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.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Boehner is letting the Judicial Adjudicate Obama Executive Order in Immigration

This is simply not how our government works, either in theory or in practice, as I am utterly confident we will see.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Boehner is letting the Judicial Adjudicate Obama Executive Order in Immigration

This is simply not how our government works, either in theory or in practice, as I am utterly confident we will see.

The biggest issue is this: How does Congress even have standing in court? What damages could they prove?

It's nothing more than grandstanding and a poor political strategy imo.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
I actually think he picked the right way to go about it. Let the Judicial to decide.

The judicial has no role in deciding immigration policy. The judiciary's only role is to find laws passed by Congress as consistent with the constitution, or not. How the executive chooses to execute those laws is literally not within their jurisdiction.

What Mr. Boehner is doing is a complete and total abdication of leadership, and it weakens his branch of government by doing so.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:

What Mr. Boehner is doing is a complete and total abdication of leadership, and it weakens his branch of government by doing so.

Succinctly stated.

Boehner has the tools to do something about it... he just doesn't want to use it.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Boehner lost out with Congress so he went Judicial.

And, just to clarify, this case has nothing to do with Mr. Boehner, at all - he's not a party to it. The case is called National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, under which the Noel Canning Group sued over some decisions made by the NLRB, which in their view were illegitimate because of unlawful recess appointments. It was not "the congress suing the executive" - it was a standard constitutional challenge.

**Jihadin**

It reinforces a President's right or duty to issue a decree, order, or proclamation to carry out a particular power that truly is committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress. On the other hand, the constitutional separation of powers cuts the other way if the President attempts to issue an order regarding a matter that is expressly committed to another branch of government; it might even render the presidential action void. Finally, separation of powers principles may be unclear or ambiguous when the power is shared by two branches of government.

Edit

Dream Act was shot down in Congress

Then

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is a memorandum authored by the Obama administration on June 15, 2012

One of the actions within Immigration

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Boehner lost out with Congress so he went Judicial.

And, just to clarify, this case has nothing to do with Mr. Boehner, at all - he's not a party to it. The case is called National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, under which the Noel Canning Group sued over some decisions made by the NLRB, which in their view were illegitimate because of unlawful recess appointments. It was not "the congress suing the executive" - it was a standard constitutional challenge.

So... does that mean that any rulings made since that recess appointment is now rendered null and void? Since the board wouldn't have qorum?

**Ouze**

I believe so, yes.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I believe so, yes.

Ugh... that'll take time to dig.

I wonder if this appointment before or after that Boeing snafu in SC? (google-fu'ing)

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Then I await the other members of the panel de-crying the lawsuit

Are you actually trying to claim that there are Democrats behind this? That's amazing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Just a point of contention, numbers of EO's issued does not equate to amount of power abused by said EO's.

No, that's defined by whether or not you like that particular President.

**Jihadin**

Think the one that got this going was Obama bypassing some Immigration laws with DACA and Advance Parole.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Think the one that got this going was Obama bypassing some Immigration laws with DACA and Advance Parole.

Well, Mr. Boehner hasn't really specified what basis he is going with for proposed litigation ("Health care to energy to foreign policy and education" ), so that's just speculation for now.

**Jihadin**

We're all speculating lol
Acting like a bunch Barrack lawyers.
Obama though is ready to do more executive orders it seems if Immigration reforms does not occur by end of July I think

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
Are you actually trying to claim that there are Democrats behind this? That's amazing.

The only thing that is amazing is that was the meaning that you arrived at

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The only thing that is amazing is that was the meaning that you arrived at

Okay, let's go through this teeth pulling exercise.

You commented that this was a bi-partisan exercise. Ouze commented that this "bipartisan committee" was certain to vote 3 Republicans yay, 2 Democrats no it wasn't bi-partisan in any way. At which point you said you were waiting on other members of the panel to decry this lawsuit.

This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.

To think that someone would act outside partisan interests and favour restoring the system of checks and balances so that any POTUS cannot make end arounds of Congress is indeed an amazing thing.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Boehner memo

Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"

Constitution

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Think this might actually go to SCOTUS

Immigration seems the most likely candidate given the "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," requirement. If it is expect a blitz to try and force reform though to beat the lawsuit

Called it;
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/06/26/wh-press-secretary-were-not-just-going-to-sit-around-and-wait-for-congress-immigration-laws/

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Frustrated waiting for Congress to act on immigration reform, newly-minted White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that President Barack Obama is seeking ways to use his executive authority to directly stem a recent influx of illegal immigrants streaming into the U.S.

Speaking with MSNBC Thursday, Earnest said the Obama administration is “not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress.”

“It’s fair to say the White House and the president have been pretty disappointed,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told MSNBC. “We’re not just going to just sit around and wait interminably for Congress.”

“We’ve been waiting a year already,” continued Earnest. “The president has tasked his Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson with reviewing what options are available to the president, what is at his disposal using his executive authority to try to address some of the problems that have been created by our broken immigration system.”

The recent increase in immigrants flooding across the border includes more than 52,000 unaccompanied immigrant children who have crossed into the U.S. border since October of last year. DHS data on arrested unaccompanied minors shows that since Oct. 1, there have been 11,577 from Mexico, 13,282 from Honduras and 11,479 from Guatemala. There have been 9,850 from Salvador.

Earlier this month, President Obama called the influx an “urgent humanitarian crisis” affecting Department of Homeland Security officials.

Earnest, who replaced Jay Carney this week as White House press secretary, added that Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform are “not a substitute for robust Congressional action.”
Senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett stated last week that Obama may “build upon” his program of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which some critics are blaming for encouraging the latest surge of unaccompanied child immigrants.

**Jihadin**

sebster wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The only thing that is amazing is that was the meaning that you arrived at

Okay, let's go through this teeth pulling exercise.

You commented that this was a bi-partisan exercise. Ouze commented that this "bipartisan committee" was certain to vote 3 Republicans yay, 2 Democrats no it wasn't bi-partisan in any way. At which point you said you were waiting on other members of the panel to decry this lawsuit.

This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.

Actually there are some Dem's that are forced to go along with it by their voters. The one's on the southern borders

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
sebster wrote:
This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.

To think that someone would act outside partisan interests and favour restoring the system of checks and balances so that any POTUS cannot make end arounds of Congress is indeed an amazing thing.

If we lived in a time where that would be true about national politics that would be nice, but we aren't living in that time. Every bit of research shows we are in hyper-partisan mode as a country, though using hollow calls for bipartisanship are as popular as ever.

**dogma**

Jihadin wrote:

Actually there are some Dem's that are forced to go along with it by their voters. The one's on the southern borders

Representative democracy at work.

**whembly**

"If you’re mad at me for helping people on my own then join me and we’ll do it together." —President Obama to Republicans and Congress

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 27, 2014

Heh...

Join me... and we'll rule the Country TOGETHER!!!

**Co'tor Shas**

It's 7:30 am, I've been up for 25.5 hours, and I am now laughing myself silly. Thanks, whembly.

**WarOne**

whembly wrote:
"If you’re mad at me for helping people on my own then join me and we’ll do it together." —President Obama to Republicans and Congress

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 27, 2014

Heh...

Join me... and we'll rule the Country TOGETHER!!!

See? I told you all Star Wars was racist.

**-Shrike-**

whembly wrote:
"If you’re mad at me for helping people on my own then join me and we’ll do it together." —President Obama to Republicans and Congress

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 27, 2014

Heh...

Join me... and we'll rule the Country TOGETHER!!!

Spoiler:

It is your destiny...

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's 7:30 am, I've been up for 25.5 hours, and I am now laughing myself silly. Thanks, whembly.

I aim to please!

On topic... I still say this is fething stupid of Boehner.

**Jihadin**

For those Illegal Aliens being released within the US. Ever wonder why ICE keep suing?

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

**d-usa**

People realize that the ICE memo about children was written a long time ago for a very specific population and has zero to do with the current influx of children and doesn't include them, right?

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:
People realize that the ICE memo about children was written a long time ago for a very specific population and has zero to do with the current influx of children and doesn't include them, right?

Stop poking holes in their outrage.

**Jihadin**

It does but towards the end of the memo. Additional guide lines was added other then children.

**d-usa**

These two groups:

• minors and elderly individuals;
• individuals present in the United States since childhood;

Were included (way back when this memo was written) to make special considerations for minors that have spend years in the US through no fault of their own, who have grown up in the USA, were raised in the USA, and have no emotional or practical connection to the country of their heritage. They decided that sending children away that were for all their own practical experiences "American" because they grew up here was not at all in the best interest of those children and was similar to throwing a child in jail because their parents broke the law. We ended up sending kids back to South America who sometimes didn't even speak the language of the country they were send back to.

Now, we can talk about if that decision was right or wrong and we can talk about other options they had and what the effects of that decision was and if that made "anchor babies" more desirable or not.

But what the pundits are doing is taking a memo that deals specifically with "what do we do with children that grew up in the US or were born here" and claiming "this memo means that any child that jumps across the fence can never be send back and it is encouraging people to send their children into this country so that they can bring their families later".

Which goes against the actual memo, which goes against anything that ICE is saying, and which goes against the commercials that the USA is airing in South and Central American countries telling them "We do not have an amnesty program for children. If you send them here they can die on the way and they will be send back anyway!".

But you know, feth Obama.

**Jihadin**

d-usa wrote:
These two groups:

• minors and elderly individuals;
• individuals present in the United States since childhood;

Were included (way back when this memo was written) to make special considerations for minors that have spend years in the US through no fault of their own, who have grown up in the USA, were raised in the USA, and have no emotional or practical connection to the country of their heritage. They decided that sending children away that were for all their own practical experiences "American" because they grew up here was not at all in the best interest of those children and was similar to throwing a child in jail because their parents broke the law. We ended up sending kids back to South America who sometimes didn't even speak the language of the country they were send back to.

Now, we can talk about if that decision was right or wrong and we can talk about other options they had and what the effects of that decision was and if that made "anchor babies" more desirable or not.

But what the pundits are doing is taking a memo that deals specifically with "what do we do with children that grew up in the US or were born here" and claiming "this memo means that any child that jumps across the fence can never be send back and it is encouraging people to send their children into this country so that they can bring their families later".

Which goes against the actual memo, which goes against anything that ICE is saying, and which goes against the commercials that the USA is airing in South and Central American countries telling them "We do not have an amnesty program for children. If you send them here they can die on the way and they will be send back anyway!".

But you know, feth Obama.

Dream Act was not passed by Congress.
DACA
Advance Parole

Establish Immigration Laws was bypassed concerning who can be deported and who cannot be deported.

Edit

We're talking Boehner lawsuit against POTUS.

A lot of us believe he be using Article Two Section Three.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The bold part is the trigger. He is not enforcing Immigration Laws that are establish and did an end run on them.