Posted on 07/17/2014 4:41:37 AM PDT by don-o
House Republicans officially launched the legislative process of suing President Obama at a hearing Wednesday, with legal experts describing the plan as everything from a "historic step to addressing a constitutional crisis" to "an embarrassing loser" in the courts.
From Republicans, such as Pete Sessions of Texas, there is insistence that truly profound issues are at stake, with claims that Obama has not been faithfully executing his constitutional duty to carry out laws passed by Congress. As chairman of the House Rules Committee, Sessions opened the hearing by describing the Republican effort as seeking an urgent "rebalancing" of the separation of powers between branches of government.
But Louise Slaughter, the Rules Committee's top Democrat, was somewhat less dramatic in her view, dryly likening any expectation of the suit's success in the courts to Alice in Wonderland's "thinking of six impossible things before breakfast." She also described the legal action as "preposterous" and a "purely political exercise" geared to a midterm election year.
snip
Meanwhile, four constitutional experts—two called to testify for each side—gave the committee their own conflicting views of whether Speaker John Boehner's planned litigation could pass basic legal muster. Regardless, the Rules Committee, controlled by Republicans, is intent on finalizing language to a resolution to proceed with the lawsuit.
House members are to vote on that resolution by the end of July, before their annual August break.
For strategic legal reasons, Republicans say their lawsuit will focus specifically on Obama's delay of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate last year. But they say they are also upset over a range of administrative actions in areas from environmental law to immigration law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
More flaccidity from feminized stuffed suits whose only solution to problems is to shuffle more papers. The time for shuffling papers is long past. We should have been in the streets by the tens of millions years ago.
“Biden is 0bamao’s impeachment insurance.”
Impeach him too. At a minimum he was aiding and abetting
the Obamas criminal activity. I would say that a good case
could be made that sense they were both elected together
on the same ticket, in situations where the president is
getting the boot for criminal activity the other side of
the same coin should go too.
It is a time killer designed to pacify the sheep and make them think something is being done when nothing is. If the Republicans truly desired to stop Obama’s lawless acts, they already have the tools to do it.
It will end up being an embarrassing (& election) loser because as we all know the GOP will allow the dems to frame the issue.
I think I’ll root around for historical examples of Congress suing the president, but I got to thinking, Boehner’s plan makes about as much sense as the president suing Congress. For example, Obama might claim Congress hasn’t provided enough money to faithfully execute the laws, so he sues in court to get the appropriation he claims is necessary.
“Durbin, Schumer, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy, Shiela Jackson Lee”
Even those guys would be better than the Obama because
they are all to the right of him. Simply put, he hates this
country and everyone in it, even the Clinton’s. He has no
tie to it and is as unAmerican as a typical muslim wetback.
Durbin, Schumer, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy, Shiela Jackson Lee
would all be a comic relief compared to this B-HO.
I wouldn't bet my lunch money on that. There is a practically unlimited supply of politicians, many of whom claim to be "on the right," who would implement policies that are destructive to the principles of this country's founding.
Mind you, I am not arguing that we should tolerate or respect Obama. My point is simply that his space at the bottom of the barrel is crowded with others.
“unless you can take out all 3”
Why not? they are all complicit. You also need to take under
consideration the impact of gaining office through impeachment.
They are going to be operating in a diminished capacity
with a lot less power and a congress with a victory under it’s belt.
I don’t think the press can cover for Biden, he could possibly
impeach himself if they let him talk to much.
I disagree. It is the media that allows the Democrats to frame the issues.
That leaves Reid in the WH.
“My point is simply that his space at the bottom of the barrel is crowded with others.”
Good point and well taken. “But”, we know who they are
and what barrel they came from, except the Obama. There
is very little that can actually be verified about this guy,
even and including if he is a guy at all. He could very well
be a unic. That’s the difference, that’s what puts him three
flights below the bottom of the barrel. The fact that he may
be a fraud and most likely is.
“That leaves Reid in the WH.”
Speaker of the House is second in line to succeed the President, after the Vice Presiden,
That’s John Boehner. Not much confidence in that prospect
either.
Worse it would establish the legal precedent that every time congress felt wronged by a veto, they had standing to sue. Every time one house of congress didn't pass a bill the other house did, they could sue. Any time anyone didn't get what they wanted or passed, they have standing to sue.
An awful lot of layers could make an awful lot of money, but all the cases get rejected eventually.
He can be.
Your question should be, "Why hasn't Obama been impeached for his many high crimes and misdemeanors?"
You are correct but I don’t see Boner stepping up. After that what Secretary of State? God help us.
“Any time anyone didn’t get what they wanted or passed, they have standing to sue.”
So be it and let them. Just more gridlock. But I don’t think
you could say a case against the Obama would be frivolous.
There are definitely grounds to do so. Grounds for
impeachment to. The problem lies is when they loose. If
anything, a precedent will be set by the media and the rest
of the tards. The backlash could be worse.
On the other hand how would it matter anyway? It’s not like
they vote on bills just once. Sometimes they continue to
to push, introduce and vote for the same bill for decades
so I don’t see how a standing to sue would make much difference.
What happens if the courts rule against Congress, which is very possible given the political makeup of the Federal judges? Does then Congress just adjourn and go home for good having been decisively "beaten" on the field of battle? Or do then try and recover with impeachment? Doesn't this just give the prize of ultimate power to the Executive branch and Judicial Branch forever?
Besides, why should the Judicial Branch be handed the mantle of the most powerful to be the ultimate authority over the other two because the Legislative Branch ultimately defers to it's rulings? Then if the Executive Branch simply laughs in it's face doesn't that make a mockery of the other two and we are now in an Executive dictatorship by default? Isn't that precisely what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent?
What is the GOAL of impeachment proponents?
We can also prefer the constitutional remedy of the term limit. But the most effective constitutional remedy will be to get the Senate out of Harry Reid’s House-bill blocking hands, and make Barry start having to make some embarrassing vetoes of bills that actually will help create jobs, and reduce regulations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.