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

Skip to comments.

Will Suing Obama Be a 'Historic Step' or an 'Embarrassing Loser'?
National Journal ^ | July 16, 2014 | Billy House

Posted on 07/17/2014 4:41:37 AM PDT by don-o

House Republicans officially launched the legislative process of suing President Obama at a hearing Wednesday, with legal experts describing the plan as everything from a "historic step to addressing a constitutional crisis" to "an embarrassing loser" in the courts.

From Republicans, such as Pete Sessions of Texas, there is insistence that truly profound issues are at stake, with claims that Obama has not been faithfully executing his constitutional duty to carry out laws passed by Congress. As chairman of the House Rules Committee, Sessions opened the hearing by describing the Republican effort as seeking an urgent "rebalancing" of the separation of powers between branches of government.

But Louise Slaughter, the Rules Committee's top Democrat, was somewhat less dramatic in her view, dryly likening any expectation of the suit's success in the courts to Alice in Wonderland's "thinking of six impossible things before breakfast." She also described the legal action as "preposterous" and a "purely political exercise" geared to a midterm election year.

snip

Meanwhile, four constitutional experts—two called to testify for each side—gave the committee their own conflicting views of whether Speaker John Boehner's planned litigation could pass basic legal muster. Regardless, the Rules Committee, controlled by Republicans, is intent on finalizing language to a resolution to proceed with the lawsuit.

House members are to vote on that resolution by the end of July, before their annual August break.

For strategic legal reasons, Republicans say their lawsuit will focus specifically on Obama's delay of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate last year. But they say they are also upset over a range of administrative actions in areas from environmental law to immigration law.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
I prefer the Constitutional remedy, impeachment. But, this this is better than nothing, I guess. I wonder if there are some Red State Democrats in the House who might be feeling enough heat to go with this?
1 posted on 07/17/2014 4:41:37 AM PDT by don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: don-o

The EXEMPT are cowards. They took an Oath to defend
America and they have and do not.

The EXEMPT Congress is complicit in the absence of impeachment.


2 posted on 07/17/2014 4:43:37 AM PDT by Diogenesis (The EXEMPT Congress is complicit in the absence of impeachment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

embarrassing loser


3 posted on 07/17/2014 4:45:36 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

It’s just stupid. The Constitutional option is impeachment. Let the cards fall where they will in the Senate.


4 posted on 07/17/2014 4:46:16 AM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o; Diogenesis

Cannot convict with the current Senate, so impeachment would be a big waste of time and political capital.

As the Lyin King continues destroying the country, even the DemonRATS are abandoning his ship.

If the pubbies take the Senate by a decent margin (very unlikely), then impeachment would be feasable.

But consider.

A successful impeachment and conviction of the 0bamao gives us the mental case Joe Biden as POTUS.

Biden is 0bamao’s impeachment insurance.


5 posted on 07/17/2014 4:48:23 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

I predict that if the suit succeeds, Obama will laugh it off in an Andrew Jackson moment: the judge has made his decision; now let him enforce it. The whole premise of the suit is that Obama has overstepped his bounds and trampled on the legislative branch. What makes Ferris Boehner confident that Obama would be any more respectful of the judiciary?


6 posted on 07/17/2014 4:48:55 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o
I prefer the Constitutional remedy, impeachment. But, this this is better than nothing, I guess.

No, it's worse than nothing.

There is no Article III court in the land that has jurisdiction in this matter, and, if I were a judge, I would refuse delivery of the papers.

The House of Representatives has original jurisdiction and complete authority over the matter of a President failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and usurping legislative authority.

The fact is that Congress, as the surrogate for the People of the United States in our system, has completely surrendered its autonomy and authority in exchange for permanent incumbency, just like latter day Roman senators or members of the Reichstag.

No gesture of weakness and subservience could be worse than Boehner's "lawsuit", if it hasn't been dismissed already.

7 posted on 07/17/2014 4:49:51 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. Hat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

Biden is so far preferable to Obama.


8 posted on 07/17/2014 4:50:37 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. Hat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Do like the court did in Marbury v. Madison. Make noise like the plaintiff has a case, then declare the issue out of the scope of the court’s authority. The only entity the courts look out for is themselves.


9 posted on 07/17/2014 4:53:11 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Excellent points. My “better than nothing” comment is more reflective of desperation for some form of resistance and accountability that rigorous adherence to the Constitution.


10 posted on 07/17/2014 4:55:25 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

> Biden is so far preferable to Obama.

Biden is mentally incompetent. As such, he may be easier to manipulate than 0bama, so you may have a point.


11 posted on 07/17/2014 4:56:18 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
-- The House of Representatives has original jurisdiction and complete authority over the matter of a President failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and usurping legislative authority. --

The House is merely the prosecutor. It has the power to bring a case for removal of the president, but not to decide it.

Here we have a failed prosecutor (the House), and a judge/jury (the Senate) that has demonstrated inability to apply the law.

I agree with your conclusion. The House and Senate combined prefers their authority be usurped or granted to regulatory agencies. The prime directive is preservation of incumbency. Shoving the failure of the president to faithfully execute the laws onto a court is another form of ducking responsibility, and this is not the first time Congress has pulled this sort of stunt.

12 posted on 07/17/2014 5:02:02 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Nixon was almost impeached for sticking up for his cronies and withholding evidence (high crimes and misdemeanors). Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Johnson was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Why can’t Obama be impeached for some of those very crimes? (Plus, at least half a dozen others.) the answer is because the Republicans won’t do it. Not even for the sake of Principle. They are nothing but oxygen thieves at this point.


13 posted on 07/17/2014 5:04:52 AM PDT by Politicalkiddo (You cannot protect a child from child abuse by aborting it. Abortion *is* child abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o; All
the latter.

it's Pablum, for the masses.
a futile action, throw out of court.
courts shall suggest, try Constitutional actions (power of
the purse), The Drunk (Beohmer), wouldn't do it.


14 posted on 07/17/2014 5:05:59 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a weapon...0'Jihadist/"Rustler" Reid? d8-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

It’s going to be like an 8 year old jumping off the high dive
at the city public pool on a dare. If he doesn’t chicken out, at most,
it will be a half assed attempt. Most likely they
will be scouring the media looking for a poll they
can use as an excuse to call it off. This is their
response to being called gutless yellow spined
cowards and they really don’t want to do it or this is
just a setup with the full intent of failure to help
legitimize their secret boss the Obama.

It could be that this is just a setup that is intended to
fail to discourage any attempt to impeach the Obama after
the elections, where they would have a good chance. I don’t
trust Boner or any of the RINO republicans. I believe they
are part of the democrat party as a false opposition to the
overthrow of this country.


15 posted on 07/17/2014 5:08:31 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

“Biden is so far preferable to Obama.”

OK, now name someone who is less preferable to the Obama.


16 posted on 07/17/2014 5:11:04 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: don-o
One of the major congressional/presidential lawsuits was when Congress sued Nixon because he was "impounding" their appropriations.

All presidents since Van Buren had been impounding small amounts of Congress' appropriations, but Nixon thought that Congress was spending too much and worsening inflation, so Nixon started impounding larger amounts.

Congress sued and the court ruled in Congress' favor but by then Nixon was gone and Ford was prez. Ford didn't appeal the court decision which resulted in a large shift of power from the prez to Congress.

Both GW Bush and Obama have used "signing statements" in an attempt to claw back some of this power from Congress.

17 posted on 07/17/2014 5:13:35 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Grand standing is more like it, they know they can’t impeach him not with the senate in dem hands. And even if it were GOP controlled we’d still be getting the same results as we had with Slick Willie, the VP is worse. And his VP will be Shillart, giving her the incumbent leg up in 2016.

Just do as much damage control as you can and for the sake of GOD and Country VOTE OUT THE RINOS like TN Lamar Alexander who votes 62% dem. Only his NRA A- saves his butt. He is an OATH BREAKER, not just his Oath of office, but his Oath of TWO TERMS AND OUT!

His cloture vote gave us 0’care, his vote to gut Military pension sucks. While he draws at least 1 state pension as TN governor, and who know how many others in the education field. Then you have that whopping big Fed retirement package he will get.

He is so cock sure of re-election he is not really running a campaign.

TN State Rep Joe Carr http://www.carrfortn.com/ has the conservative voting record. But is out spent from day 1.

Laura Lingram (SP?) will be supporting him.

Newt supports lamar as does rove. He and thad chocran have nearly identical voting records. RINO.


18 posted on 07/17/2014 5:14:05 AM PDT by GailA (IF you fail to keep your promises to the Military, you won't keep them to Citizens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slambat

That’s easy. Durbin, Schumer, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy, Shiela Jackson Lee ... and that’s just off the top of my head.


19 posted on 07/17/2014 5:14:17 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

As is Shillary as biden’s VP, unless you can take out all 3 it is useless grandstanding for votes.


20 posted on 07/17/2014 5:15:43 AM PDT by GailA (IF you fail to keep your promises to the Military, you won't keep them to Citizens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: don-o

More flaccidity from feminized stuffed suits whose only solution to problems is to shuffle more papers. The time for shuffling papers is long past. We should have been in the streets by the tens of millions years ago.


21 posted on 07/17/2014 5:16:39 AM PDT by Wage Slave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

“Biden is 0bamao’s impeachment insurance.”

Impeach him too. At a minimum he was aiding and abetting
the Obamas criminal activity. I would say that a good case
could be made that sense they were both elected together
on the same ticket, in situations where the president is
getting the boot for criminal activity the other side of
the same coin should go too.


22 posted on 07/17/2014 5:16:58 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

It is a time killer designed to pacify the sheep and make them think something is being done when nothing is. If the Republicans truly desired to stop Obama’s lawless acts, they already have the tools to do it.


23 posted on 07/17/2014 5:18:59 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: don-o

It will end up being an embarrassing (& election) loser because as we all know the GOP will allow the dems to frame the issue.


24 posted on 07/17/2014 5:19:22 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

I think I’ll root around for historical examples of Congress suing the president, but I got to thinking, Boehner’s plan makes about as much sense as the president suing Congress. For example, Obama might claim Congress hasn’t provided enough money to faithfully execute the laws, so he sues in court to get the appropriation he claims is necessary.


25 posted on 07/17/2014 5:25:55 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

26 posted on 07/17/2014 5:29:07 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

“Durbin, Schumer, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy, Shiela Jackson Lee”

Even those guys would be better than the Obama because
they are all to the right of him. Simply put, he hates this
country and everyone in it, even the Clinton’s. He has no
tie to it and is as unAmerican as a typical muslim wetback.
Durbin, Schumer, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy, Shiela Jackson Lee
would all be a comic relief compared to this B-HO.


27 posted on 07/17/2014 5:38:24 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Slambat
-- Durbin, Schumer, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy, Shiela Jackson Lee would all be a comic relief compared to this B-HO. --

I wouldn't bet my lunch money on that. There is a practically unlimited supply of politicians, many of whom claim to be "on the right," who would implement policies that are destructive to the principles of this country's founding.

Mind you, I am not arguing that we should tolerate or respect Obama. My point is simply that his space at the bottom of the barrel is crowded with others.

28 posted on 07/17/2014 5:43:00 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GailA

“unless you can take out all 3”

Why not? they are all complicit. You also need to take under
consideration the impact of gaining office through impeachment.
They are going to be operating in a diminished capacity
with a lot less power and a congress with a victory under it’s belt.
I don’t think the press can cover for Biden, he could possibly
impeach himself if they let him talk to much.


29 posted on 07/17/2014 5:48:38 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
It will end up being an embarrassing (& election) loser because as we all know the GOP will allow the dems to frame the issue.

I disagree. It is the media that allows the Democrats to frame the issues.

30 posted on 07/17/2014 5:48:40 AM PDT by Senator_Blutarski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Slambat

That leaves Reid in the WH.


31 posted on 07/17/2014 5:55:06 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

“My point is simply that his space at the bottom of the barrel is crowded with others.”

Good point and well taken. “But”, we know who they are
and what barrel they came from, except the Obama. There
is very little that can actually be verified about this guy,
even and including if he is a guy at all. He could very well
be a unic. That’s the difference, that’s what puts him three
flights below the bottom of the barrel. The fact that he may
be a fraud and most likely is.


32 posted on 07/17/2014 6:01:52 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

“That leaves Reid in the WH.”

Speaker of the House is second in line to succeed the President, after the Vice Presiden,
That’s John Boehner. Not much confidence in that prospect
either.


33 posted on 07/17/2014 6:16:31 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

It’s just stupid. The Constitutional option is impeachment. Let the cards fall where they will in the Senate.

Worse it would establish the legal precedent that every time congress felt wronged by a veto, they had standing to sue. Every time one house of congress didn't pass a bill the other house did, they could sue. Any time anyone didn't get what they wanted or passed, they have standing to sue.

An awful lot of layers could make an awful lot of money, but all the cases get rejected eventually.

34 posted on 07/17/2014 6:16:52 AM PDT by USCG SimTech (Honored to serve since '71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Politicalkiddo
Why can’t Obama be impeached for some of those very crimes?

He can be.

Your question should be, "Why hasn't Obama been impeached for his many high crimes and misdemeanors?"

35 posted on 07/17/2014 6:20:14 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. Hat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Slambat

You are correct but I don’t see Boner stepping up. After that what Secretary of State? God help us.


36 posted on 07/17/2014 6:21:03 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: USCG SimTech

“Any time anyone didn’t get what they wanted or passed, they have standing to sue.”

So be it and let them. Just more gridlock. But I don’t think
you could say a case against the Obama would be frivolous.
There are definitely grounds to do so. Grounds for
impeachment to. The problem lies is when they loose. If
anything, a precedent will be set by the media and the rest
of the tards. The backlash could be worse.
On the other hand how would it matter anyway? It’s not like
they vote on bills just once. Sometimes they continue to
to push, introduce and vote for the same bill for decades
so I don’t see how a standing to sue would make much difference.


37 posted on 07/17/2014 6:31:09 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: don-o
Taking this silly lawsuit to a "co-equal" branch ( a single judge or a small bench of judges) of the government is crazy as well as the cowardly way out. The Constitution itself gives the remedy, which is impeachment.

What happens if the courts rule against Congress, which is very possible given the political makeup of the Federal judges? Does then Congress just adjourn and go home for good having been decisively "beaten" on the field of battle? Or do then try and recover with impeachment? Doesn't this just give the prize of ultimate power to the Executive branch and Judicial Branch forever?

Besides, why should the Judicial Branch be handed the mantle of the most powerful to be the ultimate authority over the other two because the Legislative Branch ultimately defers to it's rulings? Then if the Executive Branch simply laughs in it's face doesn't that make a mockery of the other two and we are now in an Executive dictatorship by default? Isn't that precisely what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent?

38 posted on 07/17/2014 6:55:15 AM PDT by Gritty (Obama's governing as president of a Latin American republic, where only the president matters-MSteyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

What is the GOAL of impeachment proponents?


39 posted on 07/17/2014 7:35:50 AM PDT by H.Akston (It's all about property rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

We can also prefer the constitutional remedy of the term limit. But the most effective constitutional remedy will be to get the Senate out of Harry Reid’s House-bill blocking hands, and make Barry start having to make some embarrassing vetoes of bills that actually will help create jobs, and reduce regulations.


40 posted on 07/17/2014 7:46:58 AM PDT by H.Akston (It's all about property rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston

Note to self: Boehner should say that he will drop the lawsuit if the Senate goes Red this November. Right now he should present himself as a desperate man who sees no other viable solution to a lawless president than the lawsuit, but he would rather be doing the people’s business (which is what Clinton said after lying about Lewinsky), and he could do that with a Senate that isn’t just a puppet for the president. God the GOP needs a PR coach.
In fact he should be publicly pleading for a veto-proof congressional majority, so that he could dispense with these last resort measures and make progress on the things he’s listed here, which nobody is talking about - a “help me help you, America” plea going into the mid-terms:
http://www.speaker.gov/jobs
He won’t get the majority, but it would go a long way towards dispelling myths about conservatives being obstructionists, when the truth is the opposite.


41 posted on 07/17/2014 8:23:52 AM PDT by H.Akston (It's all about property rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: don-o

I’ll take embarrassing loser for $500 Alex.


42 posted on 07/17/2014 8:29:04 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o
It may turn out to be either ... but one thing is for certain: under our Constitution it is necessary.
43 posted on 07/17/2014 8:30:58 AM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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