• 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!

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

You just did. Thanks.



As I said, liberals wrote 1,000 versions of this article during the Bush administration, and my guess is (too lazy to read Will's archived columns) Will was silent or supportive of the Unitary Executive theory and the nearly unchecked Commander in Chief powers asserted by Bush.

If we get an honest effort to test 30 years of more power vesting in the POTUS, great. But no one should pretend this started in January 2009.

When it started is not the issue - how it can be stopped or held to within reasonable limits is the issue. Simply because our congress critters (of either party) will not make/change the law to suit the current POTUS (of either party) does not make it OK to override the existing law. "Dreamy" immigration reform is not the law yet Obama pretends that it is. PPACA contained fixed implementation phase dates yet since Obama preferred that they be changed and simply did so.
 
The executive does not have the power to ignore laws or to add them. Our congress critters are often guilty of writing overly broad laws and letting the executive "work out the details" but Obama clearly has ignored immigration law and has made numerous changes to the actual PPACA law.
But, Obama is doing no worse than at least one president,


Republicans Introduced Reagan’s Amnesty Act for 3 Million ‘Illegals’ Six Months Before 1986 Midterm Elections Pensito Review

Executive Order 12324
 
This lawsuit won't go anywhere, it will just draw attention to Republican talking points. That's the purpose.

Really? I suppose you were just as confident about Obama's recess appointments, when the Senate wasn't actually in recess. Want to recap for us how that lawsuit went nowhere?
 
AJiveman, since you posted the video, Obama says this:

Some [proposals] require Congressional action....[but] whenever and wherever I can take steps without legislation to....

That's a straightforward statement of the powers of the POTUS. He issued a list of proposed executive actions after that speech. If you have any act that he proposed through EO that was outside his prerogatives, that's the place to debate, not debating WHETHER he CAN do certain things. He obviously CAN do lots as head of the Executive Branch. The limits is the purpose of a legitimate lawsuit.

The GOP lawsuit is nothing more or less than a dog and pony show.
 
When it started is not the issue - how it can be stopped or held to within reasonable limits is the issue. Simply because our congress critters (of either party) will not make/change the law to suit the current POTUS (of either party) does not make it OK to override the existing law. "Dreamy" immigration reform is not the law yet Obama pretends that it is. PPACA contained fixed implementation phase dates yet since Obama preferred that they be changed and simply did so.

I agree, when isn't the issue.

But it's hardly clear when the POTUS exceeds broad authority. If you've read the ACA, and know the case law about regulatory powers granted the Executive, and when and under what circumstances the POTUS can delay a law if imposing it would impose an undue burden, etc. then you're qualified to evaluate whether Obama's actions with regard to ACA are legal. I don't know, personally, and have read conflicting views on that issue.

Would any right winger complain if Obama called off the EPA on a paper plant because to enforce the law would result in the plant being shut down? Doubt it! And he uses discretion every day to elect NOT to enforce laws - there is no law enforced perfectly without discretion, and where that discretion begins and ends is a VERY big old gray area.

My point is I support a lawsuit clarifying the boundaries.
 
I agree, when isn't the issue.

But it's hardly clear when the POTUS exceeds broad authority. If you've read the ACA, and know the case law about regulatory powers granted the Executive, and when and under what circumstances the POTUS can delay a law if imposing it would impose an undue burden, etc. then you're qualified to evaluate whether Obama's actions with regard to ACA are legal. I don't know, personally, and have read conflicting views on that issue.

Would any right winger complain if Obama called off the EPA on a paper plant because to enforce the law would result in the plant being shut down? Doubt it! And he uses discretion every day to elect NOT to enforce laws - there is no law enforced perfectly without discretion, and where that discretion begins and ends is a VERY big old gray area.

My point is I support a lawsuit clarifying the boundaries.

Why would anyone support a lawsuit knowing it will more than likely go nowhere and waste time and taxpayer money?
 
The idea that each president can now do whatever they want because some president in the past did "something similar" is nonsense.

Why? Because one president can do something another cannot do?

You'll need to change the US constitution or make amendments to it then. Perhaps some people would like to see EO's totally banned or ripped from presidential powers?
 
Why would anyone support a lawsuit knowing it will more than likely go nowhere and waste time and taxpayer money?

More than anything, I think it's good for the country to push back on the trajectory of unchecked powers of the POTUS.

When the Bush administration was busy arguing for the Unitary Executive, and unchecked Commander in Chief, lots of liberals whined about it because we didn't like what he was DOING with those powers. It's hypocritical now, in my view, to support Obama's use of those same powers because I mostly agree with him doing an end run by a pathetic, HELL NO WE CAN'T, House and every bill in the Senate requiring 60 vote supermajority.

So, our whining does NOTHING. It will take some Congress to stop the erosion of powers, and if the lawsuit is legitimate ( which I doubt ) then it's a good thing. I agree with the libertarians on this. Besides, I'm pretty sure the next GOP POTUS will love exercising unrestrained powers. How can I complain when I cheer Obama doing it?

But, sure, if you want to know my guess, it's part of the charade ahead of an impeachment in the House this year or next and Boehner will carefully avoid actually testing the limits. I HOPE I'm surprised.
 
I agree, when isn't the issue.

But it's hardly clear when the POTUS exceeds broad authority. If you've read the ACA, and know the case law about regulatory powers granted the Executive, and when and under what circumstances the POTUS can delay a law if imposing it would impose an undue burden, etc. then you're qualified to evaluate whether Obama's actions with regard to ACA are legal. I don't know, personally, and have read conflicting views on that issue.

Would any right winger complain if Obama called off the EPA on a paper plant because to enforce the law would result in the plant being shut down? Doubt it! And he uses discretion every day to elect NOT to enforce laws - there is no law enforced perfectly without discretion, and where that discretion begins and ends is a VERY big old gray area.

My point is I support a lawsuit clarifying the boundaries.

That is unlikely to occur - we still have virtually no idea what the boundaries are for the 2A after many visits to the SCOTUS.
 
John Boehner Lawsuit Obama Administration Executive Actions | Mediaite

“The president has a clear record of ignoring the American people’s elected representatives and exceeding his constitutional authority, which has dangerous implications for both our system of government and our economy,” Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel said. “The House has passed legislation to address this, but it has gone nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so we are examining other options.”

In response, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said, “While the urgent needs of the American people are ignored by House Republicans, it is reprehensible that Speaker Boehner plans another doomed, legal boondoggle after he spent $2.3 million in taxpayer dollars unsuccessfully defending discrimination in federal courts.”

In 2011, Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in order to challenge the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. The House later dropped its case and the Supreme Court subsequently deemed DOMA unconstitutional.

Over the past couple of years, President Obama has used executive actions in attempts to help curb gun violence and ban anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. Most recently, the president’s Climate Action Plan employed a variety executive actions to cut carbon pollution.
 
Why? Because one president can do something another cannot do?

You'll need to change the US constitution or make amendments to it then. Perhaps some people would like to see EO's totally banned or ripped from presidential powers?

Why? EO only affect the Executive Branch. Like Truman ordering the Military to segregate. EO don't have the power to make any new or change existing laws. What we need to keep all presidents in check by enforcing what EO can do. We have let too many presidents abuse a power they really don't have when it comes to the law.
 
More than anything, I think it's good for the country to push back on the trajectory of unchecked powers of the POTUS.

When the Bush administration was busy arguing for the Unitary Executive, and unchecked Commander in Chief, lots of liberals whined about it because we didn't like what he was DOING with those powers. It's hypocritical now, in my view, to support Obama's use of those same powers because I mostly agree with him doing an end run by a pathetic, HELL NO WE CAN'T, House and every bill in the Senate requiring 60 vote supermajority.

So, our whining does NOTHING. It will take some Congress to stop the erosion of powers, and if the lawsuit is legitimate ( which I doubt ) then it's a good thing. I agree with the libertarians on this. Besides, I'm pretty sure the next GOP POTUS will love exercising unrestrained powers. How can I complain when I cheer Obama doing it?

But, sure, if you want to know my guess, it's part of the charade ahead of an impeachment in the House this year or next and Boehner will carefully avoid actually testing the limits. I HOPE I'm surprised.

I believe the congress (Boehner specifically) is treading into uncharted territory, a gray or black area that hasn't been tested on EO's with a lawsuit. There's a very thin line here. If he succeeds with the lawsuit or impeachment, the right had better look out, because if the GOP gains control of the white house, there's going to be a lot of left wing head hunters, and setting a new precedence could be dangerous for either party. It's basically why nobody ever pushed the limit of trying to impeach Bush, fear of the unknown, which might be something to fear after all.
 
I agree, when isn't the issue.

But it's hardly clear when the POTUS exceeds broad authority. If you've read the ACA, and know the case law about regulatory powers granted the Executive, and when and under what circumstances the POTUS can delay a law if imposing it would impose an undue burden, etc. then you're qualified to evaluate whether Obama's actions with regard to ACA are legal. I don't know, personally, and have read conflicting views on that issue.

Would any right winger complain if Obama called off the EPA on a paper plant because to enforce the law would result in the plant being shut down? Doubt it! And he uses discretion every day to elect NOT to enforce laws - there is no law enforced perfectly without discretion, and where that discretion begins and ends is a VERY big old gray area.

My point is I support a lawsuit clarifying the boundaries.

I would, even though I don't like the EPA. It is the law. It's the president's job to enforce the law on the books. Not pick and choose which laws he likes and doesn't like. If he doesn't like a law he can make a case to congress to change the law.
 
Why? Because one president can do something another cannot do?

You'll need to change the US constitution or make amendments to it then. Perhaps some people would like to see EO's totally banned or ripped from presidential powers?

That is my preference, to state clearly by coanstitutional mamendment what constitues making law - a power not originally intended to be given to the POTUS. If the POTUS can veto congress then the congress should have the power to veto the POTUS.
 
Why? EO only affect the Executive Branch. Like Truman ordering the Military to segregate. EO don't have the power to make any new or change existing laws. What we need to keep all presidents in check by enforcing what EO can do. We have let too many presidents abuse a power they really don't have when it comes to the law.

Then there'll be need for legislation on what EO's a president can sign into law, each with it's own description of authority. The EO's would need names and what is allowed and what isn't.

Actually, presidents have circumvented laws of the land with EO's. I just pointed to one Reagan signed concerning immigration earlier in the thread.
 
That is my preference, to state clearly by coanstitutional mamendment what constitues making law - a power not originally intended to be given to the POTUS. If the POTUS can veto congress then the congress should have the power to veto the POTUS.
Congress does have that power now, veto override, with enough votes to do so.
 
The GOP lawsuit is nothing more or less than a dog and pony show.

As much as Obama infuriates me, and he does, unfortunately I have to agree with this. It is a dog and pony show. It's time to put the dogs to bed, and let the ponies go to a rescue farm somewhere. I'm for one damn tired of the partisanship.
 
I would, even though I don't like the EPA. It is the law. It's the president's job to enforce the law on the books. Not pick and choose which laws he likes and doesn't like. If he doesn't like a law he can make a case to congress to change the law.

Nearly all presidents have tweaked laws they didn't like, or bent the laws. People are suggesting doing away with Eo's, we'd need to implement that, sit on the sidelines and watch the sparks fly.
 
I am going to guess that this will not succeed.

But Boehner will be able to say that he tried.
 
Congress does have that power now, veto override, with enough votes to do so.

Our congress critters have no vote on EOs at all - they are like recess appointments in that respect.
 
As much as Obama infuriates me, and he does, unfortunately I have to agree with this. It is a dog and pony show. It's time to put the dogs to bed, and let the ponies go to a rescue farm somewhere. I'm for one damn tired of the partisanship.
It doesn't get anything accomplished, they're more worried about being reelected than anything else.
 
Our congress critters have no vote on EOs at all - they are like recess appointments in that respect.

Oh, I thought you were talking legislation. pardon me please.

That is my preference, to state clearly by coanstitutional mamendment what constitues making law - a power not originally intended to be given to the POTUS. If the POTUS can veto congress then the congress should have the power to veto the POTUS.
 
Back
Top Bottom