House is really going to sue Obama
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
did you really think the psychos wouldn't sue the president for not implementing quickly enough the law that they hate.
such butters.
So just to be clear, if we have a republican President and he decides to arbitrarily change laws he has no authority to do so with, you won't mind, right?
"If"?
See signing statements by Obama's Predacessor.
See signing statements by Obama.
Obama criticized Bush over it and continues the practice.
The point of a lawsuit is to establish precedent on executive powers, to reign in a lawless president that is abusing his authority.
His primary job is to faithfully execute the powers of his office, not to rewrite the constitution, rather than defend it.
.Supreme Court rulings..http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled to Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department — see "Presidential Usage" below).
Presidential usage
The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[10] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.[11] By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges.[11] As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.[12]
The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito — then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."[13]
His primary job is to faithfully execute the powers of his office, not to rewrite the constitution, rather than defend it.
.Supreme Court rulings..http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established court deference to executive interpretations of a law "if Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and if the interpretation is reasonable. This applies only to executive agencies; the President himself is not entitled to Chevron deference. To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department — see "Presidential Usage" below).
Presidential usage
The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[10] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.[11] By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges.[11] As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.[12]
The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito — then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."[13]
Last edited:
bendog
Diamond Member
Shocking, and now the gop is suing Obama. Political theatre for partisans.
- Thread starter
- #85
I hope it turns out as well for the GClinton's impeachment did. That worked out well, didn't it?
- Thread starter
- #86
Link
candycorn
Diamond Member
Hmmm...our intel said they were in Iraq.
Makes you wonder why we didn't invade Syria.
Or will you revise history again and swear we invaded Syria?
OldUSAFSniper
Conservative
I believe it and I support it. You know it just absolutely makes me laugh out loud when I read the liberals whining that the Congress won't do anything! Oh my God, it's so horrible, isn't it? Barry will not compromise, will not negotiate, will not drive for a consensus on anything. It's either his way or the highway and the man is an absolute AMATUER as we go from crisis to crisis without knowing what to do on any of them.
How many times do I have to say it? I tell my Senators and Congressman regularly to filibuster, block, delay and do anything necessary so that this man's agenda WILL NOT BECOME LAW OF THE LAND. And they are doing that and I am very happy about it.
So Barry can't brow beat the Congress into doing what he wants so he unilaterally issues what I believe to be unlawful Executive Orders. Obamacare is just one example. Immigration is another. Barry's job is TO FOLLOW THE LAW (refer to the constitution here), not make it. The House sends bill after bill to the Senate where it dies a slow death because Harry won't even bring them up. Yet if the Senate or Barry sends the House a bill and they say "You have to pass it EXACTLY as it was sent to you." And when the House doesn't? Oh my God, we have 'do nothing' Congress so Barry HAS to issue all of those Executive orders.
Here's my thoughts on that... bullshit. Next...
How many times do I have to say it? I tell my Senators and Congressman regularly to filibuster, block, delay and do anything necessary so that this man's agenda WILL NOT BECOME LAW OF THE LAND. And they are doing that and I am very happy about it.
So Barry can't brow beat the Congress into doing what he wants so he unilaterally issues what I believe to be unlawful Executive Orders. Obamacare is just one example. Immigration is another. Barry's job is TO FOLLOW THE LAW (refer to the constitution here), not make it. The House sends bill after bill to the Senate where it dies a slow death because Harry won't even bring them up. Yet if the Senate or Barry sends the House a bill and they say "You have to pass it EXACTLY as it was sent to you." And when the House doesn't? Oh my God, we have 'do nothing' Congress so Barry HAS to issue all of those Executive orders.
Here's my thoughts on that... bullshit. Next...
candycorn
Diamond Member
I guess it's one of those (millions of things) that's only okay when the white guy does it?
candycorn
Diamond Member
psst...Congressmen cannot filibuster anything in the house. You sound like an amateur
NoTeaPartyPleez
Gold Member
- Dec 2, 2012
- 11,826
- 1,914
- 245
By your logic and limited information, a kangaroo court would have been better than George Bush, too.
He didn't just kill over 150 American contractors, but 186,000 Iraqi civilians, too. But that was OK, wasn't it? BUt boy oh boy, if it had been Obama......
NoTeaPartyPleez
Gold Member
- Dec 2, 2012
- 11,826
- 1,914
- 245
They just make shit up as they go along, and never provide verification of their incredibly stupid remarks....because they can't.
No dumbass, Turkey refused permission for 4th Infantry Division to enter Iraq from the North, so whatever Saddam had left was convoyed in trucks to Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Now Syria is using them in it's civil war.
Guess you haven't been paying attention.
Unless the Drivebys spell it out for you in detail you don't think it exists
.
bendog
Diamond Member
ah, the old pea and three shells trick. Nefarious.
Nice race-card.
Not enough shiny objects in my explanation to register a rational response?
Obama said it was wrong before he became POTUS.
You can't see the hypocrisy? Can't you see through the sophomoric excuse making?
Course not.
We just hate him cuz he's black.
AmericanFirst
Gold Member
- Dec 17, 2009
- 12,204
- 1,062
- 175
The house done its job, it is the idiot reid that has been blaocking everything and the idiot in chief that has violated the constitution and his own stupid healthcare law among others. idiot libtards.GOP-led House authorizes lawsuit against Obama - CNN.com
I cannot believe these frigin idiots are really going to do this. Rather than do the job their constituents sent them to the House to do, they decide to waste my tax money with this crap. What a bunch of Buffoons!
The independent voters are going to take note of lunacy in Congress.
AmericanFirst
Gold Member
- Dec 17, 2009
- 12,204
- 1,062
- 175
Idiot alert. The rule of law that the idiot in chief has been breaking. If you had a brain you would have it out and playing with it.
AmericanFirst
Gold Member
- Dec 17, 2009
- 12,204
- 1,062
- 175
Too bad we have an incompetent pos president that the house feels they have to do this. They should just impeach the sorry bastard and throw his sorry ass in jail. Libtards are sooooo stupid.
GreenBean
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2013
- 5,407
- 616
- 155
OT: [MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION] - the statement in your signature re: Ted Nugent is not a true Quote - if it were I'd be as pissed off as you feign to be - it was not directed at Native Americans.
he cušni ye, Tóske Lakótiya eýapi hwo? "you're full of shit"
Last edited:
LiberalMedia
VIP Member
Evidently, more intelligent than conservatards, given that lybyryls lyke mysylf actually know what impeachment is and what the consequences of it are. Protip: Being thrown in jail is not a consequence of impeachment.
Looks like you've got a lot of research to do. Here, I'll give you a hylpyng hynd: Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
So How Many Iranian Schoolchildren is Trump Going to Burn Alive for Netanyahu Tomorrow?- Started by munkle
- Replies: 10
-
-
Maine’s Supreme Court ruled that expanding Ranked Choice Voting to general elections is unconstitutional!- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
Mahshahr petrochemical zone evacuated as Trump’s deadline for strikes on Iran looms
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 1
