Boehner cannot sue the President

[TooTall]

Ask SCOTUS, they struck down your wonder boy today in regard to recess appointments.. It was specified law in that but it was THE BIATCH SLAP HEARD AROUND THE WORLD!!! roflmao

They ***** slapped every President going forward, and rightly so. Of course, today's decision does not change the appointments already made...

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist, then. Does this mean that a future Republican president can't recess appoint a Ted Cruz type to SCOTUS?

Works for me.

Draw your own conclusion.

At issue is whether three people named by President Barack Obama to the board were ineligible to serve because their appointments were made while the Senate was technically in a "pro forma" session during the 2011-12 winter holiday break. That meant the mostly empty chamber was convening every three days without any business conducted, and with the sessions lasting only minutes at most.

The court majority concluded recess appointments would be valid if those breaks lasted 10 days or more.

"We conclude that the Recess Appointment Clause does not give the President the constitutional authority to make the appointments here at issue," Justice Stephen Breyer said. "We hold that the Senate is in session, and not in recess, when the Senate says that it is in session."

And the bolded statement looks like a ***** slap to me.

 

[daveman]

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.

"...meat..."

When you can't attack the message.....

Even Neil Cavuto had to publicly spank Michelle Bachmann on his show a couple of days ago when she endorsed this stupid idea. He accused her and Boehner of just wasting people's time.

And posts like YOURS does too.

Tissue?

 

[daveman]

You must because you posted about him.

Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School. His undergrad degree is from Columbia U (Ivy League) and his law degree is from Harvard where he was the editor of the Law Review. That may not sound like much to you, but to those who understand, it is the highest level of achievement one can obtain in law school. Just being ON the law review gets you jobs at the top ranking law firms in the country.

Go ahead and sneeze, but I suspect you barely made it through high school after reading your posts.

If Obama's such a shit-hot Constitutional scholar, why does he have 13 unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him?

 

[TooTall]

They ***** slapped every President going forward, and rightly so. Of course, today's decision does not change the appointments already made...

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist, then. Does this mean that a future Republican president can't recess appoint a Ted Cruz type to SCOTUS?

Works for me.

Not so long as Congress is in session. Even pro forma sessions. The decision puts an end to that practice. Presidents from both parties have done this, made appointments during pro forma sessions, but I believe you would have to go back a ways to find one. I know Bush, Clinton, and Bush did not do it...


I guess they understood the Constitution a little better... Or their people did...

May I add that none of the three you mention were Constitutional law professors either.

 

[TooTall]

What are these new laws written? Their # or name please. (all laws are numbered, btw)

Ask SCOTUS, they struck down your wonder boy today in regard to recess appointments.. It was specified law in that but it was THE BIATCH SLAP HEARD AROUND THE WORLD!!! roflmao

They ***** slapped every President going forward, and rightly so. Of course, today's decision does not change the appointments already made...

Maybe, maybe not. If they do remove the three illegal appointments the funny thing is Obama can renominate them and the Senate can confirm them with 51 votes

The justices' unanimous ruling on the narrowest of grounds against the Obama administration could invalidate hundreds of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency at the center of this legal fight.

 

[daveman]

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.

But...but...but a completely unbiased law professor (who has donated to nothing but Democrat candidates) says Boehner can't do it! So there! Neener neener!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

Boehner lacks standing to sue.

This is nothing but a partisan temper tantrum.

no he does have standing issue.

No, he does not:

Suits against coordinate branches of government by congressional plaintiffs pose*
separation-of-powers concerns which may affect a complainant’s standing to*
invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. To the extent that the Constitution*
envisions limited federal court jurisdiction out of respect for the coordinate*
branches of government, we have been reluctant to grant standing to members of*
Congress alleging generalized, amorphous injuries due to either the actions of their*
colleagues in Congress or the conduct of the Executive ....[W]here separation-of-*
powers concerns are present, the plaintiff’s alleged injury must be specific and*
cognizable in order to give rise to standing ....Deprivation of a constitutionally*
mandated process of enacting law may inflict a more specific injury on a member*
of Congress than would be presented by a generalized complaint that a legislator’s*
effectiveness is diminished by allegedly illegal activities taking place outside the15*
legislative forum.

Congressional Standing to Sue: An Overview

See also: Raines v. Byrd (1997)

 

[Plasmaball]

Correct.

Boehner lacks standing to sue.

This is nothing but a partisan temper tantrum.

no he does have standing issue.

No, he does not:

Suits against coordinate branches of government by congressional plaintiffs pose*
separation-of-powers concerns which may affect a complainant’s standing to*
invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. To the extent that the Constitution*
envisions limited federal court jurisdiction out of respect for the coordinate*
branches of government, we have been reluctant to grant standing to members of*
Congress alleging generalized, amorphous injuries due to either the actions of their*
colleagues in Congress or the conduct of the Executive ....[W]here separation-of-*
powers concerns are present, the plaintiff’s alleged injury must be specific and*
cognizable in order to give rise to standing ....Deprivation of a constitutionally*
mandated process of enacting law may inflict a more specific injury on a member*
of Congress than would be presented by a generalized complaint that a legislator’s*
effectiveness is diminished by allegedly illegal activities taking place outside the15*
legislative forum.

Congressional Standing to Sue: An Overview

See also: Raines v. Byrd (1997)

executive orders, signing statements or memos are something Congress has allowed since Washington held office. They have typically turned their head to the process. A president doesnt "technically" have these powers per say. If congress wants to challenge the Executive branch they can.

you really can't get around this fact.

United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law[1] when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

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

so i mean, sure boner may have nothing, but he has the right.