Boehner Plans to File Suit Against Obama Over Alleged Abuse of Executive Power

I wish I could get onboard with a lawsuit against the president for abuse of power. Unfortunately, it's environmentalism and healthcare that is the big bad evil Republicans care about.

The battles they choose......

a reply to: neo96

Nixon issued 346
GW Bush issued 291
Obama issued 147

If Boehner's going after executive orders, he's in for an uphill battle.

Source

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Why isn't this about impeachment?

Maybe because they have nothing solid to impeach him on?



The right can complain about Obama's policies all they want, but if they had something beyond opinion, they would have impeached him long ago.

I disagree based on past precedent. Nixon was impeached for less than what Obama and his administraion have done. This IRS scandal, for instance, is magnitudes worse than Watergate. Flat refusal to appear before a Congressional hearing and, when eventually forced to do so, displaying nothing but contempt for the hearing... that's worse than Watergate. Behnghazi is worse than Watergate. All of them are worlds worse than Clinton's BJ lie.

The real issue (in my opinion, mind you) is the presence of Joe Biden. President Joe Biden is a damned disturbing concept to both parties. Obama chose his VP well for sure.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: neo96

Nixon issued 346
GW Bush issued 291
Obama issued 147

If Boehner's going after executive orders, he's in for an uphill battle.

Source

It's not the "Quantities".

It's the "negative/positive" impact ratios on the majority of citizens and the levels of escalation of Authoritarianism and borderline UN-Constitutionalities that matter.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: neo96

Nixon issued 346
GW Bush issued 291
Obama issued 147

If Boehner's going after executive orders, he's in for an uphill battle.

Source

Even bother WATCHING THE VIDEO ?

Doesn't sound like it.

Here is another one:

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The vast majority of EOs all presidents have signed are throw-aways involving crap like pay rate adjustments, establishment/updating chain of successions for federal departments, establishment of nonsense like "President's council on fitness", and flexing muscles on currently misbehaving foreign countries via presidential sanctions. The issue lies in the handfull of EOs that actually attempt to set federal law/policy by doing a Congressional end-around.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Nixon was impeached for less than what Obama and his administraion have done. This IRS scandal, for instance, is magnitudes worse than Watergate.

Can a president be impeached for what his administration does? I thought it had to be HIS actions.

All of them are worlds worse than Clinton's BJ lie.

I don't know that I would agree that they're worse, but impeaching Clinton for that fiasco was a joke, as would an impeachment of Obama would be.

Election year "dog and pony" show. I don't like Obama myself but this is not going anywhere and even if a lawsuit is filed it will drag out FOREVER AND A DAY! The party in power is always being "chewed on" by the other side and it will always be that way.

I do believe that Obama and Holder have broken laws and they see the Constitution as something they pick and choose the parts they like and %iss on the rest of the document. Pick a scandal, the list is quiet long now......

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's the "negative/positive" impact ratios on the majority of citizens and the levels of escalation of Authoritarianism and borderline UN-Constitutionalities that matter.

And do you have the comparative data on that? Or are you just assuming that Obama is much worse than previous presidents?

originally posted by: amkia
I believe he is on right track as «NOT NOTIFYING” the corrupt congress “infested by the AIPAC lobby”... When he started his campaign, his slogan was (CHANGE), now.. Change is here…!

Can you see it..? Or just want to stand against..?

Good for him and May GOD protect him from any harm…

OMG!!! Are you serious??? The people elect representatives to speak OUR will. I won't debate how well they do that though. Obama is IGNORING our wishes as THE PEOPLE of this country. He was not elected king to rule over us but to execute the laws we want and the desires we have for the future. We have laws to protect our borders (for example). WE made them. WE want and demand them...that is why they are law. He ignores them and look at the mess. And even if it wasn't a mess...it is NOT his job to decide to enforce them or not. Arrogant SOB! The people own this country...not the government...not the representatives and NOT Obama.

This is OUR country...Obama is trying to make it his, under his opinion. If I wanted his f'ing opinion I would have asked. I didn't. He was sent to execute the laws, not choose the laws.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's the "negative/positive" impact ratios on the majority of citizens and the levels of escalation of Authoritarianism and borderline UN-Constitutionalities that matter.

And do you have the comparative data on that? Or are you just assuming that Obama is much worse than previous presidents?

You made the first reference with such force and vigor, and now deflect.

I will allow you to justify your own points. I won't do your job for you.

Busted.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency following Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865, was impeached because of his failure to follow procedures specified in federal legislation (passed over his veto) that prohibited the firing of Cabinet officials without the permission of Congress.

Standards for impeachment

It is safe to say that Obama can be impeached on his repeated failure to follow legislative procedures.

Here is the precedent..

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Nixon was impeached for less than what Obama and his administraion have done. This IRS scandal, for instance, is magnitudes worse than Watergate.

Can a president be impeached for what his administration does? I thought it had to be HIS actions.

All of them are worlds worse than Clinton's BJ lie.

I don't know that I would agree that they're worse, but impeaching Clinton for that fiasco was a joke, as would an impeachment of Obama would be.

I disagree with your last sentence. I'm one of those people that was raised and taught that a liar is one of the worst, typically non-criminal, moral problem a person can have. Clinton lied. Obama lies constantly. Politicians in general lie and they are "employees" of the people. If I lie at work...I can be fired. I personally hold all elected officials to that same litmus test. If you are a liar...and lie over and over, you have no credibility, I can't trust you or your words and you are 100% useless to me at that point. Time to get rid of you and find someone else I can trust.

That may not be a law...but I would suggest it should be. If you lie under oath, you are breaking a law. I think all our paid officials and employees should be considered under oath when speaking to "the people" and our representatives. If you lie...theres the door. Why? Do you think that is excessive? I say...since when? If you lie, you can't be trusted. If you can't be trusted, how can you be expected to do what you were elected to do? You can't...therefore...the door.

originally posted by: neo96

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency following Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865, was impeached because of his failure to follow procedures specified in federal legislation (passed over his veto) that prohibited the firing of Cabinet officials without the permission of Congress.

Standards for impeachment

It is safe to say that Obama can be impeached on his repeated failure to follow legislative procedures.

Here is the precedent..

Interestingly, Johnson was impeached for violation of the Tenure of Office Act; which had recently been enacted to prevent Johnson from firing the Secretary of War, Edward Stanton. Subsequently, the SCOTUS found the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional.

I don't understand why congress thinks they can pass an unconstitutional law and expect that the POTUS is obligated to follow it after having sworn to uphold the Constitution. Seems contradictory to me.

Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Bold is mine.

en.wikipedia.org...

Looks like our "constitutional" president isn't following the rules.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

If for one minute I thought this President cared a snip about our Constitution. I'd think things you post may have a smidgen of merit...

As he's proven he hates our Constitution, and has done all he can to undermine it.

Sorry...I can't take what you post seriously...

Des

a reply to: abeverage

Yep...

a reply to: beezzer

Yep the 'Take Care Clause'

Take Care Clause

Obama should KNOW that since he is a 'constitutional lawyer'.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Can a president be impeached for what his administration does? I thought it had to be HIS actions.

If that were true, then Reagan would have been impeached for the Iran/Contra Affair. But "HE" didn't know about it!

"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."

You know there was another Democrat once,,,
here's what he did.



lol
i know im joke-ing,, take resposibilty,,lol,, ohh myyy