:

View attachment 67169011

Click to expand...

"I guess none of your classes had questions regarding recess appointments"

washunut said:

Impeachment would be a political stunt. No chance of passing the Senate. This at least has a shot. I do not think either side wants an imperial President. We gave up some liberty under Bush in the name of security. Huge mistake, as was much of Bush's presidency. That being said we need to get to a government of checks and balances. Not have one branch that dominates the other two as we have now.

Click to expand...

I don't see the "dominance" from the Executive Branch as you do. Such a characterization would imply that President Obama can do anything he wants and go unchecked. Untrue!

The way I see Spkr Boehner's lawsuit move is it's nothing more than an attempt to rally the Republican base. Until he (the House) brings forth evidence that he's gone beyond is authority as President in issuing Executive Orders, he really has nothing except this foolhardy attempt to rally the Republican base.

It's convenient for House Republican to use the excuse that hands are tied because they don't believe that Senate Democrats won't vote in favor of impeachment, but if the evidence exists as it clearly did during the Nixon and was on the margins during the Clinton Administrations I'm certain the House (Republicans) would have presented their articles of impeachment by now that would clearly show "what Pres. Obama knew, when he knew it and what role he played in sanctioning illegal activity". And since Boehner hasn't and even refuses to outline exactly what laws the President has violated and how doing such as brought about harm to the nation or discredit upon the Office of the Presidency, then IMHO he has nothing.

Moreover, if Boehner/Republicans or even Democrats really believed a "power grab" has taken place from the White House, they - Congress - has the power to reign such over-reach in in two forms:

1) Impeach him, or;

2) rewrite applicable laws

It's just that simple.

Sidenote: While folks/Spkr Boehner is so focused on the President issuing EO's, he really should be worried about presidential Signing Statements, the real tool Presidents use to state which provisions of a law they won't follow, such as those GWB signed during his presidency.

Presidential Signing Statements Research Guide — Georgetown Law

When presidents sign bills into law, they sometimes issue written statements expressing their views on those bills. These written statements are known as "presidential signing statements." Presidents often use signing statements to express their intention not to enforce parts of legislation that they consider to be unconstitutional, or otherwise provide an interpretation of the law as executive branch agencies will be directed to enforce it.

...

In March 2009, President Obama issued a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies in which he opined "In appropriately limited circumstances, [presidential signing statements] represent an exercise of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress."

Click to expand...

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf

While the history of presidential issuance of signing statements dates to the early 19th century, the practice has become the source of significant controversy in the modern era as Presidents have increasingly employed the statements to assert constitutional and legal objections to congressional enactments. President Reagan initiated this practice in earnest, transforming the signing statement into a mechanism for the assertion of presidential authority and intent. President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 161 signing statements, 127 of which (79%) contain some type of challenge or objection. The significant rise in the proportion of constitutional objections made by President George W. Bush was compounded by the fact that his statements were typified by multiple objections, resulting in more than 1,000 challenges to distinct provisions of law. Although President Barack Obama has continued to use presidential signing statements, the Obama Administration has used the interpretive tools with less frequency than previous administrations—issuing 20 signing statements, of which 10 (50%) contain constitutional challenges to an enacted statutory provision.

Click to expand...

Clearly, those who honestly believe President Obama has excessively over-reached from the Executive truly aren't doing their homework.

Perotista said:

I think your wrong about the imperial presidency. As long as the president is of your party and your in congress, you are willing to cede any power the president wants. It is only when the president is of the other party that you want congress to take back some of their powers and reign the in the president in.

Click to expand...

Your thinking is misguided. I felt the previous president went way overboard as well.

washunut said:

Your thinking is misguided. I felt the previous president went way overboard as well.

Click to expand...

I do not think so, the last time congress tried and even succeeded a little bit to reign in the power of the presidency was just right after Watergate. Ford was president, a Republican and both chambers were solidly Democratic. In fact the Democrats had a presidential veto proof House and were within 4 of having a veto proof senate with 63 Democratic Senators. Since then congress has shown no will to be a co-equal branch or to provide the checks and balances as intended.

As time has gone by the members of congress who are of the same party as the president has become more and more part of the administration than of the institution of congress. They do not care how much power the president gains at their expense, that is as long as the president is of their own party. It is only those congressmen of the opposite party of the president that seem interested in maintaining the checks and balances, they as soon as they elect a president, they change to being more a part of the administration than congress and those who were of the party of the previous president, now want the check and balances back. So it goes on and on and on.

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...

At least he's doing something.Are you content with letting the white house step on the constitution? Is the white house above the law? It seems everyday Obama is stepping on or walking around laws that all Americans need to follow. I'm tired of hearing it's not my fault it's George bush's. It's not my fault it's the republicans.It's not my fault we couldn't have forseen this. I just read about it in todays paper, I'm just as surprised by it as you..Enough already, surely we cannot be so naïve to believe the bunk day in and day out. Obama should be held liable for breaking the laws that the rest of us are forced to follow. GOD bless America!!!!!

223heavy said:

At least he's doing something.Are you content with letting the white house step on the constitution? Is the white house above the law? It seems everyday Obama is stepping on or walking around laws that all Americans need to follow. I'm tired of hearing it's not my fault it's George bush's. It's not my fault it's the republicans.It's not my fault we couldn't have forseen this. I just read about it in todays paper, I'm just as surprised by it as you..Enough already, surely we cannot be so naïve to believe the bunk day in and day out. Obama should be held liable for breaking the laws that the rest of us are forced to follow. GOD bless America!!!!!

Click to expand...

As soon as cons begin cleaning up their own messes and their own back yard, I'll put a microscope on the Obama admin. and not before.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no god, we all have to look after ourselves.

ludin said:

it is about time someone decided to put at stop to that the non-sense going on up there.
obama changes every law he doesn't like which is illegal and against the constitution he doesn't have the power to change and create law yet he does it anyway.
took them long enough.

Click to expand...

You would think so, judging from the whining from the other side. But actually, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and others issued for Executive Orders than Obama. Obama had better step up those Executive Orders, if he's going to catch up to Bush Jr. He also had better start taking more vacations, if he's going to match Bush on that.

JumpinJack said:

You would think so, judging from the whining from the other side. But actually, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and others issued for Executive Orders than Obama. Obama had better step up those Executive Orders, if he's going to catch up to Bush Jr. He also had better start taking more vacations, if he's going to match Bush on that.

Click to expand...

bush wasn't writing laws that he didn't have congressional approval on. an executive order is nothing more than a memo. it can't make law it can't change law yet that is exactly what obama is doing with it.

Perotista said:

you right, it was never about the numbers. By last count that I know President Obama is credited with 147 EO's. here is snopes on what the guy said:

snopes.com: President Obama's 923 Executive Orders

Boehner and his cohorts are upset because they view the president as using the EO to bypass congress, the unconstitutionality of some and changing written law to suit what he will enforce and what he will not enforce. In the past the SCOTUS has refused to hear cases like this because it involved co-equal branches. Boehner may have a problem finding a federal judge that will accept his lawsuit, time will tell.

Click to expand...

What is amusing is the issue that Boehner wants to sue Obama on (delaying some parts of the ACA), is the same action that Bush did for Medicaid part B, and back then, you didn't hear a THING about it being over reaching.

RAMOSS said:

What is amusing is the issue that Boehner wants to sue Obama on (delaying some parts of the ACA), is the same action that Bush did for Medicaid part B, and back then, you didn't hear a THING about it being over reaching.

Click to expand...

What is more amusing is the Republicans fought to delay the mandates and the implementation of Obamacare for a year. Seems to me I remember a government shutdown over this very thing. I think it was first to repeal Obamacare then they fell back to delaying implementation of the mandates.

Perotista said:

What is more amusing is the Republicans fought to delay the mandates and the implementation of Obamacare for a year. Seems to me I remember a government shutdown over this very thing. I think it was first to repeal Obamacare then they fell back to delaying implementation of the mandates.

Click to expand...

so boehner is suing obama for using executive orders to delay mandates of a law boehner and his party opposed and have tried numerous times to repeal. does that mean boenher wanted the mandates to happen?

Unitedwestand13 said:

so boehner is suing obama for using executive orders to delay mandates of a law boehner and his party opposed and have tried numerous times to repeal. does that mean boenher wanted the mandates to happen?

Click to expand...

No, what he wanted was the repeal of all of Obamacare. But when he saw that was doomed, he fell back to delaying the mandates for a year. Of course the Democrats fought him over the delay and won. There would be no delaying the mandates. Then the funny part, President Obama delayed the mandates something the Democrats in Congress fought the GOP to prohibit any delay in the mandates during the government shutdown thus actually doing what Boehner wanted back then. So Boehner is suing the president for delaying the mandates which the Republicans wanted during the shutdown and the democrats fought against doing.

I do not know if the above makes any sense or even if it is suppose to considering the government was shutdown so the GOP could fight for the delays and the Democrats could insists on no delays whatsoever. The world of politics is one crazy world.

Perotista said:

No, what he wanted was the repeal of all of Obamacare. But when he saw that was doomed, he fell back to delaying the mandates for a year. Of course the Democrats fought him over the delay and won. There would be no delaying the mandates. Then the funny part, President Obama delayed the mandates something the Democrats in Congress fought the GOP to prohibit any delay in the mandates during the government shutdown thus actually doing what Boehner wanted back then. So Boehner is suing the president for delaying the mandates which the Republicans wanted during the shutdown and the democrats fought against doing.

I do not know if the above makes any sense or even if it is suppose to considering the government was shutdown so the GOP could fight for the delays and the Democrats could insists on no delays whatsoever. The world of politics is one crazy world.

Click to expand...

Can we agree that they all appear to be idiots - something I have suggested many times on here? :lamo:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave: