• 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

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
House backs bill to sue president over laws

Casting Barack Obama as a president run amok, the House voted on Wednesday for a bill that would expedite congressional lawsuits against the chief executive for failure to enforce federal laws.

The vote was 233-181 in the Republican-led House as GOP lawmakers excoriated Obama for multiple changes to his 4-year-old health care law, steps he's taken to allow young immigrants to remain in the United States and the administration's resistance to defend the federal law banning gay marriage.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, the GOP maintained that the bill was necessary as the president has selectively enforced the nation's laws.

"Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn't get his way," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Democrats countered that the legislation was merely election-year rhetoric to address a non-existent problem. The measure stands no chance in the Democratic-led Senate.

Under the bill, the House or Senate would have a fast track for any civil lawsuit against the president if that president "failed to meet the requirement of Article II, section 3, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States to take care that a law be faithfully executed."

Once litigated in district court, any appeals would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

Is this party politics with no chance of passing, or is it a definitive statement that has purpose?
 
Same as it's always been. Party politics. Pandering for votes, while maintaining the two party status quo. There is an agenda. It just doesn't serve us.
 
Political Theatre.
 
Sitting idly by saying nothing denotes approval. Glad to see a few are brave enough to stand up to tyranny.
 
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, British Philosopher.
 
Sitting idly by saying nothing denotes approval. Glad to see a few are brave enough to stand up to tyranny.

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
 
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, British Philosopher.

Regurgitating trite phrases is the same as doing nothing.

Debating bills that have ZERO chance of passing is doing less than nothing.

Clucking on the sidelines is doing nothing.

If you believe the reason for the 2nd A is to stop gubmint tyranny, and the CONs love throwing that word around, then not so brave men are sitting idly by doing nothing. :doh

just saying, sometimes the rhetoric is way out in front of the facts...
 
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

Something you wouldn't like.
 
Something you wouldn't like.

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
 
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.
 
Regurgitating trite phrases is the same as doing nothing.

Debating bills that have ZERO chance of passing is doing less than nothing.

Clucking on the sidelines is doing nothing.

If you believe the reason for the 2nd A is to stop gubmint tyranny, and the CONs love throwing that word around, then not so brave men are sitting idly by doing nothing. :doh

just saying, sometimes the rhetoric is way out in front of the facts...

It was already voted upon, and passed. That means the People's representatives, the House, have already decided the bill should be law, that means something. If you don't think it will make it through the weak-ass senate, that says something too. It may not become law, but it's not the same as doing nothing.
 
It was already voted upon, and passed. That means the People's representatives, the House, have already decided the bill should be law, that means something. If you don't think it will make it through the weak-ass senate, that says something too. It may not become law, but it's not the same as doing nothing.

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.
 
It was already voted upon, and passed. That means the People's representatives, the House, have already decided the bill should be law, that means something. If you don't think it will make it through the weak-ass senate, that says something too. It may not become law, but it's not the same as doing nothing.

Actually it is WORSE than doing nothing since it is taking time that could be used for productive legislation. The do nothing, know nothing House strikes again. It's time to throw the bums out.
 
Actually it is WORSE than doing nothing since it is taking time that could be used for productive legislation. The do nothing, know nothing House strikes again. It's time to throw the bums out.

LOL @ productive legislation. Isn't that an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp?
 
Actually it is WORSE than doing nothing since it is taking time that could be used for productive legislation. The do nothing, know nothing House strikes again. It's time to throw the bums out.

Just the reverse. The House has brought a legitimate issue and solution forward for that issue. The failure if there is one falls directly on the senate if they fail to consider this issue. The House has done it's job here.
 
Just the reverse. The House has brought a legitimate issue and solution forward for that issue. The failure if there is one falls directly on the senate if they fail to consider this issue. The House has done it's job here.

The Houses "job" is to pass legislation that will become law. The normal process involves consulting with the Senate to that end. If that is not done it is nothing but a waste of time.
 
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.

Good Lord...Conservatives always talk about impeachment. Hate to break it to you but a President with different political views than you isn't grounds for impeachment...be he black or white.
 
The Houses "job" is to pass legislation that will become law. The normal process involves consulting with the Senate to that end. If that is not done it is nothing but a waste of time.

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?
 
Good Lord...Conservatives always talk about impeachment. Hate to break it to you but a President with different political views than you isn't grounds for impeachment...be he black or white.

You mean like how democrats always talked about impeachment of reagan and bush? Please don't attempt to imply that conservatives are the only ones that do this.
 
Good Lord...Conservatives always talk about impeachment. Hate to break it to you but a President with different political views than you isn't grounds for impeachment...be he black or white.

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.'
 
You mean like how democrats always talked about impeachment of reagan and bush? Please don't attempt to imply that conservatives are the only ones that do this.

The people you just mentioned were presidents over a Congress that were Democratic for periods of time. For Reagan nearly his whole Presidency. For Bush the end of the Presidency. How many impeachment proceedings?

Under Clinton Republicans controlled the House and Senate....baam impeachment.

Do you honestly think they wouldn't try to impeach if they held the Senate now?

There are always grumblings about impeachment but Republicans are the only one's that actually act. Impeachement for them is just a way to get rid of someone they don't think should be President.
 
The Houses "job" is to pass legislation that will become law. The normal process involves consulting with the Senate to that end. If that is not done it is nothing but a waste of time.

No, the House's job is to represent the people more directly and propose legislation that concerns them that will be considered by the senate. The two bodies then begin the dance of reconciliation.

It's only a waste of time if the senate fails in it's job and refuses to consider the People's motions.
 
No, the House's job is to represent the people more directly and propose legislation that concerns them that will be considered by the senate. The two bodies then begin the dance of reconciliation.

It's only a waste of time if the senate fails in it's job and refuses to consider the People's motions.

That's an excellent point.
 
Back
Top Bottom