Speaker Boehner to sue President Obama over executive orders

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Or they coud still govern, passing laws that are comprimises. Not sue him. If he is being a gakker, so be it, it gives them no right to.

So out of the three examples we have two that are being done by Executive Order, and one being threatened to be done by EO either within the week or by the end of the year. So where is the compromise possible there?

So what are compromise positions on;
- immigration
- emissions
- Keystone XL
That both parties could agree on?

streamdragon wrote:
1. Re: Underlined - cite please. Are you referring to Obama's EA on immigration?

Nope.
Here's a good article on what I am talking aboiut; http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/power-and-the-presidency-from-kennedy-to-obama-75335897/?no-ist

streamdragon wrote:
2. Re: "ignoring what their constituents want", they've been doing that for, oh, pretty much ever. How many red states had protests with "keep your government out of my medicare" or anti-socialized medicine sentiments? How many of those people continue to enjoy their medicare and medicaid?

I don't know, why don't you tell us?

Ouze wrote:
Look, here's the thing. I never painted "this" as silliness,

Good thing I didn't quote you then, isn't it

Ouze wrote:
In fact, I agree that the Executive is overreaching in many instances, and has been doing so for decades.

Ok, we have common ground here.

Ouze wrote:
My beef is that this lawsuit is "silliness". It's legislative attention whoring, and a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for acts he committed in the faithful execution of his office is not one of the checks and balances that is used to settle that issue. The framers indeed put ample protection from an out-of-control Executive in the constitution, and this isn't one of them. They can't sack up to actually do what, if they actually believe this is true, is their duty.

They need to either: impeach the president, and if the executive really is overreaching, they should be able to reach a consensus on this, or

Pass legislation that allows them to override the President's veto, and again if the president is overreaching they should be able to reach a consensus on this, or

suck it up, stop delegating their authority to the Judicial branch, FFS, and appeal to the American people so that they can get a member of their party elected President.

And how likely is the underlined given the current partisan nature of American politics? With no serious threat before the elections the Democrats were trying to fire up their base with unsubstantiated claims that Obama was going to be impeached if they lost control.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:Eh... the problem is that the executive overreach is fast becoming "The Obama Rule".

Ouze wrote:Only if you've never watched the news before January 2009, I guess. (snip)

whembly wrote:
Yup. I remember and still wasn't a fan of it.

But, it goes back several Presidency... not just Obama & Bush.

Same as it ever was.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:Eh... the problem is that the executive overreach is fast becoming "The Obama Rule".

Ouze wrote:Only if you've never watched the news before January 2009, I guess. (snip)

whembly wrote:
Yup. I remember and still wasn't a fan of it.

But, it goes back several Presidency... not just Obama & Bush.

Same as it ever was.

Heh...

Still... doesn't excuse Obama's actions.

That's like saying, "hey, that other guy did it before me!".

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

Heh...

Still... doesn't excuse Obama's actions.

That's like saying, "hey, that other guy did it before me!".

IMO, and I may be a bit way off here... it definitely has a feeling now that Presidents may not use that many EOs, but what they use them FOR is a major concern.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

The "up to date" ish stats for Executive Order use, by President. Thing is, the majority of the time, an EO is used to clarify, or place emphasis on existing laws, or to govern the actions of an organization within the Executive Branch (ie, the executive orders that forbids US Military Intelligence apparatus to actively spy on US Citizens, or US Citizens' groups, and provides the outlined steps to be taken, should it be discovered through the course of normal Intel duties an American citizen spying against American interests, etc.)

**Grey Templar**

Indeed. Its not the number thats important. Its what they're being used for, and Obama is rapidly overstepping the bounds of whats been done.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Its not the number thats important. Its what they're being used for, and Obama is rapidly overstepping the bounds of whats been done.

Agreed. I asked about this exact subject in my political science class today, and the answer that I got was basically an EO is used "in conjunction" with a law, it doesn't circumvent, establish or otherwise override laws.

Unless Obama's upcoming Immigration EO basically is, "Enforce the hell out of the laws already on the books" I think he runs the risk of falling into that "circumventing, establishing, and overriding" territory.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Its not the number thats important. Its what they're being used for, and Obama is rapidly overstepping the bounds of whats been done.

Agreed. I asked about this exact subject in my political science class today, and the answer that I got was basically an EO is used "in conjunction" with a law, it doesn't circumvent, establish or otherwise override laws.

Unless Obama's upcoming Immigration EO basically is, "Enforce the hell out of the laws already on the books" I think he runs the risk of falling into that "circumventing, establishing, and overriding" territory.

The Faithful Execution clause?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

NBC wrote:House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

House Republicans on Friday filed a long-awaited lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of overstepping his executive authority when implementing his signature health care law.

And though the suit is centered on the Affordable Care Act, the GOP moved on the legal action the morning after the president announced he will unilaterally grant temporary relief to millions of undocumented immigrants.

"Time after time, the president has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress. That's not the way our system of government was designed to work,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action."

The suit, filed against the heads of Health and Human Services and Treasury Department, is centered on the White House decision to delay the employer mandate of the health care law and accuses the administration of unlawfully giving $175 billion to insurance companies.

House Republicans approved a bill authorizing the legal action in a 225-201 vote in July. No Democrats supported the measure.

The suit has been dismissed by Democrats as a politically motivated waste of taxpayer money. The president has said his actions have only been necessary because Republicans in Congress have refused to work with him.

"While the American people want Congress to get serious about creating good-paying jobs and strengthening the middle class, House Republicans are paying $500-an-hour in taxpayer money to sue the President of the United States," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

"The fact is, this lawsuit is a bald-faced attempt to achieve what Republicans have been unable to achieve through the political process. The legislative branch cannot sue simply because they disagree with the way a law passed by a different Congress has been implemented.

Republicans say the suit is necessary to protect the Constitution.

Earlier this week George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley agreed to represent the GOP in the suit after the other attorneys declined to, allegedly due to political pressure.

source

**whembly**

Didn't think that would happen.

**Co'tor Shas**

And this, lady's and gentalmen, is our congress.

**d-usa**

A wise man said some things once, which were promptly ignored:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.