Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law‏
Tea Party ^ | Mar. 12, 2014 | Washington Examiner

Posted on 03/12/2014 7:31:35 PM PDT by progunner

President Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allowCongress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws because it “violates the separation of powers” by encroaching on his presidential authority.

“The power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. “Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.”

The lead sponsor of the measure, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said it was designed to curb Obama’s abuse of presidential authority, most notably in his frequent changes to Obamacare.

“We have pursued certain remedies afforded to Congress to address executive overreach but these efforts have been thwarted,” Gowdy said. “This bill is necessary; it will give Congress the authority to defend this branch of government as the Framers and our fellow citizens would expect.”

Obama also threatened to veto another bill by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., which would require the administration to explain decisions not to enforce laws when those decisions are rooted in policy concerns rather than just constitutional concerns (which the Justice Department is already required to do).

“The American people deserve to know exactly which laws the Obama administration is refusing to enforce and why,” DeSantis said when introducing his bill.

OMB said DeSantis’ law is too burdensome. “The bill would inordinately expand current law, which already requires reports to Congress when non-enforcement of federal law is based on constitutional grounds,” Obama’s team said in a statement of administration policy.

“Federal agencies are continually engaged in the process of determining how to concentrate limited enforcement resources most effectively. … The vastly expanded reporting scheme required by the bill would be unduly burdensome and would place the Attorney General in the unprecedented position of having to be kept informed of and report on enforcement decisions made by every other Federal agency,” the statement continued.

The House is scheduled to vote on both bills Wednesday.

On the same day that DeSantis introduced his bill, Attorney General Eric Holder told Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that he thought Obama was “probably at the height of his constitutional power” when issuing the delays of Obamacare mandates, though he acknowledged that he couldn’t explain the precise legal analysis.

“When you look at the quality, not just the quantity but the quality, the nature of the executive orders that he has issued, he has usurped an extraordinary amount of authority within the executive branch,” Lee said at the time. “This is not precedented, and I point to the delay — the unilateral delay, lawless delay, in my opinion — of the employer mandate as an example of this. And so, at a minimum, I think he owes us an explanation as to what his legal analysis was.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: law; obma; vetos; violationoathoffice
Hey!!!! 113th,,,, get real. Your allowing a flaming retard to carry out what I believe is a life long dream,,,, which is to be a tyrannical dictator. Are you stoned or stupid? Someone, somewhere along the line is going to have to pay the reaper and the next election "God willing', will prove you scumbags, with the exception of a few, of the 113th to be the one's who will pay.

IN LIBERTY

1 posted on 03/12/2014 7:31:35 PM PDT by progunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: progunner

America needs a Constitutional Amendment to hold
the EXEMPT responsible for every death,
and for every financial loss they inflicted
with their miserable “laws” only for OTHERS.


2 posted on 03/12/2014 7:33:59 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner

Impeach and remove and the law is already in place.


3 posted on 03/12/2014 7:39:25 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner
Don't they have status enough to go after him already or can Obama also have an executive order confiscating their first born if he wants?
4 posted on 03/12/2014 7:39:38 PM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner
President Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allowCongress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws

If that doesn't define the Obungler, then nothing will. I did not know they needed the Obungler's permission to sue.

5 posted on 03/12/2014 7:39:45 PM PDT by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Vet 70-71 Msgt US Air Force, retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner

He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. He refuses to live under the same laws he and his administration and Congress put in place.

It’s time for impeachment.


6 posted on 03/12/2014 7:41:29 PM PDT by sauropod (Fat Bottomed Girl: "What difference, at this point, does it make?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner

What’s wrong with impeachment? Oh,, that’s right, the Constitution says we can’t do that the first black president. Nevermind.


7 posted on 03/12/2014 7:42:01 PM PDT by Girlene (Hey, NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner

The Buck stops at Obama’s Desk.

Impeach Hussein Obama in 2014, PERIOD.


8 posted on 03/12/2014 7:42:25 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

The IRS scenario done is cause for impeachment and removal.


9 posted on 03/12/2014 7:46:25 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

done=alone thanx auto text


10 posted on 03/12/2014 7:47:19 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

They sure do but post#7 says it all.


11 posted on 03/12/2014 7:50:31 PM PDT by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

BTTT!


12 posted on 03/12/2014 7:52:43 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

Then why not Impeach the last one?


13 posted on 03/12/2014 7:54:17 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: progunner; upchuck

Greta asks Gowdy if the act is DOA in the senate and Gowdy’s reply is that the senate could be Republican controlled after the election.

View the video of Gowdy on the House floor and you will see that this discussion needs to happen - if not a pathway to the act, then maybe another resolution (impeachment).

But the key is the discussion needs to happen.

Trey Gowdy with Greta on the ENFORCE the law Act
3:32 Minutes
Could Trey Gowdy’s Plan To Derail Obama’s Runaway Government Work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMNH9T6jhGs

House Vote on Passage
Mar 12, 2014 5:03 p.m.
Passed 233/181

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4138

Gowdy on the House floor
5:16 Minutes
The end of this video – Trey comments on the standing ovation when Obama said “Pen and phone” at the SOTU

Rep. Gowdy’s Defense of the ENFORCE the Law Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs1YVh2kBZY


14 posted on 03/12/2014 8:14:49 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

There is a candidate out of Florida who’s beyond “wanting impeachment”,,,, he wants Obama hung. I’ll look for the link. Just finishing off a gun repair so I’ll need a little time


15 posted on 03/12/2014 8:14:52 PM PDT by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

They did.


16 posted on 03/12/2014 8:34:34 PM PDT by Girlene (Hey, NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

” - - - - we can’t do that [to] the first black president. - - - “

Then why not Impeach the Democrats’ last black pres.?


17 posted on 03/12/2014 8:40:08 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: progunner

I agree with Obama but probably for different reasons...As others have said, we already have a mechanism in place for when a President willingly breaches the law (Constitution)...

Obama’s term would be over for years before he would ever have to appear before a judge...


18 posted on 03/12/2014 8:54:15 PM PDT by Iscool (Ya mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

lol. I already answered that...they did. They just didn’t convict.


19 posted on 03/12/2014 9:00:42 PM PDT by Girlene (Hey, NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

But, but, but, Zipper-Boy lacked the proper suntan!


20 posted on 03/12/2014 9:03:44 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
I know, but Toni Morrison thought differently.

Toni Morrison

In writing about the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton, Morrison wrote that, since Whitewater, Bill Clinton had been mistreated because of his "Blackness":

"Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."[21]

The phrase "our first Black president" was adopted as a positive by Bill Clinton supporters. When the Congressional Black Caucus honored the former president at its dinner in Washington D.C. on September 29, 2001, for instance, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the chair, told the audience that Clinton "took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president."[22] In the context of the 2008 Democratic Primary campaign, Morrison stated to Time magazine: "People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race."[23] In the Democratic primary contest for the 2008 presidential race, Morrison endorsed Senator Barack Obama over Senator Hillary Clinton,[24] though expressing admiration and respect for the latter.[25]

21 posted on 03/12/2014 9:16:30 PM PDT by Girlene (Hey, NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

So impeach his white butt instead of his black face.


22 posted on 03/12/2014 9:16:32 PM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I agree with Obama

Please elaborate,,,, about what may I be brazen enough to ask. I'm quite perplexed. And I'd like a real good answer to why, if congress had balls and the morality, Obama could't be arrested and thrown in the brig before you could count to ½.

23 posted on 03/12/2014 9:46:22 PM PDT by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
Impeach and remove and the law is already in place.
”and remove” - aye, there’s the rub. In what universe does a Senate chaired by Harry Reid remove Obama? Of course it is vital that it be done - but the Senate won’t do it, and we have the experience of the Clinton impeachment to give pause to any House politician who considers it. So I guess we can’t realistically expect any Republican to impeach until 2015 - if then.

Instead of passing a law that he can veto without looking any worse than he already does, pass a bill authorizing him to do approximately what he has been doing (by delaying ObamaCare), but threatens to veto. And if he vetoes that, then impeach him for violating a law which Congress offered to make null. But of course, even that course of action can take place ONLY if the Republicans take a majority in the Senate - and even then, a 2/3 vote for removal almost certainly could not be attained. But at least, an impeachment could be put on the books, even failing of conviction, without it being certain political suicide for the Republicans. If that impeachment failed of conviction, the impeachment power would officially be a dead letter. If it isn’t already.


24 posted on 03/12/2014 10:07:07 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ("Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

That’s hysterically funny.

Right.

IMPEACH Obama.

Unicorns will fly out of Boehner’s arse and shart Skittle Rainbows for the world to see before articles of impeachment would ever be put to paper in committee, much less charges filed in the House and a conviction in the Senate.

And even, even if God Almighty Himself comes down from Heaven above and points to our side of the field and gives Impeachment the Parting of the Red Sea treatment - Obama will remain in office because he will simply ignore the conviction the same way he ignores the rest of the Supreme Law of the Land he does not like.

Then there’s the burning cities fueled by idle Union thugs hungry to incite Obama’s civil security force into action.


25 posted on 03/12/2014 10:11:05 PM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: progunner

“We were particularly disappointed to see so-called Republican reformers like Jeff Denham, David Valadao, and Mike Coffman support this measure, along with Democrats such as Henry Cuellar and Pete Gallego.

AmericasVoice for Amnesty.

http://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ID=263649cc-0c9e-4c97-bc04-5c71da5badad

The bill is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H), John Barrasso (Wyo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Dan Coats (Ind.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Ky.), John Thune (S.D.), Tim Scott (S.C.), David Vitter (La.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.).


26 posted on 03/12/2014 10:57:31 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner

Soooo—Congress OVER RIDES his veto.


27 posted on 03/13/2014 10:50:11 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner

The remedy is to impeach and remove.


28 posted on 03/13/2014 10:52:10 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: INVAR

Yup. Impeach Hussein Soetoro-Obama in 2014, PERIOD.


29 posted on 03/13/2014 11:22:26 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

The tendency for the dem majority in the senate to leave the criminal in office is not significant enough for the house to shirk their responsibilities. Let the senate do their thing. But the police and DA should not ignore serious crime because th judges are corrupt.


30 posted on 03/13/2014 11:56:55 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

In the REAL WORLD how does that even transcend fantasy?

I will be able to turn lead into gold by a mere incantation before Obama would ever be impeached.


31 posted on 03/13/2014 1:26:13 PM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: INVAR; Know et al; All

The US Senate has absolutely NOTHING to do with Impeachment.

Impeachment is solely a function of the US House of Representatives.

Impeach B. Hussein Soetoro-Obama in 2014, PERIOD.


32 posted on 03/13/2014 2:32:30 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

The Senate has “absolutely NOTHING to do with impeachment”???

So tell me, how does the House convict and remove the Executive????

Again, I will be able to turn lead into gold by use of magic words obtained from a prize in a Cracker Jack box before the House of Representatives will ever introduce Articles of Impeachment against His Heinous Barack Hussein Obama.

Impeachment is a political IMPOSSIBILITY, PERIOD.

History teaches that tyrants NEVER, EVER leave power by civil means. NEVER.


33 posted on 03/13/2014 3:44:11 PM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: INVAR; Know et al; All

Removal from office can ONLY be accomplished AFTER a perp. is impeached.

The House is the Police, and the Senate is the Judge and Jury.

First the House must Impeach the POS.

Then the Senate determines if the Impeached POS should be removed from office.

Most FReepers fall in the all or nothing camp and only want a clear path to removal.

Our Constitution makes it very clear: Impeach first by the House, and then have the Senate decide on Removal.


34 posted on 03/13/2014 6:59:46 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: INVAR; Know et al; All

The objective is to punish all those who violate their sacred oaths to defend the US Constitution.

A bi-weekly Impeachment of B. Hussein Obama would be needed to punish him for all of his Constitutional violations over the last 5 years, but I will be satisfied with just one Impeachment.

Obama’s Removal from Office by the US Senate would be good for America, but Reid’s Senate has not yet demonstrated an interest in what is good for America.

Since the RINOs have control of the US House of Representatives in 2014, 2014 is the last year that we can be certain that Obama could be Impeached.

The RINOs assume that they will maintain control of the US House, but their usual desire to lose to Democrats is so strong, that their assumption may not be a valid one.

Impeach B. Hussein Soetoro-Obama in 2014, PERIOD.


35 posted on 03/13/2014 7:01:20 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
Removal from office can ONLY be accomplished AFTER a perp. is impeached. The House is the Police, and the Senate is the Judge and Jury. First the House must Impeach the POS.

Unicorns will fly out your arse and it will snow cheese before Boehner and the Ruling Class GOP would ever permit such a thing to happen.

If the GOP went Ken Doll after that short "government shutdown" and vowed it "will never happen again" - what in the world makes you think that they would even let the thought of impeaching the Emperor cross their minds????

The objective is to punish all those who violate their sacred oaths to defend the US Constitution.

Will require other than civil means to achieve that objective. As already evidenced, the law is only what Obama and Holder say it is.

Obama’s Removal from Office by the US Senate would be good for America, but Reid’s Senate has not yet demonstrated an interest in what is good for America.

Neither has Boehner's House or the GOP leadership.

Since the RINOs have control of the US House of Representatives in 2014, 2014 is the last year that we can be certain that Obama could be Impeached.

Are you daft? Delusional or farcical? The GOP Establishment HAVE ZERO Stomach or intention to impeach The Won. Boehner will no more permit articles to be drafted anymore than allowing them to come to the floor for a vote.

We would have better luck expecting Boehner to immediately defund ObamaCare, refuse to raise the debt ceiling and declaring the push for Amnesty dead in 2014, while enacting efforts to enforce the border and the law.

Skittle Rainbows. Unicorns. Obama Impeachment. All fantasy.

Obama will not leave his seat of power by any civil means, PERIOD. In ANY year.

Obama has already stated myriad times that Congress is irrelevant anyway. Doesn't matter what they do. If they ever did try to draft articles of Impeachment - Obama would dissolve the Congress after declaring it taken over by 'racist extremist terrorists'. And the MSM would applaud and the majority welfare army would cheer the official establishment of a dictatorship - which we already have by default.

There's wishful thinking, and delusions of grandeur.

The reality of Impeaching Obama falls into the latter category.

36 posted on 03/14/2014 12:24:31 AM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: INVAR

” - - - Boehner will no more permit articles to be drafted anymore than allowing them to come to the floor for a vote. - - - “

You are exactly right: Boehner must resign as Speaker of the House, Trey Gowdy needs to be the new Speaker, and Obama can then be Impeached.

Impeach Soetoro-Obama in 2014, PERIOD.


37 posted on 03/14/2014 6:07:46 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

What is it like to live in fantasyland?

Boehner will resign the moment after Obama repents and issues an executive order that rescinds and nullifies everything he has done in office, abolishes the IRS and the EPA…. and you fart unicorns in your sleep.


38 posted on 03/14/2014 8:44:43 AM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson