• 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 backs bill to sue president over laws

You can sue the President of the United States? Why don't I think that's true?

Why didn't they impeach him? That would seem to be the proper channel.

You can sue the office, not the officeholder. It's a way for the people to sue the Executive Branch to bring them in line. The bar for impeachment is a high one and won't address all issues.
 
For the last time, unwillingness to defend a law is not equivalent to failure to enforce it. There is precedent for this.
 
You can sue the President of the United States? Why don't I think that's true?

Why didn't they impeach him? That would seem to be the proper channel.

I don't think they can sue a sitting President though they can possibly sue the Healthcare Law. It seems to me that suing a law passed by Congress, is suing the government . They'd have to impeach him first.

Clinton v. Jones, (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the law can only be changed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.
 
Like I said... this AA president could club baby seals on the WH lawn and nobody would dare touch him.

Its a privilege that comes with the title 'First Black President.'

As opposed to say...Reagan...and Iran-Contra, HUD grant rigging, Lobbying Scandals...there's not a modern President that has had as many high level staff removed from office due to illegal activity as the Teflon President. He wasn't black.
 
For the last time, unwillingness to defend a law is not equivalent to failure to enforce it. There is precedent for this.

By making an EO allowing illegal aliens to stay in the US and not following the law and deporting them that is a failure to enforce the law. By pushing back the set date of Obamacare despite the law saying it was suppose to be fully enacted already he is not enforcing the law. By continuing a war in Lybia for as long as he did he did not enforce the law.

Obama has consistantly and continueally not enforced several laws since he has been made President.
 
All you Obama worshippers cover your ears cuz I know you hate to hear this truth...

If Obama was white, he'd have already been impeached.

Because he's black, he never will be... no matter what he does.

Sad, but true.

Righties and their race card :roll:
 
And yet I don't worry because the odds of the couch potatoes rising up to do more than vote is pathetically slim. For all the calls of TYRANNY! and KING! the CONs just sit and stew. IF, as the CONs love to claim, the 2nd A is to stop tyranny and they love to claim that has happened do they think the 2nd A is magical and all by itself will sweep the 'tyrant' from office???? :roll:

But everyone knows that as the response is calling empty political gestures 'brave', and trite quotes... need a bit more to happen before I worry about the 'something I won't like'... :doh

There was plenty of this out of the Bush admin., and they were silent. And without consistency, it won't be stopped.
 
All you Obama worshippers cover your ears cuz I know you hate to hear this truth...

If Obama was white, he'd have already been impeached.

Because he's black, he never will be... no matter what he does.

Sad, but true.

False, Bush is white and he wasn't when many of us wanted him to be.
 
Indeed. I expect some Democrat Senators who are facing tough fights this year to agree with it as they plan to distance themselves from Obamacare in their upcoming campaigns. As long as they do not actually tip the balance far enough to let it pass of course.

Yep, and both sides play this same game on American people, still, they keep coming back with their partisan support. Something's really do never change.
 
All you Obama worshippers cover your ears cuz I know you hate to hear this truth...

If Obama was white, he'd have already been impeached.

Because he's black, he never will be... no matter what he does.

Sad, but true.

You are confusing people being proud of finally electing a black president with people electing based off of race. I helped elect Obama because he was the better of the only two viable candidates. He has not been impeached because he hasn't done anything worthy of being impeached.
 
No chance of passing, but definite statement with purpose.

To me it's something that floated to the top of the jacuzzi, but I also thought Clinton's impeachment was a farce.
 
By making an EO allowing illegal aliens to stay in the US and not following the law and deporting them that is a failure to enforce the law. By pushing back the set date of Obamacare despite the law saying it was suppose to be fully enacted already he is not enforcing the law. By continuing a war in Lybia for as long as he did he did not enforce the law. Obama has consistantly and continueally not enforced several laws since he has been made President.

Actually not very accurate- President Obama's administration has deported MORE illegal aliens than BushII did, what he has done is decided not to deport a classification of illegal immigrant.

The President is granted some rather broad leeway in 'Faithfully executing' the laws of this country... do note it doesn't say fully at the time approved of by Congress. The Cons in CONgress know this so past the political stunts they know it is a dead issue.

Just what part of the Libyan war did President Obama continue and what law did he not enforce.

I was around during the hate all things Clinton era with Newt leading the Congressional charge to hang 'em high. That is NOTHING like the animus against President Obama. I'd opine we would have already had the Impeachment if ANY of what you are claiming were truly violating the Office, duties of the Presidency or the Constitution.

Stirs the right wing base but fails past that. :peace
 
Actually not very accurate- President Obama's administration has deported MORE illegal aliens than BushII did, what he has done is decided not to deport a classification of illegal immigrant.

What I said is completely accurate. Him deporting more illegals than a past president does not excuse his EO letting a "classification of illegal immigrant" stay in the US despite the law.

The President is granted some rather broad leeway in 'Faithfully executing' the laws of this country... do note it doesn't say fully at the time approved of by Congress. The Cons in CONgress know this so past the political stunts they know it is a dead issue.

There is not enough leeway that he can change what a law says. Nor is playing semantics of one word being omitted a valid excuse. It said that it would begin in 2014. Making an EO to extend it to any time past 2014 and he has just ignored the law as written.

Just what part of the Libyan war did President Obama continue and what law did he not enforce.

The part where he claimed it wasn't a war and went past the 60 day limit.

(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress

(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Cornell.edu

I was around during the hate all things Clinton era with Newt leading the Congressional charge to hang 'em high. That is NOTHING like the animus against President Obama. I'd opine we would have already had the Impeachment if ANY of what you are claiming were truly violating the Office, duties of the Presidency or the Constitution.

Probably because all Clinton did was lie about getting a blow job. Obama has actually ignored and changed laws. I supported Clinton at the time. I thought it was rediculous what the GOP was doing. In this case however they have every right to demand that the courts hear these cases asap.

As for what you opine...well...that is your opinion. :shrug: But I do note that even you couldn't bring yourself to even attempt to deny that Obama has not followed the law in regards to illegal immigration. Instead you just tried to divert by claiming that Obama has deported more illegals than Bush.
 
the semantics part first- The courts have ruled the President does get leeway in executing the laws of this country. It isn't a wordplay but a precise reading of the wording.

Did we continue to bomb Libya after 60 days or support NATO? Did we send troops to Libya or send weapons? You cited the law, in part, but not the action that violated it.

The immigration thing- again it is your opinion the President must enforce the law as you think it should be but I do believe the argument is to not send families who's children were born here and thus US Citizens back across the border. It creates a problem of the government has to provide for the minor citizens or deport legal US Citizens.

Last- again your opinion the President has violated the law/Constitution. As I have pointed out this CONgress has a hard-on for the President and not in a kinky porn sort of way. Are you going to attempt to claim the CONs in the House are giving this President a break by not Impeaching him for violating the Constitution? You claim he has done just that.

No Sir, it is opinion and not much more than that.

The attempt to sue is pandering to the base and not much more than that

Talk of Impeaching is partisan grandstanding and not much more than that.

If Boenher thought he could impeach the President he damn sure would.
 
Sitting idly by saying nothing denotes approval. Glad to see a few are brave enough to stand up to tyranny.

...and where were these "brave" souls during the tyranny of the last administration? I will answer: complicit. What we have here are cowards and hypocrites wasting valuable time on nonsense thus, essentially, abrogating responsibility (not doing their jobs; yet getting paid).
 
If Congress were to stop delegating regulatory authority the the Executive, and in fact walk that authority back, that would be a great deal more effective than some cockamamie scheme to give Congress the authority to sue the Presidency.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that every single time the Executive and the Legislature butt heads directly -- I don't mean over the Constitutionality of a law, I mean over the direct exercise of their respective roles -- the Judiciary absolutely refuses to hand down a definitive decision.

Don't whine and bitch and moan about how much power the Executive has -- strip it and be done with it. Congress is largely responsible for the behemoth that the Executive is, and Congress can set it right if it so chooses.
 
Sitting idly by saying nothing denotes approval. Glad to see a few are brave enough to stand up to tyranny.

:roll:

I don't even like Obama, but this "tyranny" talk is just idiotic.
 
Looks to me like this could bite the GOP in the ass. Lets see if the GOP actually has the guts to sue the President. If not then it's just more chest thumping and pandering to their decreasing base.
 
Righties and their race card :roll:

Righties didn't package, market and sell Barack Obama as the first black president, lefties did. Sorry, but I still remember how appalled I was the first time I heard his own party refer to his skin color.

You wanted a black president, you got one. Too late to act all disgusted because others refer to his race. I'd respect the man a lot more if he had refused to called black... but he never did.
 
Back
Top Bottom