Reply With QuoteGood for him. Unfortunately it may be too late. I can't imagine such a complex case getting resolved before the next election and I don't think a successor would become a substituted party.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Speaker John Boehner says he intends to file a lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of failing to carry out the laws passed by Congress.
The suit would be filed on behalf of the Republican-controlled House.
Boehner provided no details of the claims to be made in the suit. He privately briefed members of his rank and file on his plans on Tuesday.
Republicans have long accused Obama of selectively enforcing the health care law that bears his name, and doing the same with immigration legislation long on the books.
At his weekly news conference, the speaker said the Constitution makes it clear the president's job is to faithfully execute the law.
http://www.wben.com/pages/19288975.p...entId=15456668
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Good for him. Unfortunately it may be too late. I can't imagine such a complex case getting resolved before the next election and I don't think a successor would become a substituted party.
Its not whether it gets heard before Obama's term is up IMO its about president increasingly doing what ever the hell they feel like.
I for one am very happy to see this go through. If the brakes are not put on sooner or later we are heading toward having an elected king not a president.
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
They held Holder in contempt and you see how much traction that got them.Originally Posted by steven
b.b.
Good luck with that
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
He chooses which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he doesn't. Name any President before him that's done that to the extent he has. Hint, their aren't any.
"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ident-who-thi/
• Abraham Lincoln. During the Civil War era, Lincoln "broke an assortment of laws and ignored one constitutional provision after another," according to an analysis by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. Lincoln waged war without a congressional declaration of war (or even a Congress in session to declare one), spent $2 million to raise an army without congressional appropriation, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, among other actions.
"Following a strategy of ‘unilateral action,’ Lincoln justified his powers as an emergency authority granted to him by the people," the Miller Center analysis concludes. "He had been elected, he told his critics, to decide when an emergency existed and to take all measures required to deal with it. In doing so, Lincoln maintained that the President was one of three ‘coordinate’ departments of government, not in any way subordinate to Congress or the courts."
• Andrew Johnson. After the Civil War ended and Lincoln was assassinated, Andrew Johnson became president and almost immediately clashed with Congress over how to treat the former Confederacy. Edwin M. Stanton, who had been Secretary of War under Lincoln, retained his position under Johnson and became one of the new president’s biggest critics, asserting that the federal government should intervene more forcefully to protect freed slaves’ rights in the South.
In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, which required Senate approval before a president fired federal officials who had originally been confirmed by the Senate. When Johnson tried to oust Stanton, the Senate blocked him; when Johnson made a second ouster attempt, the House impeached him. (Johnson ultimately survived impeachment, Stanton resigned, and the Tenure of Office Act was repealed in 1887.)
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt. On March 11, 1941, as World War II was already under way in Europe -- and while the United States was still officially on the sidelines -- Roosevelt signed a landmark law known as the Lend-Lease Act. At the time, Britain was under siege and almost out of money, so the law authorized the president to sell, lease, or lend military hardware to any country he designated as vital to American national security.
However, a provision in the law would have allowed Congress to terminate the president’s powers after a certain amount of time through a "concurrent resolution." This amounted to a "legislative veto" by a simple majority and without the president’s signature. Roosevelt believed this to be unconstitutional, but he signed the bill anyway, secretly writing a memorandum to Attorney General Robert H. Jackson explaining that "the emergency was so great that I signed the bill in spite of a clearly unconstitutional provision contained in it." Jackson only made the episode public in 1953.
• Harry Truman. In the midst of the Korean War, Truman had to grapple with labor disputes within the steel industry -- a sector he considered vital to the war effort. In a bid to head off a looming work stoppage, Truman in 1952 ordered his Commerce Secretary to seize the steel mills. The industry objected, and Truman’s seizure was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
• Richard Nixon. Citing government spending as a reason for surging inflation, Nixon refused to spend nearly $12 billion of congressionally appropriated funds for 1973 and 1974. He did so under an executive action known as "impoundment" -- an action that had been used by many presidents previously, but with questionable constitutionality. Faced with Nixon’s unusually large impoundment -- and with the president bogged down in Watergate -- Congress rebelled, passing legislation to make impoundment illegal. Nixon vetoed the bill, Congress overrode his veto, and Nixon stood his ground. The administration challenged the new law barring impoundment, but a federal court sided with Congress, saying impoundment was unconstitutional.
• Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s quest to fight communism suffered a setback in the middle of his first term when the Democratic Congress in 1983 passed the Boland Amendment, which restricted the CIA and the Defense Department from operating in Nicaragua. An even stronger version passed the following year. The Reagan administration diverted some of the proceeds of a secret arms sale to Iran to the anti-communist militia in Nicaragua known as the Contras, an action that directly violated the Boland Amendment.
Several top advisers to Reagan were implicated in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair. While the Reagan-appointed Tower Commission said Reagan's disengagement from White House management had made the diversion possible, Reagan himself was never formally linked to the violation of the Boland amendment.
• George W. Bush. While president, Bush issued 161 signing statements -- that is, official pronouncements that accompany the signing of a bill into law. In addition to commenting on the law generally, signing statements have been used to document the president’s constitutional objections to provisions contained in the law, and sometimes to announce how (or whether) parts of the law will be enforced. Bush was hardly the first to issue signing statements, but he was the most prolific.
According to the Congressional Research Service, Bush issued 161 signing statements, which is a smaller number than each of his three immediate predecessors. But 79 percent of Bush’s statements -- a much higher rate -- noted a challenge or objection to the law being signed, rather than offering relatively innocuous comments. Meanwhile, many statements contained multiple reservations, making the total number more than 1,000.
The American Bar Association published a report asserting that Bush’s statements were "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers" when they "claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law ... or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress."
Like Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt before him, Bush "asserted the power to violate certain laws if necessary to defend the country," said Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor. "Bush’s signing statements typically said that he would interpret laws restricting executive authority, such as a law forbidding cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees, in a manner consistent with his understanding of his power as commander-in-chief. What that meant, it turned out when the memos were declassified, was that the law did not bind him if he believed certain actions were necessary to national security — the ‘commander-in-chief override.’ "
BOOM
b.b.
Wooooooooosh. I guess you missed this part:
Really, Reagans Iran contra and W's challenge to laws being signed is really the same as Obama shipping 10 million tonk kids into the country? Nope. Not by a longshot.to the extent he has
"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama
Boom what?
If that is trying to say its always been like this then those are some pretty poor examples.
Those are all examples of presidents trying to over reach and except in the case of war and except for the most recent presidents it seems most of them where called on it and failed
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Some of you people are ridiculous.
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
Here you go, everybody.
Never let it be said that Republicans don't waste taxpayer dollars. They do it all the time, especially when it comes to dehumanizing and delegitimizing the President.
This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.
Its amazing, I never thought real Americans would be clamoring for a king.
I will book mark this page and reference it when someone from the other side is in and you are all losing your minds and crying foul.
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
The House last week adopted a bill that, "would expedite congressional lawsuits against the chief executive for failure to enforce federal laws." The measure was approved by a vote of 233 to 181, with every voting Republican, as well as five Democrats, voting in favor.
“The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the executive to enforce them," said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the bill's sponsor. "We don’t pass suggestions. We don’t pass ideas. We pass laws."
Michael McConnell, a former federal judge who is now a professor of law and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School writes, "While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so. ... Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president's unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects."
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
--U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 1"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
That's what needs to stop. The last 6 years of Bush, the first six of Obama.... I can't stand it anymore. This divided country is collapsing
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
