• 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

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
What business would that be that this Congress is trying to conduct?
More Repeal without Replace?
Cantor can't even mention a step-by-step immigration bill without getting nuked himself.
The House is broken and Boehner is deflecting--and you know it .
 
Obama will veto legislation from the GOP Senate.
Legislation that will pass due to the GOP expanding the nuclear option to do away with the DEm filibuster.
At this point around May of 2015, the House will impeach Obama.
Then the Senate will try him .
CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
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...

They'll use it, and good for them. Where does it mention filibusters in the Constitution? It doesn't. Only says that each house of Congress can set it's own rules. If the Senate decides that members must wear a duck on their heads, they must wear a duck on their heads. It may be assinine, but it's Constitutional. So is the filibuster.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have no trouble with the courts doing so. I have trouble with selective exaggeration. The courts ruled on Obama concern appointments, and I am fine with that.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not sure of the Canadian law but here you have to have standing and prove you were harmed in some way. This is nothing more then a political stunt to feed the sheep.

Why Boehner Can

But Boehner may not be able to do so. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School, the speaker of the House does not have the ability to sue the president in this situation, even if Congress says he does. Chemerinsky says “standing,” the doctrine that allows a person to file a lawsuit in federal court by demonstrating that real harm has been caused to them, is defined by the Constitution. As a result, even if Congress passes a law, or in this case a resolution, which only requires approval by the House, it will not be binding on federal courts, as the Constitution trumps any law, let alone a resolution, and does not give members of Congress the ability to sue if they cannot prove real harm.
 
danarhea said:
They'll use it, and good for them. Where does it mention filibusters in the Constitution? It doesn't. Only says that each house of Congress can set it's own rules. If the Senate decides that members must wear a duck on their heads, they must wear a duck on their heads. It may be assinine, but it's Constitutional. So is the filibuster.
Click to expand...

LOL, good one, Ducks. Boehner may file it, but I think he may have a hard time finding a federal judge to hear the case. In cases like this in the past, the SCOTUS has stayed out of them.
 
Perotista said:
LOL, good one, Ducks. Boehner may file it,
but I think he may have a hard time finding a federal judge to hear the case. In cases like this in the past, the SCOTUS has stayed out of them.
Click to expand...
The House has done so little for so long, they're now qualified to do absolutely nothing for the rest of this term.
Except to hide in their offices and peep out like yesterday and announce a lawsuit on XOs,
but not being able to tell you which ones or why--just practicin .
 
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...

Oh please, their were/are plenty of people who said Bush issued executive orders "believed to be unconstitutional". Jonathan Turley, for one, constitutional law professor at Georgetown, and huge critic of the escalating imperial presidency under Barack Obama, was an equally outspoken critic of the Bush Whitehouse. He considered Bush's EO's authorising torture to be one such example.


Historically, legal counselors to U.S. presidents have justified executive orders on these brief and somewhat ambiguous Constitutional passages. But additionally, in Mississippi v. Johnson (1866), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a U.S. president legitimately performs two basic functions – ministerial and discretionary – and that executive orders can legitimately facilitate each. Not until 1952 were specific rules and guidelines given for what a president could or could not via executive orders. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) the Supreme Court invalidated Truman’s decree on steel mills, on the grounds that he was attempting to make law (a legislative function), not merely carrying out (or “executing”) existing law. Presidents since that decision have tried to cite the specific laws they are acting under, when issuing new executive orders.


We see that legal challenges to executive orders aren’t unknown, and some succeed. Thus critics of Mr. Obama’s orders should file lawsuits, as a remedy, if they can prove that his decrees seek to make law or else violate rights. It isn’t enough for these critics to claim that Mr. Obama has issued many orders. Congress itself has issued a cascade of new laws in recent years; it’s natural that the executive branch would issue orders to “execute” such laws; one merely follows the other. Otherwise, Mr. Obama is a mere piker when it comes to issuing decrees; he’s been easily out-distanced by the likes of those Republicans – e.g., Eisenhower and Reagan – who today’s conservatives claim to be paragons of constitutionally-limited government.
 
NIMBY said:
The House has done so little for so long, they're now qualified to do absolutely nothing for the rest of this term.
Except to hide in their offices and peep out like yesterday and announce a lawsuit on XOs,
but not being able to tell you which ones or why--just practicin .
Click to expand...

Nothing will come of it. I think it was just to keep his base happy. Perhaps he, Boehner feels a Cantor moment maybe coming.
 
You military guys call this a preemptive strike.
Btw, I like this new Press Secretary.
They don't have a very long shelf-life do they?
Perotista said:
Nothing will come of it. I think it was just to keep his base happy. Perhaps he, Boehner feels a Cantor moment maybe coming.
Click to expand...

The real moment of truth will come if Boehner ever breaks the Hastert rule again--such as not defaulting on our debt.
Did you see that Sen. Baker died--good man .
 
Montecresto said:
Oh please, their were/are plenty of people who said Bush issued executive orders "believed to be unconstitutional".
Click to expand...

Yep. There were definitly questionable executive action taken under Bush. The entire policy of the administration as it relates to renditions was one such example of an action, not an order, that would apply.

Suggesting Bush didn't do questionable things is a poor argument imho. However, equally poor is suggesting that somehow Obama's transgressions should be ignored, allowed, or not called out simply because Bush did it. EVEN if someone wants to harp on Republicans being hypocritical (while ignoring the inverse hypocracy of the outcry by many Democrats for 8 years under Bush for this kind of thing and large silence under Obama), it still doesn't change whether or not their arguments against what Obama is doing are legitimate or not.
 
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...

The real big problem here, and the reason why Obama's on steroids with this is because partisans never hold their OWN accountable when they break the law. So, expect more of the same.

NEWS
Reagan to Use Executive Orders to Bypass Congress
August 21, 1987 | JACK NELSON, Times Washington Bureau Chief
With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President's chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/executive-orders
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I have no trouble with the courts doing so. I have trouble with selective exaggeration. The courts ruled on Obama concern appointments, and I am fine with that.
Click to expand...

Then we're in agreement - all is good. I believe our discussion started with the chart posted by Amadeus and the relevance, but we got down to the gist of the matter where agreement could be found. Now, if you could get your government to work things out as smoothly, all would be good.
 
NIMBY said:
You military guys call this a preemptive strike.
Btw, I like this new Press Secretary.
They don't have a very long shelf-life do they?


The real moment of truth will come if Boehner ever breaks the Hastert rule again--such as not defaulting on our debt.
Did you see that Sen. Baker died--good man .
Click to expand...

No, I didn't know Baker died. I really do not like the Hastert rule, it smacks too much of the senate. If Sam Rayburn, Mike McCormick and the rest didn't need it, neither does any Speaker today. In my mind, the Speaker is not the majority leader of any party, his job is to be the Speaker for the whole house with includes both parties and even third parties if any can get elected today.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yep. There were definitly questionable executive action taken under Bush. The entire policy of the administration as it relates to renditions was one such example of an action, not an order, that would apply.

Suggesting Bush didn't do questionable things is a poor argument imho. However, equally poor is suggesting that somehow Obama's transgressions should be ignored, allowed, or not called out simply because Bush did it. EVEN if someone wants to harp on Republicans being hypocritical (while ignoring the inverse hypocracy of the outcry by many Democrats for 8 years under Bush for this kind of thing and large silence under Obama), it still doesn't change whether or not their arguments against what Obama is doing are legitimate or not.
Click to expand...

Don't include me in the group that thinks Obama's unconstitutional actions should be ignored. I think they need to bust his chops and any future president that tries to do the same, whether a republican or a democrat!!
 
BMCM said:
Not sure of the Canadian law but here you have to have standing and prove you were harmed in some way. This is nothing more then a political stunt to feed the sheep.

Why Boehner Can

But Boehner may not be able to do so. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School, the speaker of the House does not have the ability to sue the president in this situation, even if Congress says he does. Chemerinsky says “standing,” the doctrine that allows a person to file a lawsuit in federal court by demonstrating that real harm has been caused to them, is defined by the Constitution. As a result, even if Congress passes a law, or in this case a resolution, which only requires approval by the House, it will not be binding on federal courts, as the Constitution trumps any law, let alone a resolution, and does not give members of Congress the ability to sue if they cannot prove real harm.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in principle - here in Canada we have similar need to show damage in order to sue. But we're talking here about governmental authority and constitutionality. In Canada, our government frequently sends issues to our Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality prior to legislation or action being taken. It's a far less adversarial system when it comes to constitutional issues. When the public sues, however, it's a matter of showing how the government action has harmed or affected them.

Perhaps it's just a matter of a different culture - you could say we like to get permission before we act where as Americans like to act before they get permission, following the old principle that "it's easier to seek forgiveness than to seek approval".
 
Montecresto said:
The real big problem here, and the reason why Obama's on steroids with this is because partisans never hold their OWN accountable when they break the law. So, expect more of the same.

NEWS
Reagan to Use Executive Orders to Bypass Congress
August 21, 1987 | JACK NELSON, Times Washington Bureau Chief
With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President's chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.

Articles about Executive Orders - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree here - as I stated with Boo - my comments originally came out of a challenge to the Amadeus chart which simply showed quantity of executive orders as if that was the relevant issue. All Presidents, particularly in this past century, try to push the bounds of their authority and congress or groups of citizens take them to task through lawsuits. It's how the system's supposed to work and I see nothing wrong with it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Then we're in agreement - all is good. I believe our discussion started with the chart posted by Amadeus and the relevance, but we got down to the gist of the matter where agreement could be found. Now, if you could get your government to work things out as smoothly, all would be good.
Click to expand...

And I'd bottle that and become a trillionare.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree in principle - here in Canada we have similar need to show damage in order to sue. But we're talking here about governmental authority and constitutionality. In Canada, our government frequently sends issues to our Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality prior to legislation or action being taken. It's a far less adversarial system when it comes to constitutional issues. When the public sues, however, it's a matter of showing how the government action has harmed or affected them.

Perhaps it's just a matter of a different culture - you could say we like to get permission before we act where as Americans like to act before they get permission, following the old principle that "it's easier to seek forgiveness than to seek approval".
Click to expand...

Sounds like your Supreme Court has more power then your Government does.
If the GOP does file this law suit without "Standing" then it will most likely be viewed as nothing more then a political disagreement and the courts won't waste their time with it.
 
Amadeus said:
Obama is out of control and must be stopped.

ExecutiveOrders_FourYearTerms.jpg
Click to expand...

True, but this is a waste of time. And time to look like the stunt that it is.
 
BMCM said:
Sounds like your Supreme Court has more power then your Government does.
Click to expand...
I realize some people think that any constitution that differs from the US is the work of heathens and blasphemers, but: Given how often laws wind up in the courts, it's really not much different than in the US. It just streamlines the process, and doesn't give the court an "out" with issues of standing.


If the GOP does file this law suit without "Standing" then it will most likely be viewed as nothing more then a political disagreement and the courts won't waste their time with it.
Click to expand...
More likely is that the issue of standing will be one of many parts of a long drawn-out process. Sometimes, issues of standing make it all the way to the SCOTUS. E.g. one of the California SSM cases was rejected by the SCOTUS, because the people defending the law lacked the standing to do so (Hollingsworth v. Perry).
 
BMCM said:
Sounds like your Supreme Court has more power then your Government does.
If the GOP does file this law suit without "Standing" then it will most likely be viewed as nothing more then a political disagreement and the courts won't waste their time with it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't think we disagree here - as I stated with Boo - my comments originally came out of a challenge to the Amadeus chart which simply showed quantity of executive orders as if that was the relevant issue. All Presidents, particularly in this past century, try to push the bounds of their authority and congress or groups of citizens take them to task through lawsuits. It's how the system's supposed to work and I see nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

Well sure, but the problem is republicans only complain when a democrat is doing it and vice versa. The people on this board that are bitching about Obama (rightly so) were silent when Bush and Reagan were doing it. And the people on this board that are making excuses for Obama were quite vocal when Bush was doing it. Jonathan Turley is constantly accused of being both on the left and right which is silly, he's a constitutional lawyer/professor and the constitution has no left and right. He was very critical of Bush and more so yet of Obama. We have got to stop presidents (not just democratic ones either) from unilateral and extra constitutional action. If partisans will only stop protecting their own.
 
Montecresto said:
Well sure, but the problem is republicans only complain when a democrat is doing it and vice versa. The people on this board that are bitching about Obama (rightly so) were silent when Bush and Reagan were doing it. And the people on this board that are making excuses for Obama were quite vocal when Bush was doing it. Jonathan Turley is constantly accused of being both on the left and right which is silly, he's a constitutional lawyer/professor and the constitution has no left and right. He was very critical of Bush and more so yet of Obama. We have got to stop presidents (not just democratic ones either) from unilateral and extra constitutional action. If partisans will only stop protecting their own.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Visbek said:
Congress can overturn most executive orders by passing a law. E.g. Congress could pass a law that explicitly restricts the EPA from regulating CO2.
Click to expand...

As soon as that is possible in the Senate it may just happen. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom