• 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

Wiseone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously you would be wrong as their are currently court cases going through the system as we speak. Unless you are talking about the person themselves? If so then you are correct. But we're not talking about those. We're talking about sueing the office itself. Which can be done.
 
clownboy said:
Presidents throughout our history have done end runs around their constitutional grant of power.
Click to expand...

How many of those end-runs were sorted out by the Supreme Court? As I said previously, 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.

clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Congress absolutely positively does have the power to fix what's broken -- the amount of regulatory authority that Congress has previously abdicated to the Executive. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court will tell Congress should it ever try to bring suit against the Executive.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Obviously you would be wrong as their are currently court cases going through the system as we speak. Unless you are talking about the person themselves? If so then you are correct. But we're not talking about those. We're talking about sueing the office itself. Which can be done.
Click to expand...

What cases are going through the courts that involve the Congress versus the President? I'm talking about how there cannot be a case of the Congress going to the SCOTUS and bringing a case against the President, there will never be a "Congress of the United States vs. President of the United States" court case. And if you has a citizen wanted to sue the government, even if it was over something that the President specifically did like say sign an executive order, you could not subpoena the President to appear to court because it violates the separation of powers.
 
Wiseone said:
What cases are going through the courts that involve the Congress versus the President? I'm talking about how there cannot be a case of the Congress going to the SCOTUS and bringing a case against the President, there will never be a "Congress of the United States vs. President of the United States" court case. And if you has a citizen wanted to sue the government, even if it was over something that the President specifically did like say sign an executive order, you could not subpoena the President to appear to court because it violates the separation of powers.
Click to expand...

Here's a few cases....

United States v. Nixon, Al Haramain v. Bush, Jones v. Clinton, Kiyemba v. Obama.

Yes, the President can be sued.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Here's a few cases....

United States v. Nixon, Al Haramain v. Bush, Jones v. Clinton, Kiyemba v. Obama.

Yes, the President can be sued.
Click to expand...

I guess I stand corrected, your best example is really US v. Nixon which is unique since its about Nixon the individual being charged with criminal acts not really the same as The Office of the President being sued by the Congress. Al Haramain v. Bush ended with the court saying that Al Haramain could not bring such a lawsuit against Bush. Jones v. Clinton was started before Clinton was President, again has to deal with him as the person not him as the President.
 
I believe our elected representatives should fixing a moral Standard for Faith in executing our federal Doctrines and States laws regarding the concept of employment at will.
 
Wiseone said:
I guess I stand corrected, your best example is really US v. Nixon which is unique since its about Nixon the individual being charged with criminal acts not really the same as The Office of the President being sued by the Congress. Al Haramain v. Bush ended with the court saying that Al Haramain could not bring such a lawsuit against Bush. Jones v. Clinton was started before Clinton was President, again has to deal with him as the person not him as the President.
Click to expand...

The point wasn't so much whether the cases were valid but whether or not he could be sued. The fact that the courts even heard the case was enough to show that he can indeed be sued. Whether the suit is valid or not can only be determined by the courts.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The point wasn't so much whether the cases were valid but whether or not he could be sued. The fact that the courts even heard the case was enough to show that he can indeed be sued. Whether the suit is valid or not can only be determined by the courts.
Click to expand...

Right but whats important and relevant to the topic is whether he can be sued over the functions of his office and not for personal crimes.
 
Wiseone said:
Right but whats important and relevant to the topic is whether he can be sued over the functions of his office and not for personal crimes.
Click to expand...

I would hope that abuse of his powers could be sueable. Otherwise its only going to get worse.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The point wasn't so much whether the cases were valid but whether or not he could be sued. The fact that the courts even heard the case was enough to show that he can indeed be sued. Whether the suit is valid or not can only be determined by the courts.
Click to expand...

So, why can't our federal Congress put its concerns in writing to the chief magistrate of the Union, regarding clarification and goals? It should be that simple.
 
Smartmouthwoman said:
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.
Click to expand...

What he said. YEP!
 
I believe wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies is a national pastime for our elected representatives that is even corrupting the Judicature.
 
Smartmouthwoman said:
Sitting idly by saying nothing denotes approval. Glad to see a few are brave enough to stand up to tyranny.
Click to expand...

What's brave about them? What are they risking? Oh yeah, nothing.
 
danielpalos said:
So, why can't our federal Congress put its concerns in writing to the chief magistrate of the Union, regarding clarification and goals? It should be that simple.
Click to expand...

Don't know. I don't know the legalities of doing that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You don't always have to risk something to make a point.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt they are making a point, but without any risk I wouldn't call them brave. That's what I was disputing.
 
danielpalos said:
How difficult can it be to correspond with the chief magistrate, as a member of Congress.
Click to expand...

Judges cannot bring forth suits on their own to their own court. Corosponding with the chief magistrate would be a useless gesture.
 
danielpalos said:
It is about members of Congress asking for clarification regarding any policy issues.
Click to expand...

Except one judge cannot take it upon himself to decide for the other 6 members of SCOTUS. And they each can have differing opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom