• 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!

Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 36.5%
  • No

    Votes: 27 51.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 11.5%

  • Total voters
    52

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Simple question: Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?
 
other


in some ways yes....i am hoping that this president, and future ones get spanked by judges for exceeding their authority when using executive orders

prior presidents had to deal with houses, or senates that were just as partisan....but they somehow got things done

many a time i remember Tip Oneill making deals with presidents.....

presidents should sign or veto laws....and then execute the ones they sign

changing them to suit themselves or their political affiliations has to stop
 
other


in some ways yes....i am hoping that this president, and future ones get spanked by judges for exceeding their authority when using executive orders
But executive orders are completely legal and constitutional.
 
I'm not even sure what the point of the suit is. What relief are they seeking? I'm sure it's not money damages. Are they trying to get a court to invalidate the EO's? Didn't congress pass legislation to do the exact same thing as the orders shortly after the president signed them? Pretty much the only objective it seems the suit has is to be another way for Republicans to demonstrate how much they hate the president.
 
But executive orders are completely legal and constitutional.

Not when they transcend the legal jurisdiction of the office. The President has specific powers laid out in the constitution and when he acts outside of those powers he is, indeed, violating the constitution.
 
The lawsuit is meant to make a statement. After all, wasn't it the President who said, "So sue me"?
 
I'm not even sure what the point of the suit is. What relief are they seeking? I'm sure it's not money damages. Are they trying to get a court to invalidate the EO's? Didn't congress pass legislation to do the exact same thing as the orders shortly after the president signed them? Pretty much the only objective it seems the suit has is to be another way for Republicans to demonstrate how much they hate the president.

It's nothing but partisan politics as usual. If Obama were Republican, he'd be the savoir of the party. Just look at Bush. Essentially the same exact positions, but since he had an (R) next to his name he was a hero to the party. Now that we have a Democrat Bush, he's suddenly the arbitrator of everything that is evil in the world. He's a marxist, a fascist, a neo-nazi, a muslim, and a communist all rolled up into one. And, he's a hero to everyone that hated Bush.

Hence why I hate political parties with a passion.
 
I almost want to agree with the lawsuit because I don't like the abuse of power being shown by the President. but the lawsuit is not to fix or better our broken political system. The purpose of this lawsuit is for r's to fight and annoy d's. Just like d's do to r's. Our political system is not being used to better our country; it is being used for power and wealth. This lawsuit is just another example of that.
 
But executive orders are completely legal and constitutional.

to a point, yes they are

but when you exceed that point, you have usurped the power of the congress

heaven forbid that a republican goes into the white house next, and summarily ends ALL welfare as an executive order

you would have a ****fit....as would most people on the left side of aisle

he/she is overstepping their authority with such an executive order....it should never be allowed

i want ALL presidents reigned in....not just this one....but the next, and the one after that

let's actually follow the few rules we still do have under the constitution
 
The lawsuit is meant to make a statement.

What statement? That they're hypocrites and or that they're are too focused on petty partisanship to do anything productive? Those are really the only statements being made by this move IMHO.
 
It's nothing but partisan politics as usual. If Obama were Republican, he'd be the savoir of the party. Just look at Bush. Essentially the same exact positions, but since he had an (R) next to his name he was a hero to the party. Now that we have a Democrat Bush, he's suddenly the arbitrator of everything that is evil in the world. He's a marxist, a fascist, a neo-nazi, a muslim, and a communist all rolled up into one. And, he's a hero to everyone that hated Bush.

Hence why I hate political parties with a passion.

And yet the rest of us have no trouble finding significant differences between their policies that have nothing to do with the letter next to their names. Maybe if you turned your passion away from hating parties, and examined the actual policy, you'd find important differences.
 
I approve.

The whole point of "balance of power" is to get them to work together and compromise.

When you have Harry Reid that wont even bring house bills to a vote and a president that will veto anything that is not exactly to his liking, what recourse do Republicans have?

The president's abuses of power are so flagrant that even democrats are mad.
 
Someone needed to address this issue, the lawsuit is what the GOP choose as a party.
I think Obama added some drama to it, but that's his style...Look at me, I'm a victim, just trying to do my job.
 
I almost want to agree with the lawsuit because I don't like the abuse of power being shown by the President. but the lawsuit is not to fix or better our broken political system. The purpose of this lawsuit is for r's to fight and annoy d's. Just like d's do to r's. Our political system is not being used to better our country; it is being used for power and wealth. This lawsuit is just another example of that.
Quick question, when was the last time Democrats initiated impeachment proceedings against a Republican?
 
Change 'approve of' to 'care much about' and the answer is definitely 'no'.
 
to a point, yes they are

but when you exceed that point, you have usurped the power of the congress

heaven forbid that a republican goes into the white house next, and summarily ends ALL welfare as an executive order

you would have a ****fit....as would most people on the left side of aisle

he/she is overstepping their authority with such an executive order....it should never be allowed

i want ALL presidents reigned in....not just this one....but the next, and the one after that

let's actually follow the few rules we still do have under the constitution

What has he done that is unconstitutional and illegal? What executive orders? What is this "point"?
 
And yet the rest of us have no trouble finding significant differences between their policies that have nothing to do with the letter next to their names. Maybe if you turned your passion away from hating parties, and examined the actual policy, you'd find important differences.

Actually, they're pretty much identical on everything. Foreign policy, immigration, drug policy, expansion of executive power, Bush wrote the Patriot Act while Obama extended it, government surveillance, the debt ceiling, both have significantly increased the national debt, civil liberties, and more. Face it: you like Obama because he's a Democrat. It's better to acknowledge it and fix it than to continue denying it.

Here's an article you should look into:

The Humble Libertarian: Bush 2.0: 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. Bush
 
Not when they transcend the legal jurisdiction of the office. The President has specific powers laid out in the constitution and when he acts outside of those powers he is, indeed, violating the constitution.

Which ones "violate the legal jurisdiction of the office"? There is a lot of vague terms here but no specifics.
 
Simple question: Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

Simple question, no really a simple answer.

On a personal level, I don't really approve. I don't think it's a good precedent to be sent, and I think it could've been done without setting such a precedent by getting proxies in the private sector to bring suit regarding the problematic issues in question.

On a political level, I'm rather neutral. I think it's too soon to accurately suggest how this will impact the Republicans electoral chances. In large part I think it depends on what actually comes of the case, which I think is something that is somewhat up in the air. Depending on the skill of spinning on either side I could just as easily see this helping republicans in future elections as I can see it harming it.

On a principled level, I do approve of it. The republicans in the house have been complaining about the executive actions of the President for some time now. Even if some of these actions were unconstitutional, unless it can be shown Obama purposefully attempted to violate the constitution (as opposed to simply misjudging), it's not an impeachable offense. Plus impeachment would be political and pragmatically ridiculous to even try. However, if you're going to complain and complain and complain then principally you should at least try and take SOME action to rectify what you're complaining about as opposed to just complaining. So with that in mind I approve of Republicans in the House finally putting their money where their mouth is.

But executive orders are completely legal and constitutional.

Stated in such a broad way it's not exactly accurate. The reality is "executive orders" in a general sense are a legal and constitutional thing, but individual executive orders ABSOLUTELY can be illegal/unconstitutional. One can not broadly state executive orders are constitutional in some kind of absolute stance, because it's not the case. I reference Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson who laid the foundation for the determinations of constitutionality of executive orders, and it largely depends on the relationship between the President and Congress. There were three types of EO's that the Justice laid out in his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer:

First are those issued persuant to an expressed or implied authorization of Congress. In these cases the POTUS's authority is maximum, with an EO being invalid only if what it does is outside the scope of the governments power.

The next are those with a "Zone of Twilight"; instances where a President acts singularly based on his independent power and Congress has not spoken on the issue. Here, the validity of the EO is a bit more questionable and depends on the imperatives of the event and contemporary imponderables.

Finally, there are those that are incompatable with the expressed or implied will of Congress. This is the flip side of the first instance and is where the POTUS's authority is at it's lowest. The EO would only be constitutional if it's something a court could disable the congress from being able to act on.

Justice Jackson pointed out that instances falling in that last category are ones where the notion of checks and balances within our government becomes at stake. And it's in that last instance where some of the potential complaints by the House Republicans lie. For example, Congress had a pretty clear express and implied will as it related to the Dream Act, with the Act failing to pass the Congress. Yet through executive action the President implemented in a temporary fashion a number of the key points and efforts of said act. Such is a case where there is at least a legitimate argument that the executive order in question may've been outside the bounds of what the President can reasonably do.

So no, according to SCOTUS case law, a broad and absolute statement that Executive Orders are constitutional is erroneous. Executive Orders MAY be constitutional, but it's based on various conditions and circumstances. Executive Orders may also be Unconstitutional.
 
Quick question, when was the last time Democrats initiated impeachment proceedings against a Republican?

First there are multiple ways to employ bipartisan bull**** tactics. Attempted impeachment is far from the only way. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans of that.

But to answer your question, George W Bush. And I have no idea how many Congress members or state or local representatives.
 
Quick question, when was the last time Democrats initiated impeachment proceedings against a Republican?

2008.

Articles of Impeachment were put forward in the House against George W. Bush and a majority voted to refer the resolution to the judiciary committee, but it never made it back out of the committee.

Supported by still in office Reps Sheila Jackson Lee, Keith Ellington, Jim McDermott, Sam Farr, Barbara Lee, and now senator Tammy Baldwin. The motion to actually refer it to the Judicial Committee to further the process included "yay" votes by such Democrats as Gabby Giffords, Henry Waxman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Jesse Jackson, Rahm Emmaneul, Jim Clyburn, and most others.
 
Last edited:
What has he done that is unconstitutional and illegal? What executive orders? What is this "point"?


i guess that is what we are going to find out...isnt it?

those on the left are aghast....what laws? what has he done?

those on the right are perplexed that those on the left cant see through their rose colored glasses

so....we will get a judge, and a federal court to decide

or at least i think that is where this will end up....
 
Back
Top Bottom