Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-24-2014, 05:44 PM  
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $5400
House Republicans to Sue Obama

John Boehner May Sue Obama Over Use Of Executive Actions



WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner (BAY'-nur) is talking about suing President Barack Obama for allegedly exceeding his constitutional authority when it comes to administering the laws that Congress passes.

Boehner has frequently accused Obama of picking and choosing what portions of laws to enforce, sometimes by issuing executive orders. That is particularly so for health care and immigration. Spokesman Michael Steel says the Ohio Republican told members of the GOP rank-and-file a lawsuit is possible, but didn't provide details.

Steel also noted the House has passed legislation on two occasions attempting to rein in Obama's actions, but the Democratic-controlled Senate has refused to act on them.

Any lawsuit could lead to a far-reaching court battle between the president and Congress, who make up two equal branches of government under the Constitution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5527490.html

---


FYI - Here is his live feed counting down to his press conference tomorrow morning.


Last edited by Taco John; 06-25-2014 at 04:01 PM..
Posts: 50,826
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:11 PM   #2
Otter Otter is offline
holding a blood clot at birth
 
Otter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Durango, CO
Casino cash: $5335
bum **** barry should certainly be held accountable for the immigration crisis he's purposely causing and not enforcing the laws already in the books. The ACA is a little more tricky because it went through the SC. If we were to follow by example I'm guessing we get to decide which laws need to be followed and which we are allowed to ignore as well.

Hopefully barry has an unfortunate accident with biden, pilosi, reid and mccain.
__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not” - Thomas Jefferson, 1801.
Posts: 13,056
Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Otter has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:38 PM   #3
HonestChieffan HonestChieffan is offline
Country Santa Year Around
 
HonestChieffan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
Casino cash: $5695
And why has he not?
__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Come home to Jesus Dave. Come home.
Posts: 28,391
HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:39 PM   #4
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $6385
Hope it's not just lip service or posturing because it's an election year.
__________________
Posts: 57,128
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 09:38 AM   #5
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $5165
My gut reaction was that this might be difficult to raise in the Courts, but Lyle Deniston of SCOTUSBlog has already thought about this:

Constitution Check: Could the House sue the President for refusing to carry out the laws?
June 24, 2014 by Lyle Denniston


Lyle Denniston looks at a big constitutional barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of inter-branch disputes between Congress and the White House.

THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:

“Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must have some latitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must have some freedom to act in the absence of law. Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism. Congress cannot reverse egregious executive aggressions such as Obama’s without robust judicial assistance….It would be perverse for the courts to adhere to a doctrine of congressional standing so strict that it precludes judicial defense of the separation of powers.”

– Syndicated columnist George F. Will, in The Washington Post on June 22, praising efforts in the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would allow the House to sue President Obama with a claim that he is unconstitutionally refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress. By “congressional standing” he meant the right to file a lawsuit.

“Obama has worked around Congress with breathtaking audacity…So much for the separation of powers. In a desperate attempt to stem the hemorrhaging of legislative power, members of Congress are turning to the court to enforce their constitutional prerogative.”

– Excerpt from a column in Politico magazine in January, by Washington lawyer David Rivkin and Florida law professor Elizabeth Price Foley. The article was discussed favorably in the George Will column in The Post.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

The Constitution has nothing to say about ways to cure the kind of gridlock that now exists in the national government in Washington. There is frustration in the White House as President Obama finds himself unable to get much of his legislative program through Congress, and there is frustration in Congress – especially in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives – whenever the President takes unilateral action to put some of his policies into effect without legislative approval.

Neither side seems willing to yield, and the Constitution – based as it is on the benign assumption that those in national leadership will always find ways to govern, more or less successfully – has no specific provision to force compromise. The checks-and-balances written into the division of government powers can turn out to barriers to action, especially in circumstances like those that now prevail in the nation’s capital.

It is perhaps tempting to think, as the commentary by columnist George Will suggests, that this is a problem that ought to be handed over to the courts: get them involved to enforce the lines of demarcation between what Congress does and what presidents are allowed to do.

However, there is, and has long been, a constitutional barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of inter-branch disputes between Congress and the White House. Its origin is in the Constitution’s Article III, and its meaning comes from the way the courts have interpreted the limitation spelled out there. “The judicial power,” it says, “shall extend to all cases…and controversies.” A “case or controversy” means, in this context, a live lawsuit, with those on each side having something genuinely in dispute, and that something is capable of being decided by the use of rules of law.

The courts, in short, will not decide mere abstract legal controversies, and they will not hand out advisory opinions on how the laws or the Constitution are to be interpreted. Courts have a number of ways of showing respect for those restrictions on their power, and one of them is to refuse to decide what is called a “political question.” In this sense, “political” does not mean a partisan issue; it means an issue that the courts find has to be decided, if it is decided at all, only by the “political” branches: Congress and the Executive Branch.

Time after time, when members of Congress have sued in the courts, because the Executive Branch did something that they believe frustrated the will of Congress, they have been met at the door of the courthouse with a polite refusal to let them in. Failing to get their way in the skirmishing with the White House does not give members of Congress a right to take their grievance into court. Frustration does not make a real lawsuit, according to this notion.

Some lawyers and scholars, however, have from time to time wondered if this situation has to continue unchanged. Since the Constitution also gives to Congress the authority to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts, what cases they can and cannot decide, why couldn’t Congress just pass a law declaring that one house or some of the members of Congress do have a right to sue the President over a legitimate inter-branch dispute, in order to protect the legislative prerogative of that part of the government? Wouldn’t that work to get such a lawsuit past the door of the courthouse?

It is a plausible argument, and columnist George Will found it entirely persuasive in the column quoted above. There is a catch, though: expanding the jurisdiction of the courts to hear what are, at their core, political disputes would still be an attempt to create a “case or controversy” that satisfied Article III’s requirements. In other words, the constitutionality of such an expansion of court authority would itself be a constitutional issue that the courts would have the authority to decide.

The courts can be jealous guardians of their notion of what the Constitution allows, or does not allow, in terms of judicial review. The resistance to resolving political disputes is quite deeply set. One might suggest that it would take an inter-branch controversy of monumental proportions to cause them to give up that reluctance. Is the feud over President Obama’s use of his White House powers of that dimension? That may well be debatable.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 56 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...-out-the-laws/
__________________
Posts: 32,638
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 09:49 AM   #6
Bill Parcells Bill Parcells is offline
The Poster That Cares
 
Bill Parcells's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
Casino cash: $5075
Obama is a constitutional lawyer. dont you think he thinks these things through before he breaks the law?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD10367 View Post
Welcome to being the only person on my Ignore list.

Posts: 15,000
Bill Parcells has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 09:58 AM   #7
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $6385
Quote:
The Constitution has nothing to say about ways to cure the kind of gridlock that now exists in the national government in Washington
It's silent for good reason. We're supposed to have checks and balances. Guess the new word is called "gridlock." That doesn't give the president the authority to alter the intent of previously passed laws by congress.

Tho, I say impeachment and removal is the proper course. This was supposed to be used more often too.
__________________
Posts: 57,128
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 11:20 AM   #8
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Black for Palestine
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $5737
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
My gut reaction was that this might be difficult to raise in the Courts, but Lyle Deniston of SCOTUSBlog has already thought about this:

Constitution Check: Could the House sue the President for refusing to carry out the laws?
June 24, 2014 by Lyle Denniston

Lyle Denniston looks at a big constitutional barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of inter-branch disputes between Congress and the White House.

THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:

“Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must have some latitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must have some freedom to act in the absence of law. Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism. Congress cannot reverse egregious executive aggressions such as Obama’s without robust judicial assistance….It would be perverse for the courts to adhere to a doctrine of congressional standing so strict that it precludes judicial defense of the separation of powers.”

– Syndicated columnist George F. Will, in The Washington Post on June 22, praising efforts in the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would allow the House to sue President Obama with a claim that he is unconstitutionally refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress. By “congressional standing” he meant the right to file a lawsuit.

“Obama has worked around Congress with breathtaking audacity…So much for the separation of powers. In a desperate attempt to stem the hemorrhaging of legislative power, members of Congress are turning to the court to enforce their constitutional prerogative.”

– Excerpt from a column in Politico magazine in January, by Washington lawyer David Rivkin and Florida law professor Elizabeth Price Foley. The article was discussed favorably in the George Will column in The Post.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

The Constitution has nothing to say about ways to cure the kind of gridlock that now exists in the national government in Washington. There is frustration in the White House as President Obama finds himself unable to get much of his legislative program through Congress, and there is frustration in Congress – especially in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives – whenever the President takes unilateral action to put some of his policies into effect without legislative approval.

Neither side seems willing to yield, and the Constitution – based as it is on the benign assumption that those in national leadership will always find ways to govern, more or less successfully – has no specific provision to force compromise. The checks-and-balances written into the division of government powers can turn out to barriers to action, especially in circumstances like those that now prevail in the nation’s capital.

It is perhaps tempting to think, as the commentary by columnist George Will suggests, that this is a problem that ought to be handed over to the courts: get them involved to enforce the lines of demarcation between what Congress does and what presidents are allowed to do.

However, there is, and has long been, a constitutional barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of inter-branch disputes between Congress and the White House. Its origin is in the Constitution’s Article III, and its meaning comes from the way the courts have interpreted the limitation spelled out there. “The judicial power,” it says, “shall extend to all cases…and controversies.” A “case or controversy” means, in this context, a live lawsuit, with those on each side having something genuinely in dispute, and that something is capable of being decided by the use of rules of law.

The courts, in short, will not decide mere abstract legal controversies, and they will not hand out advisory opinions on how the laws or the Constitution are to be interpreted. Courts have a number of ways of showing respect for those restrictions on their power, and one of them is to refuse to decide what is called a “political question.” In this sense, “political” does not mean a partisan issue; it means an issue that the courts find has to be decided, if it is decided at all, only by the “political” branches: Congress and the Executive Branch.

Time after time, when members of Congress have sued in the courts, because the Executive Branch did something that they believe frustrated the will of Congress, they have been met at the door of the courthouse with a polite refusal to let them in. Failing to get their way in the skirmishing with the White House does not give members of Congress a right to take their grievance into court. Frustration does not make a real lawsuit, according to this notion.

Some lawyers and scholars, however, have from time to time wondered if this situation has to continue unchanged. Since the Constitution also gives to Congress the authority to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts, what cases they can and cannot decide, why couldn’t Congress just pass a law declaring that one house or some of the members of Congress do have a right to sue the President over a legitimate inter-branch dispute, in order to protect the legislative prerogative of that part of the government? Wouldn’t that work to get such a lawsuit past the door of the courthouse?

It is a plausible argument, and columnist George Will found it entirely persuasive in the column quoted above. There is a catch, though: expanding the jurisdiction of the courts to hear what are, at their core, political disputes would still be an attempt to create a “case or controversy” that satisfied Article III’s requirements. In other words, the constitutionality of such an expansion of court authority would itself be a constitutional issue that the courts would have the authority to decide.

The courts can be jealous guardians of their notion of what the Constitution allows, or does not allow, in terms of judicial review. The resistance to resolving political disputes is quite deeply set. One might suggest that it would take an inter-branch controversy of monumental proportions to cause them to give up that reluctance. Is the feud over President Obama’s use of his White House powers of that dimension? That may well be debatable.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 56 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...-out-the-laws/
This is all excellent.

I personally would like to see the role of the executive order more clearly defined. What it can do, what it can't do... Because it certainly does seem to be, at least in the eyes of a purist, a violation of separation of powers. I can see exceptions needing to be made to that, but the system as it is is too poorly defined, which always leads to abuse.
__________________
Posts: 44,028
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.