• 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!

House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

imagep said:
We seem to like strong leaders.
Click to expand...

Strong leaders? Kings are strong leaders.

As I said previously, America was born as a backlash against an imperial decision that the citizens didn't support. What makes the capricious decision of a President any different from the capricious decision of a monarch?
 
imagep said:
I wouldn't be surprised of congress doesn't pass a bill that is nearly identical to Obama's illegal executive aministy.

It's all about votes. Our elections are so close that we call it a landslide when a candidate wins by just 6%. We are fairly equally divided between the two parties. If the republicans don't respond to this executive action, in just the right way, then dems will pick up almost 100% of the latino vote next go round, and there will be almost no way that republicans can win.

Republicans would be smart to make a deal with Obama, offering to pass a bill in January, if Obama delays his executive action until Feb 1st. If republicans get this right, then Obama will still be able to save face as he would have forced congress to act, and republicans would be able to keep their share of latino voters.
Click to expand...

That's really just so much nonsense. The Republicans haven't suffered one bit from opposing Obama. Not long ago, the left was predicting the death of the Republicans this election for shutting down the government in early 2013. Considering that the American people, in the majority, oppose much of the Obama agenda and actions, being in opposition isn't such a bad place to be.

As for latinos, GWB garnered over 40% of that block in his Presidential elections. A similar Republican, one who runs on principle, can reclaim lots of that vote as well. Jeb Bush could easily do it. Unlike black Americans who seem to be "enslaved" to the Democrat party, regardless the abuse, latinos aren't so encumbered.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Considering it was a vote for congress and the senate and not the president, and it was the worst turn out in 70 years, I think most people just stayed home because they are fed up with our congress critters. Hardly any kind of mandate on the president.
Click to expand...

You keep whistling by the graveyard and ignore reality if it helps you sleep at night.
 
still waiting for the lawsuit against bush II for the trillion dollar war of futility
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Oh brother quit with the dramatic. Obama really didn't do much of anything and not anywhere near what the right was expecting him to do. Did you even read the transcript to the speech?
Click to expand...

My comment was dramatic at all - I've said it before related to pardons. I find it remarkable that the American people are okay with one man, or woman if that ever comes to pass, having the ability to ignore laws/legislation and can overturn the decisions of juries and courts with the stroke of a pen. You live more under a monarchy than England does.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
No matter how many times you repeat this or highlight it doesn't mean it isn't lame.

Ooooh a LIBERAL LAW PROFESSOR! Oooooooh!
Click to expand...


The only thing lame about it is.....you not knowing who Turley is for those on the left.

But then.....I already knew that you aren't, up on much, with politics anyways. :lol:
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Did you know Obama was a constitutional law professor so he's an expert on constitutional law? And he's a liberal too! How about that!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know BO has a degree in it. Yet note how no members in his own field ever asked him for his take on anything.....even back when BO peep was a Senator. That No Demos or really anyone.....EVER asked that Mope for any advice over Constitutional Law.

You would have thought that might have been your First Clue! :lamo
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Did you know Obama was a constitutional law professor so he's an expert on constitutional law? And he's a liberal too! How about that!
Click to expand...
Where was Obama a law professor?

He knows enough that he found a way to subvert the Constitution and gravely damage the nation. We can not rid ourselves of this tyrant fast enough.
 
NIMBY said:
Isn't this dictator, emperor, king bull**** a riot.
Too bad the President didn't keep his original word and do this before the end of summer.

The GOPs like Cruz, Palin, Boehner, McConnell etc. would have lost their minds as they are now.
And scared the American people ****less all the way to the polls in record numbers .
Click to expand...
You have been Grubered again. You might be unaware that you, too, have been diminished as a result of the Tyrant's unconstitutional action. You will pay more for everything, your wages have been suppressed and your vote will count less unless you vote for more tyranny.

We do not have a border. And now the American citizens have had their vote diluted. We will see a rush for millions more to invade this nation. I believe Obama has set the stage for this nation's last days. We may have to go through a civil war for a new birth of freedom.

Despite all of this for some his treason did not occur rapidly enough nor his tyranny go far enough. The spirit of America, a nation based upon the consent of the governed, is clearly not in you.
 
Misterveritis said:
Where was Obama a law professor?

He knows enough that he found a way to subvert the Constitution and gravely damage the nation. We can not rid ourselves of this tyrant fast enough.
Click to expand...

University of Chicago Law School. The university agrees he "served as a lecturer" and was "regarded as a professor," though he was not officially one in title. In that he gave himself the title, the University is siding with him and not "siding with formality."

Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?
 
Cardinal said:
University of Chicago Law School. The university agrees he "served as a lecturer" and was "regarded as a professor," though he was not officially one in title. In that he gave himself the title, the University is siding with him and not "siding with formality."

Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?
Click to expand...
So he was not a law professor anywhere. Thanks for clearing that up. He remains the Father of Lies. Why do people continue to support him?
 
MMC said:
No, it was the Keystone Bill that the Demos just dumped on.

Besides, the Bill you are talking about from the Senate......Harry Reid pulled back the Border Security Provision of the Bill, and has been holding it ever since then.

Even after the bills that were sent which BO didn't like. That came during the surge of children, with the Southern Border.
Click to expand...

Surely you're not whining that the democrats didn't let a bill reach Obama's desk, not after 6 years of record filibusters by the GOP? The bill failed, same as hundreds failed because of GOP opposition. I'm not sure what you expect - democrats to vote FOR bills they were elected to oppose? I guess IOKIYAR....

And the bill passed 68-32 and would pass the House if Boner let it come up for a vote, but he won't. Again, IOKIYAR I guess.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Considering it was a vote for congress and the senate and not the president, and it was the worst turn out in 70 years, I think most people just stayed home because they are fed up with our congress critters. Hardly any kind of mandate on the president.
Click to expand...

It was a vote against BO peep and his policies. All ran against BO. Didn't need anything else.
 
Misterveritis said:
So he was not a law professor anywhere. Thanks for clearing that up. He remains the Father of Lies. Why do you continue to support him?
Click to expand...

The difference between senior lecturer and professor is one of tenure only, and even then not all professors always have tenure. Their duties are exactly the same. And ultimately it's up to the university to decide, not you or me:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Click to expand...
and
Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists.
Click to expand...
The difference in this case is so razor thin that not even the university cares.
 
JasperL said:
Surely you're not whining that the democrats didn't let a bill reach Obama's desk, not after 6 years of record filibusters by the GOP? The bill failed, same as hundreds failed because of GOP opposition. I'm not sure what you expect - democrats to vote FOR bills they were elected to oppose? I guess IOKIYAR....

And the bill passed 68-32 and would pass the House if Boner let it come up for a vote, but he won't. Again, IOKIYAR I guess.
Click to expand...


Nah, first off: I don't whine, ever..... and especially when it comes to the left or anything that comes up out of their mouths.

Second.....try reading. What part about you not understanding that Reid pulled back the Border Security provision of the Bill that passed, didn't you get? Were you still confused about that?


Oh and the House had bills.....BO and Harry didn't like them. Might have had to do with that Part about Limiting BO peeps interference with Immigration. Just sayin.

Still confused?
 
Misterveritis said:
I see. You were parsing Obama's tyranny into lesser, Hitlerian tyrannies versus destroying the value of the American citizenship tyranny of yesterday. I have no doubt that you would parse Hitler's tyranny into his attack through Poland, then another small amount of tyranny in his destruction of France and the Brits leading to the evacuation at Dunkirk. And when you parse Hitler's Operation Barbarossa would that be a greater tyranny or a lesser tyranny?

I now realize that you are not a serious poster. Thanks for making that clear.
Click to expand...

I'm a serious poster, but I don't take seriously people who throw around "Tyrant" - if he's a tyrant then so was W. Bush and Reagan and Clinton and Nixon, and we've been living in "TYRANNY" for decades. And using the term to refer to an American POTUS trivializes the regimes under which people really ARE oppressed in lawless states around the world. Unlike those regimes, there are options here, and the House is turning to one of them - a lawsuit and the courts. They can also withhold funds, pass a new law, or impeach this "Tyrant," which would get them executed, or imprisoned, in actual tyrannical regimes. And in two years, this "Tyrant" will walk out of the WH and be peacefully replaced by someone elected by us, which doesn't happen in actually tyrannical regimes. Etc. etc.....................
 
JasperL said:
I'm a serious poster, but I don't take seriously people who throw around "Tyrant" - if he's a tyrant then so was W. Bush and Reagan and Clinton and Nixon, and we've been living in "TYRANNY" for decades. And using the term to refer to an American POTUS trivializes the regimes under which people really ARE oppressed in lawless states around the world. Unlike those regimes, there are options here, and the House is turning to one of them - a lawsuit and the courts. They can also withhold funds, pass a new law, or impeach this "Tyrant," which would get them executed, or imprisoned, in actual tyrannical regimes. And in two years, this "Tyrant" will walk out of the WH and be peacefully replaced by someone elected by us, which doesn't happen in actually tyrannical regimes. Etc. etc.....................
Click to expand...

To some extent you are correct when you say that every President, or Congress, or SCOTUS has done things that erode the Constitution, which is why when asked what kind of government we had, Benjamin Franklin replied 'A constitutional republic, if you can keep it.'

However, pointing to that in some attempt to say that we should not be concerned, or do anything about what a particular President does that clearly violates his duties, and oath is ridiculous....It also smacks of the tired old excuse progressives love these days, which is akin to the 4 year olds excuse 'well, Johnny did it too..'

Each violation is on its own, and should be examined, and adjudicated so.
 
Cardinal said:
The difference between senior lecturer and professor is one of tenure only, and even then not all professors always have tenure. Their duties are exactly the same. And ultimately it's up to the university to decide, not you or me:


and

The difference in this case is so razor thin that not even the university cares.
Click to expand...
You should have stopped at "The Father of Lies continues to lie."
And now I see that you support him.
 
Misterveritis said:
You should have stopped at "The Father of Lies continues to lie."
And now I see that you support him.
Click to expand...

But a Father of Lies who's a Constitutional Law Professor.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
To some extent you are correct when you say that every President, or Congress, or SCOTUS has done things that erode the Constitution, which is why when asked what kind of government we had, Benjamin Franklin replied 'A constitutional republic, if you can keep it.'

However, pointing to that in some attempt to say that we should not be concerned, or do anything about what a particular President does that clearly violates his duties, and oath is ridiculous....It also smacks of the tired old excuse progressives love these days, which is akin to the 4 year olds excuse 'well, Johnny did it too..'

Each violation is on its own, and should be examined, and adjudicated so.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, actually. But what's also relevant is precedence, and if you have a long line of precedence indicating that the POTUS simply DOES have a great deal of discretion with regard to, for example, immigration matters, then that must be taken into account. If Bush argued that the Unitary Executive has certain rights that Congress cannot strip and those rights were accepted by the courts and/or Congress, that DOES matter. On this thread the issue is the lawsuit about Obama not enforcing the ACA as written. It's a legitimate question whether he has that authority. But it's a difficult case to make that he MUST enforce the ACA as written (cannot delay certain provisions), but CAN allow Colorado to break federal law and allow pot to be sold, or allow companies to disregard EPA regs, etc. POTUS's have exercised regulatory discretion dating back to the 1800s, it is simply a prerogative of the Executive branch.

I'm not saying there is no line to cross, but it seems to me where the discretion of the POTUS begins and ends is incredibly difficult to determine, as we saw with Bush and now Obama.
 
JasperL said:
I'm a serious poster,
Click to expand...
Let's assume, for the moment, that this is true or you belive it to be true.

but I don't take seriously people who throw around "Tyrant"
Click to expand...
We have a tyrant today. He is ruling without the consent of the governed rather than faithfully executing the laws. He is making his own laws. He is enforcing law on a whim. Those things are sufficient to identify Obama as a tyrant.

- if he's a tyrant then so was W. Bush and Reagan and Clinton and Nixon,
Click to expand...
Make your case. How did Bush rule without the consent of the governed? How did Reagan rule without the consent of the governed? How did Clinton rule without the consent of the governed? How did Nixon rule without the consent of the governed?

and we've been living in "TYRANNY" for decades.
Click to expand...
Make your case. I will read it.

And using the term to refer to an American POTUS trivializes the regimes under which people really ARE oppressed in lawless states around the world.
Click to expand...
My concern is for this lawless regime. I do not care at all about what other lawless leaders do. They are not my problem. This Lawless One is my problem. And yours. It is no excuse that people are not yet disappearing. Tyranny begins with lawlessness in this case. We must end it by holding the Father of Lies accountable, by impeaching him, convicting him and removing him from office. It is no excuse, in fact it is irresponsible to say we should do nothing because other tyrants are worse than ours.

Unlike those regimes, there are options here, and the House is turning to one of them - a lawsuit and the courts.
Click to expand...
The only worse solution is to do nothing at all. The legislature has failed to use its Constitutional tools, to impeach, to withhold funds through budgets, and to withhold appointments and other legislation the executive branch desires. If it loses in the courts then the legislature becomes nothing more than a fig leaf. It will be like the Roman Senate under Augustus. We will have the fiction of representative government with its substance. Only craven, spineless men and women would do as this Congress has done.

They can also withhold funds, pass a new law, or impeach this "Tyrant," which would get them executed, or imprisoned, in actual tyrannical regimes.
Click to expand...
That other nations are further down the road to totalitarian authoritarian states is a warning that the time to stop a tyrant is early. Today. Now. It is not helpful to wait because other tyrants are worse than our own.

And in two years, this "Tyrant" will walk out of the WH and be peacefully replaced by someone elected by us, which doesn't happen in actually tyrannical regimes. Etc. etc.....................
Click to expand...
So, in your serious post you have said this tyrant is really not all that tyrannical. We can let him advance his tyrannies for two more years because we can elect a whole new tyrant who will use these examples as precedence for his or her own tyrannical acts.

It hsi what your serious post intended to convey?
 
humbolt said:
Here's the problem MMC. Obama can certainly determine that illegal aliens will not be prosecuted. That is wholly within his power as chief executive. However, Obama cannot claim that these illegals are here legally by virtue of his order, and reward them with work permits and so on. That is not within his power. That power resides with congress.
Click to expand...

What specific law on the books has Obama violated with this order?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom