Boehner cannot sue the President

[LadyGunSlinger]

Executive
May veto laws
Wages war at the direction of Congress (Congress makes the rules for the military)
Makes decrees or declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgates lawful regulations and executive orders
Influences other branches of its agenda with the State of the Union address.
Appoints judges and executive department heads
Has power to grant pardons to convicted persons, except in cases of impeachment


Where in the Constitution can this President with the stroke of a pen legalize TENS OF THOUSANDS of immigrants right before the last election cycle?? He influenced the election, not only that we now know the IRS did as well.. this entire Republic is crumbling under tyranny and yet we actually have some Republicans bitching that the Legislative Branch is going to sue the Executive --- WHY????

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Let's see what the Founders had to say about Separation of Powers instead of Irkel:

Equality of the branches[edit]
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Sallow]

In order for the house of Reps to sue they must have standing which is to say that there has been demonstratable harm done to the institution. Here is one way I beleive that the House of Representatives, which is one house of congress, has standing.

Obama, by user of some executive orders, has taken legislative power as defined by the constitution from congress. Suppose a bill is passed and signed into law by the president that states that mandates that all people SHALL have health insurance by April 1, 2013 in order to avoid a $1000 tax for not having insurance. If the president uses his pen to write an executive order to delay the mandate from April 1, 2014 , then he has taken power that belongs to congress. If there is a issue with being able to meet the 2014 mandate date, the president should request that congress change that date. The power is law passed by congress and signed by the president constitutionally has more power than excutive orders from the president. It is okay for a president to issue excutive orders, but the excutive orders should be such that they excute the laws passed by congress, not violate them. If the president can in effect change a law by excutive order, we really don't need a congress because the president can simply order whatever he sees fit.

To make a long story short, the house of representives should have standing to sue the excutive brance (the president) because the president has taken legistive power from the congress by issuing excutive orders that violate the proper execution of laws passed by the congress.

That's a huge stretch.

And considering Congress relinquished much of those powers during the Bush administration and Scalia backed that..

It isn't much of a leg to stand on.

Funny we were telling you folks about this when it was ongoing..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The Legislative Branch not only has the moral authority under the US Constitution to sue the Executive, but it's my opinion it's their duty to do so when the very letter of the document has been raped and pillaged by this President, or any President for that matter. We are either a country who reveres the Constitution or one who tosses it around with whatever direction the wind blows.

 

[Ravi]

Why Boehner Can?t Sue Obama

Boehner is just throwing red meet to the RW loons. They will eventually stop drooling over this GOP wet dream.

That's too bad. It would have made great fools out of the Republicans. I guess they have no choice now but to impeach him.

I can't wait!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Why Boehner Can?t Sue Obama

Boehner is just throwing red meet to the RW loons. They will eventually stop drooling over this GOP wet dream.

That's too bad. It would have made great fools out of the Republicans. I guess they have no choice now but to impeach him.

I can't wait!

Which personality are you today? Choose a sock, any sock.. Hell, choose 3..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Boehner is another buffoon. Superficial tactics like this that throw some scraps to the serfs in order to pretend to placate is appalling.

 

[Stephanie]

Well there you go! But no doubt the Conservatives will try to fool the public yet again by trying to make them believe that they were actually very busy working on something for this country. Pathetic bunch who all need to leave office ASAP!

shut up, you don't know what conservative citizens want...and you lap up this red meat to dump on your country men and women so who's the loon here
You're as boring and annoying as Rdean...He thinks he know all about what Republicans/Conservative are about

Hey Staph germs! Quit spreading them already.

So you just joined this month yet you have the name calling down already?
so who's sock are you or are really that much of a loser?
and you're the germ who does nothing but spread hate on us and our country...people like you needs to be disinfected

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Boehner is another buffoon. Superficial tactics like this that throw some scraps to the serfs in order to pretend to placate is appalling.

Oh really???

Supreme Court rules against Obama on recess appointments

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Some of you so called Republicans sound as ignorant as liberals in this thread..

 

[rightwinger]

All the "Do Nothing Speaker" has is threats

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can't sue sitting US Presidents:

"Not for what he does as chief executive. The 1982 Supreme Court decision Nixon v. Fitzgerald gave the president broad immunity against civil lawsuits for job-related actions. Here's the background: In 1968, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a civilian analyst at the Air Force, warned Congress about the mounting costs of producing the Lockheed C-5A, a transport plane. Soon after, President Nixon ordered Fitzgerald dismissed, and Fitzgerald sued. Ultimately, a 5-4 split Court found in favor of Nixon, holding that the president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." The theory goes that subjecting the president, who routinely makes decisions that alter the fortunes of millions of citizens, to such lawsuits would cripple his ability to preside effectively and distract him from the job.

The court made a key distinction between presidential actions and personal ones, though, in its 1997 decision Clinton v. Jones. In 1994, Paula Jones sued President Clinton for allegedly sexually harassing her in 1991, while she was an Arkansas state employee and before Clinton won the presidential election. Clinton's lawyers argued that presidential immunity extended to unofficial acts, and that the trial should be postponed until Clinton left office. The court decided against Clinton, who ultimately paid Jones $850,000 to settle the suit."
Can you sue the president? Kucinich just did.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Boehner is another buffoon. Superficial tactics like this that throw some scraps to the serfs in order to pretend to placate is appalling.

Oh really???

Supreme Court rules against Obama on recess appointments

That was a SC ruling, not the speaker suing the president in hopes of good tidings being thrown his way for some cheap gimmick.

 

[Ravi]

Boneless is drowning. What a moron.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Boehner is another buffoon. Superficial tactics like this that throw some scraps to the serfs in order to pretend to placate is appalling.

Oh really???

Supreme Court rules against Obama on recess appointments

That was a SC ruling, not the speaker suing the president in hopes of good tidings being thrown his way for some cheap gimmick.

How do you know it won't make it to the High Court?? YOU DON'T.. It's the same exact principle .. IT'S CALLED USURPING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Can't sue sitting US Presidents:

"Not for what he does as chief executive. The 1982 Supreme Court decision Nixon v. Fitzgerald gave the president broad immunity against civil lawsuits for job-related actions. Here's the background: In 1968, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a civilian analyst at the Air Force, warned Congress about the mounting costs of producing the Lockheed C-5A, a transport plane. Soon after, President Nixon ordered Fitzgerald dismissed, and Fitzgerald sued. Ultimately, a 5-4 split Court found in favor of Nixon, holding that the president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." The theory goes that subjecting the president, who routinely makes decisions that alter the fortunes of millions of citizens, to such lawsuits would cripple his ability to preside effectively and distract him from the job.

The court made a key distinction between presidential actions and personal ones, though, in its 1997 decision Clinton v. Jones. In 1994, Paula Jones sued President Clinton for allegedly sexually harassing her in 1991, while she was an Arkansas state employee and before Clinton won the presidential election. Clinton's lawyers argued that presidential immunity extended to unofficial acts, and that the trial should be postponed until Clinton left office. The court decided against Clinton, who ultimately paid Jones $850,000 to settle the suit."
Can you sue the president? Kucinich just did.

Oh really? SCOTUS just ruled on what your Chief Executive did and slapped him back in to his place.

 

[hangover]

LMFAO!!!!! In the story:

But Boehner may not be able to do so. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School

Who the **** is Erwin????? Because "ERWIN" said so????

Just some guy who graduated from Harvard Law before becoming Dean of the prominently ranked University of California Irvine law school. Where did you go to school?


Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at UC Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science.

Prior to assuming this position in 2008, he was the Alston and Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University from 2004-2008, and before that was a professor at the University of Southern California Law School from 1983-2004, including as the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science.

He is the author of eight books, including The Case Against the Supreme Court to be published by Viking in 2014, and more than 200 law review articles. He frequently argues appellate cases, including in the United States Supreme Court. In January 2014, National Jurist magazine named Dean Chemerinsky as the most influential person in legal education in the United States. Dean Chemerinsky is a graduate of Northwestern University and Harvard Law School.

Who ******* cares ?? Odumbo was a so called "Professor" at Harvard and he's a walking Clusterfuck..

Sixth grade grads think their smarter than Harvard professors.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama needs to ramp up his Executive Orders

Since Congress is content to do nothing, doesn't mean the President should be

He needs to make Congress try to stop him

 

[bodecea]

And yet...he's accomplished so much...like becoming President of the United States....twice.

What have YOU accomplished...as comparison?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

LMFAO!!!!! In the story:

But Boehner may not be able to do so. According to Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School

Who the **** is Erwin????? Because "ERWIN" said so????

Just some guy who graduated from Harvard Law before becoming Dean of the prominently ranked University of California Irvine law school. Where did you go to school?


Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at UC Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science.

Prior to assuming this position in 2008, he was the Alston and Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University from 2004-2008, and before that was a professor at the University of Southern California Law School from 1983-2004, including as the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science.

He is the author of eight books, including The Case Against the Supreme Court to be published by Viking in 2014, and more than 200 law review articles. He frequently argues appellate cases, including in the United States Supreme Court. In January 2014, National Jurist magazine named Dean Chemerinsky as the most influential person in legal education in the United States. Dean Chemerinsky is a graduate of Northwestern University and Harvard Law School.

Is that kinda like Obama being a constitutional expert and knowing he is within the law to make recess appointments when congress isn't really in recess? Like that? That kind of expert knowledge? Constitutional law expert can't be wrong expertise?