• 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

Montecresto said:
I love it. Great news and long over do. Where was SCOTUS during the Bush administration!?!?
Click to expand...

And again this mantra "what about the Bush administration" and yet not a single example of a Bush executive order that was believed to be unconstitutional. I can't say there weren't any, for surety, but you'd think that the guys pumping this meme would be able to give at least one example.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The SCOTUS just ruled today that the President disregarded the Constitution in his sidestepping the Congress with his appointments to the NLRB.

This suit may follow that path as well.

Not a good week for Obama.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's been a good year for Obama.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The SCOTUS just ruled today that the President disregarded the Constitution in his sidestepping the Congress with his appointments to the NLRB.

This suit may follow that path as well.

Not a good week for Obama.
Click to expand...

More gray matter where Obama crossed into.

Recess appointment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recess appointment is the appointment, by the President of the United States, of a senior federal official while the U.S. Senate is in recess. The U.S. Constitution requires that the most senior federal officers must be confirmed by the Senate before assuming office, but while the Senate is in recess the President may act alone by making a recess appointment to fill "Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again; in current practice this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year. Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Click to expand...

Basically, congress wasn't in recess long enough;


"Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the president made the recess appointments before us during a break too short to count as recess," Breyer said. "For that reason, the appointments are invalid." He was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Click to expand...
Whooops !

One bad day maybe, but congress has stood long and hard, like a stiff hardon without a conscience, against anything the president has tried to accomplish, even getting appointments confirmed.

If the GOP keeps this up, turtleman just may get part of his wish in making Obama a part term president, then they'll have Biden :eek: to work with. :lol:

I'm going for recess now, I'll be back in 5 minutes to see if anything changed. :lol:

 
Dems didn't play that card during Bush did they.
CanadaJohn said:
And again this mantra "what about the Bush administration" and yet not a single example of a Bush executive order that was believed to be unconstitutional. I can't say there weren't any, for surety, but you'd think that the guys pumping this meme would be able to give at least one example.
Click to expand...

Precedent was set today for the next GOP President.
Dems having the Senate in 2017 either approve their own President's nominees and vote against the GOPs--game on .
 
CanadaJohn said:
You like to point out it's relevant and that Bush did it more and no one complained, but I haven't seen you quote a single executive order that Bush passed that Democrats or anyone else in Congress or the country specifically claimed was unconstitutional. It has been pointed out here, specifically, as an example, that Obama lacked the constitutional authority to alter the timelines specifically outlined in the ACA as adopted by congress. Why don't you post up some examples of Bush doing the same thing and then we can have a discussion. Until then, your posts are just empty partisan rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Last week, President George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing the use of military tribunals for select terrorists. The order gives the executive the exclusive right to identify, try, and even execute foreign terrorists, without the constitutional or evidentiary protections ordinarily afforded defendants in the United States. Some critics contend the order arrogates congressional law-making authority. Is there a limit to what can legally be done through an executive order, and what are the means to challenge one?

Is President Bush's Executive Order Creating Military Tribunals Legal?

WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html?_r=0

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as “enemy combatants,” strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and
a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush | Cato Institute

Constitutional violations? We had plenty with Bush

Constitutional violations? We had plenty with Bush - Opinion - News Item

George W. Bush’s Impeachable Offenses: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

. . . .the Bush administration engineered and presided over the most sustained period of constitutional decay in our history.

The 9/11 Decade and the Decline of U.S. Democracy | Center for Constitutional Rights


Lists of George Bush`s unconstitutional Executive Orders

Lists of George Bush`s unconstitutional Executive Orders
 
tres borrachos said:
Congress sucks, but that's a reflection on both parties...Obama is a mess.
Click to expand...
Yet Bush/Cheney were a friggin catastrophe--since you like to read that-
And the GOP has fought Obama since the day he was elected in 2008-
McConnell's unprecedented use of the filibuster has guaranteed several more decades of polarization-
while Mitch whined for a "straight-up-or-down" vote last decade, or GOPs would nuke the Senate-
and where's the term-limit outrage for McConnell and Cochran, let alone Hatch, Grassley and McCain ?
 
NIMBY said:
Yet Bush/Cheney were a friggin catastrophe--since you like to read that-
And the GOP has fought Obama since the day he was elected in 2008-
McConnell's unprecedented use of the filibuster has guaranteed several more decades of polarization-
while Mitch whined for a "straight-up-or-down" vote last decade, or GOPs would nuke the Senate-
and where's the term-limit outrage for McConnell and Cochran, let alone Hatch, Grassley and McCain ?
Click to expand...

Term limits is two filthy words, please, no more cussing around here, my virgin ears and eyes can't handle it. :lol:
 
NIMBY said:
Dems didn't play that card during Bush did they.


Precedent was set today for the next GOP President.
Dems having the Senate in 2017 either approve their own President's nominees and vote against the GOPs--game on .
Click to expand...

Good afternoon NIMBY,

Thanks for clearing up that you're satisfied to join the ranks of unsubstantiated rhetorical hackery.
 
Dont think this is gonna go anywhere. Just a publicity stunt.
 
Term limits are only in vogue for DEMs, as taught to us by NOOT in 1994 and TEAs in 2010.

Two straight disastrous census mid-term elections in 1990 and 2010 could give the GOP the House until at least 2042,
in spite of getting less votes than Dems.

By then, I might be 88-YO .
AJiveMan said:
Term limits is two filthy words, please, no more cussing around here, my virgin ears and eyes can't handle it. :lol:
Click to expand...
 
Yes but mine is quality hackery without saying the word.
Telling you that yours will get it rammed just like Obama has--it made me feel good--real good Flo.
You didn't really expect your cake and eat it too.
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon NIMBY,
Thanks for clearing up that you're satisfied to join the ranks of unsubstantiated rhetorical hackery.
Click to expand...

Pretty low-level 2m stuff don't you think cj?
Give me a better fastball to hit .
 
Boo Radley said:
Last week, President George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing the use of military tribunals for select terrorists. The order gives the executive the exclusive right to identify, try, and even execute foreign terrorists, without the constitutional or evidentiary protections ordinarily afforded defendants in the United States. Some critics contend the order arrogates congressional law-making authority. Is there a limit to what can legally be done through an executive order, and what are the means to challenge one?

Is President Bush's Executive Order Creating Military Tribunals Legal?

WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html?_r=0

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as “enemy combatants,” strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and
a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush | Cato Institute

Constitutional violations? We had plenty with Bush

Constitutional violations? We had plenty with Bush - Opinion - News Item

George W. Bush’s Impeachable Offenses: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

. . . .the Bush administration engineered and presided over the most sustained period of constitutional decay in our history.

The 9/11 Decade and the Decline of U.S. Democracy | Center for Constitutional Rights


Lists of George Bush`s unconstitutional Executive Orders

Lists of George Bush`s unconstitutional Executive Orders
Click to expand...

It's a shame, for your side of the argument, that the Supreme Court actually ruled in favour of President Bush's executive power in the conduct of war and everything related to the conduct of war, once Congress authorizes that war. They also ruled on the constitutionality of military tribunals as they relate to enemy combatants.

In addition, I would point out that the topic of this thread is Executive Orders, issued by the President of the United States, and the power to do so in select areas. We were not, to my knowledge, talking about what the far left fantasized about impeachable offenses and war crimes.

So again, is there a specific Bush executive order that was unconstitutional that you can point to?
 
NIMBY said:
Yes but mine is quality hackery without saying the word.
Telling you that yours will get it rammed just like Obama has--it made me feel good--real good Flo.
You didn't really expect your cake and eat it too.


Pretty low-level 2m stuff don't you think cj?
Give me a better fastball to hit .
Click to expand...

Rules are rules and laws are laws. And just to burst your little balloon, when the Republicans control the Senate, do you think they're going to rescind Harry's nuclear option stunt or use it to their advantage?
 
CanadaJohn said:
So again, is there a specific Bush executive order that was unconstitutional that you can point to?
Click to expand...

A better question jcj would be is there a specific Obama executive order that Boehner is going after.
When questioned earlier, Boehner said no specific XOs yet, just a lawsuit.
Kind of like all the other phony wastes of taxpayer money--start a committee without evidence with a goal of impeachment.

In this case, Linc knows this lawsuit's about any future ACA changes,
as well as an implied Immigration threat, appeasing the TEAs after the Cochran Dem fiasco .
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
It's a shame, for your side of the argument, that the Supreme Court actually ruled in favour of President Bush's executive power in the conduct of war and everything related to the conduct of war, once Congress authorizes that war. They also ruled on the constitutionality of military tribunals as they relate to enemy combatants.

In addition, I would point out that the topic of this thread is Executive Orders, issued by the President of the United States, and the power to do so in select areas. We were not, to my knowledge, talking about what the far left fantasized about impeachable offenses and war crimes.

So again, is there a specific Bush executive order that was unconstitutional that you can point to?
Click to expand...

Not in all cases. I believe one of the links showed they didn't. But I can link another for you:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Justices overrule Bush on Gitmo - US news - Security | NBC News

Washington — The US Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a setback to President Bush's expansive vision of presidential power, ruling that a unilateral attempt by Mr. Bush to order state courts to comply with an international treaty violated "first principles" of constitutional government.

Supreme Court rules against Bush in death-row case - CSMonitor.com
 
Absolutely not--in fact, I take Sen. Grassley at his word--
Republicans will expand the nuclear option to include legislation--then Obama will veto--then the House will impeach him .
CanadaJohn said:
Rules are rules and laws are laws. And just to burst your little balloon, when the Republicans control the Senate, do you think they're going to rescind Harry's nuclear option stunt or use it to their advantage?
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
A better question jcj would be is there a specific Obama executive order that Boehner is going after.
When questioned earlier, Boehner said no specific XOs yet, just a lawsuit.
Kind of like all the other phony wastes of taxpayer money--start a committee without evidence with a goal of impeachment.

In this case, Linc knows this lawsuit's about any future ACA changes, as well as an implied Immigration threat, appeasing the TEAs after the Cochran's Dems .
Click to expand...

You'll get your specifics when the lawsuit is filed - as with every lawsuit that's announced. Not to equate the two, but it's no different from Donald Sterling announcing that he's going to sue the NBA. Part of the "threat" is to put on notice the other side that you're prepared to play hard unless the other side changes tactics.

Is there politics involved - Duh, of course - they're politicians so what do you expect? But there are also serious issues about separation of powers and the authority of one, the congress, to conduct it's business and have the President and the courts respect and uphold that business.

The immigration issue isn't a constitutional authority one - the President didn't change the law by executive order in that case, he merely chose to abandon enforcement of certain aspects of that law - similar to DADT and other legislation he decided he didn't like. The President has the authority to enforce the laws of the land, as he sees fit - if it's deemed he's derelict in that duty, impeachment is the cure, not the courts.

The ACA issue, however, is a constitutional one because the President's executive orders, in effect, altered the language of the law as it relates to dates of enactment of several provisions of the act. It is a question for the court to decide whether or not the President has the authority to do so without congressional authorization by way of an amendment to the act.

But be patient - we'll see soon enough. After all, the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on this issue until sometime next June - plenty of time to get lathered up about it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not in all cases. I believe one of the links showed they didn't. But I can link another for you:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Justices overrule Bush on Gitmo - US news - Security | NBC News

Washington — The US Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a setback to President Bush's expansive vision of presidential power, ruling that a unilateral attempt by Mr. Bush to order state courts to comply with an international treaty violated "first principles" of constitutional government.

Supreme Court rules against Bush in death-row case - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

Very good - so as you've pointed out, the courts stepped in and clarified for President Bush what powers he may or may not have as it relates to this particular issue. So why is it so distressful that the courts may be asked to step in and clarify things for President Obama? Is Obama somehow too special for the same treatment?
 
NIMBY said:
Absolutely not--in fact, I take Sen. Grassley at his word--
Republicans will expand the nuclear option to include legislation--then Obama will veto--then the House will impeach him .
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you'll have to clarify for me where President Obama gets the authority to veto the organizational rules the Senate establishes for their operations. Can you point that out for me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom