House Republicans vote to sue President Obama
POSTED BY: AgentRouka
UPDATED: Monday, August 4, 2014 09:26
VIEWED: 4753
PAGE 1 of 3
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28565772
House Republicans vote to sue President Obama
Quote:
The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to sue President Barack Obama for allegedly exceeding his constitutional powers.
The 225-201 vote along party lines means House lawyers will now draft legal documents to launch a lawsuit.
Its supporters say Mr Obama exceeded his powers when he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law.
The president himself has dismissed it as a waste of time. "Everyone sees this as a political stunt," he said.
"If they're not going to do anything, we'll do what we can on our own," the president added.
"And we've taken more than 40 actions aimed at helping hardworking families like yours. That's when we act - when your Congress won't."
The action is reportedly the first time either the House or Senate has brought legal action against a president over the legality of his powers, although members of Congress have sued the president before.
Republicans in Congress have complained that Mr Obama has exceeded his constitutional authority on numerous occasions, in order to bypass Congress by issuing executive orders.
They object, for instance, to his order unilaterally easing deportations of some young illegal immigrants, and the prison exchange that won the release of a US soldier held captive for five years by the Taliban.
"This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. It's about defending the Constitution we swore an oath to," Speaker John Boehner said during an impassioned debate in the House on Wednesday evening.
"Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change?"
At issue was Mr Obama's decision to twice delay requirements in his 2010 healthcare overhaul that businesses over a certain size provide their workers with health insurance.
Mr Obama has been forthright about his intentions to circumvent the gridlocked Congress when possible, noting frequently that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has declined even to hold votes on Senate-passed bills on topics from immigration reform to gay rights.
(...)
As far back as January, White House aides began referring to the president's "pen and phone" strategy - using his telephone to convene meetings at the White House and his pen to sign executive orders and changes to federal regulations.
Every US president since George Washington has issued executive orders, and Mr Obama has not stood out in the modern era for the number he has signed.
In his six years in office Mr Obama has issued 183 executive orders, compared to 291 across George W Bush's eight years and 381 for Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the American Presidency Project at the University of California-Santa Barbara.
But Republicans insist Mr Obama has selectively enforced laws duly passed by Congress, upsetting the balance of powers written into the constitution.
"Such a shift in power should alarm members of both political parties because it threatens the very institution of the Congress," the Republicans wrote in report accompanying the House legislation.
Wow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can see it now ... Blinky The Process Server crashing through the Secret Service protection to serve papers on Obama while he's leaning over to place his tee in the ground.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I mean... On one hand, they've got a point, you can't just let someone be a dictator. And the point of congress, the high courts, and the legal system is to challenge interpretations of the law in order to keep the law within some agreed upon interpretation of the constitution.
On the other hand, the term "Executive Power" expressly means the power to execute laws passed by congress. Choosing to delay enactment at the President's discretion due to outstanding issues with those laws and to smooth transition technically falls under that scope.
The better approach is to focus on Obama's illegal appointments that Congress wasn't given a chance to approve. My opinions aside and strategically speaking it's a good move that they're going with a civil case on this.
More practically speaking, I'm trying to wrap my mind around how on earth it works for people with their salaries paid for by tax payers to sue someone who's salary is paid for by taxpayers in a trial paid for by taxpayers.
Where... Where does the money go? It's like reverse money inception. It's money paradox. Do they roll it into cigars and burn it in the back room?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The congress will have to show it personally suffered in some way as a result of the delay implemented, in the Insurance deadline in the health care law. They are not going to be able to do it. Instead, to much of the country I’m sure, it looks like what it is. A personal attack against the President and another waste of tax payer dollars in pursuit of shoring up the Republican base. Good luck with that.
“In early 2006, the Bush administration encountered these exact same problems in implementing Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program for Medicare recipients.
“The program was smaller in scope than the Affordable Care Act, of course. But a Congressional Research Service report on the implementation of Medicare Part D dated Feb. 6, 2006, shows remarkable similarities.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58417
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The congress will have to show it personally suffered in some way as a result of the delay implemented, in the Insurance deadline in the health care law. They are not going to be able to do it.
I wondered about that. In a civil lawsuit, isn't one of the arguments about whether or not the plaintiff has standing to sue? If not, the judge can dismiss the whole thing, can't he? Happens all the time, doesn't it?
Be interesting to see how Boner makes that argument.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The congress will have to show it personally suffered in some way as a result of the delay implemented, in the Insurance deadline in the health care law. They are not going to be able to do it.
I wondered about that. In a civil lawsuit, isn't one of the arguments about whether or not the plaintiff has standing to sue? If not, the judge can dismiss the whole thing, can't he? Happens all the time, doesn't it?
Be interesting to see how Boner makes that argument.
I haven't been able to see how they will ever be able to show standing. They are the only body in the world with the Constitutional wherewithal and authority to correct and balance the Executive's errors - with the Impeachment Powers. Boner is a moron - most folks assume he is trying to lose the conflict.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No one, on either side of the aisle, wants to see President Joe Biden
No one.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No one, on either side of the aisle, wants to see President Joe Biden
No one.
He's a funny guy. He'll at least amuse us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Wait Tommy, you got it all wrong ...
He's a big boy Anthony. He knows what he said."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Funniest post of the week. Period.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I can see it now ... Blinky The Process Server crashing through the Secret Service protection to serve papers on Obama while he's leaning over to place his tee in the ground.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME