• 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 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.

What a joke. He was only better because he was black. What on earth had he EVER done to prove he was qualified to be POTUS?

Nothing.
 
...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 you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan."

+37 times.

Obviously you weren't hurt by his lies... millions of American people were.
 
...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).


I doubt using Obama's own words against him.....is being a Hypocrit. Naturally the last Administration had its problems. But we aren't talking about that administration. Nor was the Democrats when they had full control of Congress looking to pass any of this type of legislation due to worrying about that President writing out EO's or looking or always looking to get around the Constitution.



Obama has drawn criticism for his June 2012 decision to allow young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children to gain legal status and remain in the United States if they attend school or join the military.

Republicans also have assailed Obama for tougher action on the environment.

"The president's dangerous search for expanded powers appears to be endless," said Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sponsor of the bill, read a series of statements by Obama when he was an Illinois senator in which he warned of the encroachment of the executive on the powers of the other branches of government.

In urging support, Gowdy said Congress is "not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe we would be respected more if we respected ourselves.".....snip~
 
...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).

Where were the brave souls? Obama himself
warned of the encroachment of the executive on the powers of the other branches of government.
, except that now, as he is in power to interpret the law to his own liking, he does a complete 180.
It shouldn't matter which administration abuses privileges, what matter is that they do, and that should scare us all.
 
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.

Some leeway is not re-writing leeway. Obama would have been just fine with delaying Obamacare to the end of December. He didn't. He has delayed it for pretty much everyone BUT the common person for the next 2 years.

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.

Think you need to study up on this. Yes, we went to Libya and bombed certain parts in order to prevent the reigning regime from using its advanced weapons against its civilians. Yes we had some troops on the ground in Libya (though Obama initially tried to deny that ANY ground troops would be used). Yes He kept up that action for over 60 days without congressional approval. Even going so far as to stating that it wasn't technically a war because there were not ground troops being sent over. Which many cried BS on for the simple fact that if the situation was reversed and some country had bombed parts of the US it would have been considered an act of war.

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.

It is not my opinion. It is the law. The law states that illegals are to be detained and deported. The only exceptions being allowed are those who come here as refugees. And even then they have to go through a process of being accepted which if not followed will get the person deported.

Bold: Incorrect. The EO refers to any illegal children that were brought here already born by their parents at a young age. They are not refering to deporting families where the children were born here and are US citizens. There is already a law passed by congress that deals with children that were born in the US from illegal aliens. The parents have the option of taking them with them voluntarily, leaving them with a friend or family member that is in the US legally or leaving them in the care of the government.

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.

Yes, it is my opinion. But then that opinion is trying to get solved by this bill isn't it? All this bill does fast track lawsuits against the POTUS to see if he is indeed violating the law. In order for any President to be impeached is if he violates the law. Article 2 Section 4. They cannot simply impeach him on a belief. Facts must be present. So no, I don't think they are giving him a break. Indeed I believe that this law is an attempt to see if he has actually violated the law.

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

Which is why cases are winding through our court system and this law is to fast track those cases to the Supreme Court so that it can be decided on.

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.

But this particular bill isn't about impeachment. Its about fast tracking lawsuits to the Supreme Court. What the courts decide is what will determine if impeachment needs to be considered or not. Why are Obama supporters so afraid of law suits against Obama being fast tracked so that the issue can be settled? Is there validity to those law suits?
 
House backs bill to sue president over laws



Is this party politics with no chance of passing, or is it a definitive statement that has purpose?



Mornin' Grip :2wave: .....Tell me do you think this plays in with your piece? Understanding that political blowback and all. Its all starting to catch up with him. Do you think he should have bragged about the Power of his pen and phone?


Executive Overreach Blowback.....

7c02d74f-5cdb-401c-95cf-d0c3a83b3156.jpg


From President Obama's unilateral re-write of education law, to his many Obamacare delays, a growing chorus of conservatives, and recently even some liberals, have been decrying Obama's abuse of executive power.

Up until now, most of Obama's liberal allies have either stayed silent or supported these actions. But now that it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama will get nothing done in Congress, these same liberal allies are asking Obama to abuse his executive power even further.

Take BuzzFeed's Jacob Fischler has a story out today on union frustration over Obamacare.

In other words, if Obama can delay the employer mandate, refuse to enforce minimum health insurance requirements, and functionally repeal the individual mandate entirely, then why can't they fix labor's Obamacare Cadillac Tax problem too?

Obama is facing the exact same dilemma on immigration. After failing to pass amnesty legislation in his first year in office, as promised, he did manage to regain Latino support in June 2012 by unilaterally creating a limited mini-amnesty (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) without Congress.

There has been a shift within the Hispanic media,” Jorge Ramos, the influential Univision anchor who has been called the “Walter Cronkite of Hispanic media,” told me. “If you read the editorial pages in the most important Spanish language newspapers, you notice immediately how the conversation has changed from attacking Republicans to attacking Obama.”

Obama's unilateral legislating is coming back to haunt him. Obama desperately needs Latinos and union members to show up at the polls this November, but the only way Obama can make them happy is by further shredding the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.....snip~

Executive Overreach Blowback - Conn Carroll
 
I can understand the sentiment in the House. I do think that the Presidents use of Executive Authority has stepped above and beyond what should be and likely is acceptable.

But as I said in another thread...I don't support this law. There's a method in the constitution allowing for the legislative branch to have recourse against the executive. I don't support passing a law and trying to find an end around simply because that method is too hard, too difficult, or to significant. Either it warrants impeachment, in which case go that route...or it doesn't, and simply try to make political hay out of it and utilize it as a means to try and enact change. Passing a law for a "third way" is not the correct way to do it and I believe insults the ideas set forth within the Constitution. IF they really think this is necessary as a means of checks and balances then try and pass it as a constitutional amendment. But we shouldn't be creating a new check and balance beyond the ones in the constitution simply because the constitutional ones are too difficult.
 
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.

This is utterly ridiculous.

If Obama was white there's PLENTY of historical and political evidence to suggest he would not be impeached.

The amount of Presidents to have been impeached is miniscule. Furthermore, the political damage to a party actually going forward with impeachment and not succeeding with ousting said President is also substantial. Given that the Republicans do not own the Senate it means that any impeachment action would be unlikely to completely succeed...making it political suicide to significant go down that path. Black or White, at this point it'd be highly unlikely that impeachment action would've taken place against Obama.

Your opinion may be sad, but it's not true.
 
A lot of opinion once more, yes small children brought here without a say can stay, a subset of those where without papers, but again the deportation program has plenty of others to send back, this seems a petty bitch.

But let me ask you- if the President has violated the Constitution then why not Impeach rather than the lame ass "I gonna sue you?"

And hate to break it to you, if you research the 'faithfully execute' phrase you'll see many Presidents have used their judgement on just how, how much and by when the law gets faithfully executed.

Since the TPs at one time demanded any new bill being presented have it's basis in the Constitution presented as well those X-spurts should know what is Constitutional and what isn't. They know, they just want to try and make a fuss right before the election cycle to deflect from a rather poor platform on the Right
 
Must bow to Dear Leader's wishes. At least until his term of destruction is over.

Tyranny, Dear Leader???? This is why the CON radicals lose the Moderates. Course if it really was Tyranny and if Obama really was a Commie/socialist/Marxist whatever dribble you 'patriots' should be doing a lot more than clapping as the Do-nothing CONs in CONgress make empty gestures. :roll:
 
This still means nothing imp.

You claim it means nothing important? What would your opinion be if a Republican POTUS were to do this? The question is rhetorical, because we already know the answer! :argue: Be honest...fair should be fair for everyone!

Greetings, Carleen. :2wave:
 
This still means nothing imp.

Your opinion. ;) Personally I hope that if Democrats are secure enough in their belief that Obama has done no wrong then they will pass this through. After all, it would show that they are not just trying to protect their own and that they think they are on firm footing. Of course the flip side to that is that if they don't pass it then it will show that they are not on firm footing and think that maybe Obama did indeed violate the laws.
 
You claim it means nothing important? What would your opinion be if a Republican POTUS were to do this? The question is rhetorical, because we already know the answer! :argue: Be honest...fair should be fair for everyone!

Greetings, Carleen. :2wave:

Well.....Do you think it means something when the Democrats are in Disarray, and their party is fracturing Lady P? Do you think there is such a thing as blowback from ones own party? What about from an Entire country?
 
Mornin' Grip :2wave: .....Tell me do you think this plays in with your piece? Understanding that political blowback and all. Its all starting to catch up with him. Do you think he should have bragged about the Power of his pen and phone?


Executive Overreach Blowback.....

7c02d74f-5cdb-401c-95cf-d0c3a83b3156.jpg


From President Obama's unilateral re-write of education law, to his many Obamacare delays, a growing chorus of conservatives, and recently even some liberals, have been decrying Obama's abuse of executive power.

Up until now, most of Obama's liberal allies have either stayed silent or supported these actions. But now that it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama will get nothing done in Congress, these same liberal allies are asking Obama to abuse his executive power even further.

Take BuzzFeed's Jacob Fischler has a story out today on union frustration over Obamacare.

In other words, if Obama can delay the employer mandate, refuse to enforce minimum health insurance requirements, and functionally repeal the individual mandate entirely, then why can't they fix labor's Obamacare Cadillac Tax problem too?

Obama is facing the exact same dilemma on immigration. After failing to pass amnesty legislation in his first year in office, as promised, he did manage to regain Latino support in June 2012 by unilaterally creating a limited mini-amnesty (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) without Congress.

There has been a shift within the Hispanic media,” Jorge Ramos, the influential Univision anchor who has been called the “Walter Cronkite of Hispanic media,” told me. “If you read the editorial pages in the most important Spanish language newspapers, you notice immediately how the conversation has changed from attacking Republicans to attacking Obama.”

Obama's unilateral legislating is coming back to haunt him. Obama desperately needs Latinos and union members to show up at the polls this November, but the only way Obama can make them happy is by further shredding the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.....snip~

Executive Overreach Blowback - Conn Carroll

I actually believe both parties would like to see a functional Healthcare system, as long as their party is the one responsible for it. But they're both playing politics with our needs and finances.

Neither one will ever come up with a plan, the other completely approves of, so what's the solution? It took both parties to pass the Bill and now they don't want to fix it. I don't care if they get rid of it or amend it, just make the damn thing work for everyone.
 
Well.....Do you think it means something when the Democrats are in Disarray, and their party is fracturing Lady P? Do you think there is such a thing as blowback from ones own party? What about from an Entire country?

Basic loyalty to a party is not a bad thing, but "blind" loyalty to anything is! At some point, people begin to think on a different level as they begin to realize how they may be personally affected by what is being done, and that overrides party loyalty. I believe that we are at that point! Self preservation has always important to humans, and every other living thing on this planet, or we would not have survived. Even plants have developed personal survival mechanisms...thorns, poisons, evil smells, etc, to enable themselves to continue as a species. The same thing instinct rules us, IMO.

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:
 
I actually believe both parties would like to see a functional Healthcare system, as long as their party is the one responsible for it. But they're both playing politics with our needs and finances.

Neither one will ever come up with a plan, the other completely approves of, so what's the solution? It took both parties to pass the Bill and now they don't want to fix it. I don't care if they get rid of it or amend it, just make the damn thing work for everyone.


It took both parties to pass what bill? As I recall.....Republicans voted against the O' care Bill.
 
What a joke. He was only better because he was black. What on earth had he EVER done to prove he was qualified to be POTUS?

Nothing.

US citizen of the age of 35 or greater. Know of other constitutional requirements?
 
You claim it means nothing important? What would your opinion be if a Republican POTUS were to do this? The question is rhetorical, because we already know the answer! :argue: Be honest...fair should be fair for everyone!

Greetings, Carleen. :2wave:

I think George W was accused wasn't he?
 
Basic loyalty to a party is not a bad thing, but "blind" loyalty to anything is! At some point, people begin to think on a different level as they begin to realize how they may be personally affected by what is being done, and that overrides party loyalty. I believe that we are at that point! Self preservation has always important to humans, and every other living thing on this planet, or we would not have survived. Even plants have developed personal survival mechanisms...thorns, poisons, evil smells, etc, to enable themselves to continue as a species. The same thing instinct rules us, IMO.

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

Hiya Lady P.
wave.gif
Human Instincts huh? Are you saying that Progressives and Liberals will come up with defensive mechanisms in order to survive? :shock:

Honest....I wonts complain if they give off any evil smells. Just makes em easier to root out.
evilgrin.gif



cmons now.....How could I resist that.
angel12.gif
 
It took both parties to pass what bill? As I recall.....Republicans voted against the O' care Bill.


I stand corrected. For some reason, I thought some of the Republicans voted for it.
 
I think George W was accused wasn't he?

He sure was, and is, which makes my point that both sides use the same tactics. Nothing new here.... :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom