• 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

Come on...you HAVE to admit its funny. The democrats and Obama sprained things in their rush to pass legislation...legislation in which they are now DESPERATE to not see enacted. The GOP fought said legislation and is now trying to FORCE the president to live with the actual legislation that bears his name.
Dems made a nasty **** sandwich that they desperately dont want to eat...but they want their followers and fanboys to applaud them for making the **** sandwich.
 
notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it was just kids I might not object as loudly. But its not. It also includes adults that came here as children. But in either case I would still acknowledge the fact that Obama is not enforcing the law as it is written.

notquiteright said:
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?"
Click to expand...

I've already addressed this. In order to impeach a President he has to have committed a crime. By law no one has committed a crime until such time as the court system deems it.

notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the excuse of "BUT HE DID IT TOO!!" doesn't sit with me when my kids do it. Why should I accept it from adults?
 
Smartmouthwoman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, like the dynamic duo of Trigger-Finger McGee and Miss Alaska were a better choice. :lol:

Both parties have been serving up candidates full of suck and fail for some time now.
 
Smartmouthwoman said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Would you be so kind as to point out a politician at the national level that hasn't told their share of lies?

I'll bet you can't name any, because the honest ones never get any camera time.
 
MMC said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really wish people would stop propagating silliness like this. The President can't re-write the law, and has never been able to do so. Congress has given and continues to give the Presidency vast regulatory authority. Congress made the Frankenstein that is the Presidency, Congress need to clean it up and can do so without getting the courts involved.
 
Smartmouthwoman said:
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.'
Click to expand...

Impeachment is like indictment, The House of Representatives is like a grand jury. After the House vote, the trial begins. The Senate is the jury and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the judge. A president is only thrown out of office if they are found guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors in the impeachment trial. Nobody knows exactly what high crimes and misdemeanors means though. No president has ever been thrown out of office. Nixon almost certainly would have been if he hadn't left first.

So what do the color of his skin has to do with anything? Apparently all congress has to do is find grounds for impeachment.......


Don't worry I'll wait

stephen-a-smith-sipping-coffee-o.gif
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
but they voted for it in commitee.
Click to expand...

They did? Only thing I recall.....was S-Chip they voted on. But then can you explain why they voted for it Officially as being against it? IS there a link to these Republicans that voted for Obamacare in the beginning? The Very beginning?
 
notquiteright said:
Interesting POV, these few are not brave in any way,shape, or form. What is the consequence of their action? What is the blow back? NONE

Now what are the odds of this ever becoming law- NIL to NONE

It's more like those 'brave' mice coming up with the idea that a bell on the cat would warn them when it approaches- but who would bell the cat?

Meaningless debate in the House over a bill that stands ZERO chance of passing isn't going to get that bell on, and isn't brave.

Coming up with a plan that can actually work- now THAT would be something... :peace
Click to expand...

I still say that if these House Republicans really believed that the President has violated Article II, section 3, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States, then they should do their job under Article 1, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall chose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Click to expand...

Any other so-called legal action against a sitting President is not only folly, it's just good political theater and petty posturing for their voting base...nothing more.
 
Objective Voice said:
I still say that if these House Republicans really believed that the President has violated Article II, section 3, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States, then they should do their job under Article 1, Section 2:



Any other so-called legal action against a sitting President is not only folly, it's just good political theater and petty posturing for their voting base...nothing more.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but you'll understand if the republicans, in the house or otherwise, don't listen to your advice. What you seem to miss is that this retrains not just the current office holder but future officer holders as well. They cannot regulate executive orders any more than the executive branch can regulate house or senate rules. But they can render them useless as an end run around legislation and legitimate process as the current office holder has been using them.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Don't you just love those "small limited government" Republicans who espouse states rights? :roll:
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed that this would restrain the power of the government, in this case the executive branch, to it's constitutional duty. How in your mind is that inconsistent with the stated goal of a constitutionally limited fed?

And what the heck does it have to do with state's rights?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I really wish people would stop propagating silliness like this. The President can't re-write the law, and has never been able to do so. Congress has given and continues to give the Presidency vast regulatory authority. Congress made the Frankenstein that is the Presidency, Congress need to clean it up and can do so without getting the courts involved.
Click to expand...

Presidents throughout our history have done end runs around their constitutional grant of power. The congress does not have the grant of power to "clean up" the policies and procedures of the executive branch any more than the POTUS has the grant to affect senate and house rules. The court must be involved here. In fact, this is precisely what they were originally empanelled for. As referees between the two branches (and supplimentally the people) with the constitution as the reference point.
 
MMC said:
They did? Only thing I recall.....was S-Chip they voted on. But then can you explain why they voted for it Officially as being against it? IS there a link to these Republicans that voted for Obamacare in the beginning? The Very beginning?
Click to expand...

9 Olympia Snowe votes that angered the GOP - POLITICO.com

In October 2009, Snowe was the sole Republican in the Senate to vote for the Finance Committee’s health care reform bill. “When history calls, history calls,” she said at the time. Snowe said she wanted the bill sent to the full Senate, but noted she might not support the final version — and she didn’t. Still, many Republicans didn’t forget voted to bring health care reform up for a vote.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
You seem to have missed that this would restrain the power of the government, in this case the executive branch, to it's constitutional duty. How in your mind is that inconsistent with the stated goal of a constitutionally limited fed?
Click to expand...

You mean like abortion? Or state gun control laws?

And what the heck does it have to do with state's rights?
Click to expand...

As in the majority citizens of states who have voted to legalize weed for recreation and/or as medicinal.
 
It's a moot argument as the bill will never become law. It is just another bone headed GOP clusterfeck. The GOP continues to believe that American voters are wealthy, born again, straight old white guys.
 
clownboy said:
That's nice, but you'll understand if the republicans, in the house or otherwise, don't listen to your advice. What you seem to miss is that this retrains not just the current office holder but future officer holders as well. They cannot regulate executive orders any more than the executive branch can regulate house or senate rules. But they can render them useless as an end run around legislation and legitimate process as the current office holder has been using them.
Click to expand...

Before I comment on just how ridiculous such a notion is, I would recommend that you read the two linked articles below. The first gives an overview on the use of Executive Orders over the years from George Washington to President Obama. The second makes clear that Executive Orders are themselves subject to judicial review.

HowStuffWorks "How Executive Orders Work"

Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMO, where Congress oversteps its bound rests with their failure to act Constitutionally. It goes back to what I said previously: If Congress truly believed that anything the President has done via Executive Order or otherwise was, in fact, unconstitutional, they should do their job starting w/the House and bring him up on impeachment charges so that the Senate can do its job and try him. Only they won't for two reasons:

1) Republicans (House) knows they have nothing! The first article above makes that clear.

2) Republicans know they lack direct recourse to pursue legal action against a sitting President through the courts.

The question rational people are asking (or should be asking) is "How do you prove that a President did not 'to take care that a law [was] faithfully executed?'" You could try to claim such things as "because Pres. Obama won't defend DOMA," for example, but not defending it in the courts is different from not enforcing the law. I mean, if you take that approach wouldn't it mean the GWB was criminal when he issued Signing Statements where he disagreed with a law and stated in writing that he would not carry out certain provisions of a law? And if not faithfully carrying out a law is the problem, wouldn't you think Signing Statements and not Executive Orders would be the bigger problem?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
9 Olympia Snowe votes that angered the GOP - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


Nice try UWS.....but oops not quite the truth, huh? Is that how the left looks to throw all that confusion into the mix? But did you still want to say any Republicans voted for Obamacare from its beginning?


Republicans who voted for Obamacare. Opinionists, Pundits, Bloggers, Talk Show Hosts and Individuals have been discussing the 219 Democrats that passed Obamacare last night, however, not enough attention has been devoted to the Congressional Republicans that made this possible through their evil and unconstitutional votes last night as well.

All 178 Republicans voted against Obamacare last night! From Congressman Lee of New York's 26th congressional district to Congressman Cao of Louisiana's 2nd congressional district, with Congressman Young of Alaska's At-Large congressional district voting against this legislation as well.....snip~

Jumping in Pools: Republicans who voted for Obamacare.



Is it true that no republican voted for the ACA?

Actually one Republican in the House voted for ACA in its original form as sent from the House to the Senate. That was Rep. Cao from Louisiana. However, this was not the final form of the Bill.

However, the Bill was then marked up by the Senate, and passed the Senate with all 40 Republicans voting against. The Senate version was sent back to the House for a reconciliation vote, and zero Republicans voted for it.

So, in its final form, Romney was completely correct in saying that no Republican voted to support the ACA.....snip~

300px-111th_Congress_1st_session_Senate_roll_call_396.svg.png

Senate vote by state.
Democratic yes (58)

Independent yes (2)

Republican no (39)

Republican not voting (1)


300px-111th_Congress_roll_call_165.svg.png

House vote by congressional district.
Democratic yea (219)

Democratic nay (34)

Republican nay (178)

No representative seated (4).....snip~

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Try looking up FactCheck.Org.....Politi-fact.....CNN's Fact Checker and all of Yahoo's as well.....Next time!
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, the houses job is to make and propose laws what their constitutients want. Whether it has a chance of passing or not is irrelevent. Or do you not believe in representitive democracy?
Click to expand...

That's not the job of the House, or of any elected official at least that's not their sole job. Your job is to govern and make decisions relevant to your office while maintaining a respect for the rights of the people. Sometimes a Congressman must not consider what his constituents want because its illegal, or perhaps it doesn't make any sense, or perhaps his constituents have no opinion on the matter.
 
Wiseone said:
That's not the job of the House, or of any elected official at least that's not their sole job. Your job is to govern and make decisions relevant to your office while maintaining a respect for the rights of the people. Sometimes a Congressman must not consider what his constituents want because its illegal, or perhaps it doesn't make any sense, or perhaps his constituents have no opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

But you agree that it is part of thier job. iguanaman claims that their job is to just pass laws and not try and pass laws that might not, or at least in his opinion, have no chance in passing. His statement runs contrary to what both you and I stated.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But you agree that it is part of thier job. iguanaman claims that their job is to just pass laws and not try and pass laws that might not, or at least in his opinion, have no chance in passing. His statement runs contrary to what both you and I stated.
Click to expand...

The idea to sue the President didn't come from any constituents, and if it did any decent Congressman wouldn't follow through with it because its stupid and unconstitutional.
 
Wiseone said:
The idea to sue the President didn't come from any constituents, and if it did any decent Congressman wouldn't follow through with it because its stupid and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Actually yes, it does come from constitutients as there are many people attempting to sue the POTUS. And yes, it is Constitutional. So much so that it is a part of the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
 
Risky Thicket said:
It's a moot argument as the bill will never become law. It is just another bone headed GOP clusterfeck. The GOP continues to believe that American voters are wealthy, born again, straight old white guys.
Click to expand...
Because they want the president to stop picking and choosing which laws he wishes to enforce.

Thats pretty much the best dodge evah!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually yes, it does come from constitutients as there are many people attempting to sue the POTUS. And yes, it is Constitutional. So much so that it is a part of the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Click to expand...

The Congress cannot sue the President and neither can an individual citizen for that matter, an individual person can sue the United States as a whole as in the Federal government but not specifically the President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom