• Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities vs. Nixon (1974). This was one of the Watergate-era cases involving what evidence President Richard Nixon had to turn over to investigators that heightened the pressure on Nixon to resign.
• Drummond vs. Bunker (1977). William R. Drummond, a citizen of the Panama Canal Zone, sued President Jimmy Carter to stop his administration from negotiating about handing over the then-U.S.-held canal zone to Panama, arguing that only Congress possessed that right. Six members of Congress intervened in the case alongside Drummond, arguing that the executive branch was depriving them of their constitutionally protected vote.
• Crockett vs. Reagan (1982). Sixteen senators and 13 House members asked a federal court to rule that the dispatching of several dozen U.S. military personnel to El Salvador by President Ronald Reagan contradicted Congress’s war powers and the Foreign Assistance Act.
• Sanchez-Espinoza vs. Reagan (1983). Twelve House members joined with 12 Nicaraguan citizens and two American citizens seeking damages and a declaration that Reagan had violated war powers restrictions by pursuing the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government.
• Conyers vs. Reagan (1984). Eleven House members sued Reagan, arguing that his use of military force in Grenada had usurped Congress’s war powers.
• Lowry vs. Reagan (1987). Ten House members sued Reagan on war powers grounds, this time over the president’s approval of escort operations for reflagged Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian Gulf.
• Dellums vs. Bush (1990). One senator and 53 House members sued President George H.W. Bush to stop him from attacking Iraq without approval from Congress during the run-up to what became the Persian Gulf War.
• Raines vs. Byrd (1997). Six members of Congress who had voted against giving the president the authority to veto individual items in bills -- rather than just entire bills -- sued over the act’s constitutionality.
• Chenoweth vs. Clinton (1999). Four House members sued President Bill Clinton over his creation by executive order of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, saying it exceeded his authority as president.
• Campbell vs. Clinton (2000). Thirty-one members of Congress sued Clinton on war powers grounds for his decision to send military forces to participate in a NATO-organized campaign of airstrikes in the former Yugoslavia.
• Kucinich vs. Bush (2002). Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, sued President George W. Bush over the administration’s unilateral withdrawal from an anti-ballistic missile treaty, arguing that the executive branch could not do that without Congress’ consent.
• Doe vs. Bush (2003). Twelve House members joined with several dozen servicemembers and their families to sue Bush on war-powers grounds, seeking to stop a United States-led invasion of Iraq.
• Kucinich vs. Obama (2011). Kucinich also sued Bush’s successor, Obama, on war-powers grounds, saying that his intervention in Libya was unconstitutional.
“The specifics of Boehner’s suit focus only on a very narrow issue: whether or not the courts will order Obama to implement the employer mandate....”
I’m no lawyer but that sounds pretty stupid to me. By the time the suit winds through the courts the mandates will have been implemented.
Or are they suing over the exemptions?
These courts have it right. I've been saying for months that a stupid lawsuit is a waste of time.
Boner wants to wage a legal battle because he doesn't have the b@lls to wage a political one.
To pretend they are doing something by filing a piece of paper work that will take years to resolve.
“Why the House of Representatives just voted to sue President Obama (Great Q & A)”
So they can look like they’re opposing Obama without actually opposing him.
When the courts rule in Obama’s favor, he will see it as the green light to officially take over as dictator. And the house won’t be able to do a damned thing. This is a dumb move by boner.
And we all know that lawsuits to force gay marriage on the people were laughed out of court due to that precise reason.
If we has some sort of guarantee that this could be completely litigated and a opinion issued by Jan 1, 2015, I could get a little excited about this.
But we all know that won’t happen. Not even close.
I’d bet money this is not finally resolved until after nobama is gone in 2017.
Looks to me like the best bet is: take the Senate in November. Immediately start passing bills in the House to cut the executive’s spending. I realize nobama won’t sign it if it gets to his desk and we won’t have enough pubbies in Congress to override a veto. But I don’t see any other way. Any ideas?
It’s a shame the Founding Fathers didn’t make provisions in the founding documents to stop something like this. But who would have guessed that someday we’d have a President that was fully evil?
Boy you couldn't have played more into Obama's hands if you wanted to. Think about this. Boehner is suing because Obama is not destroying our economy by pressing this mandate. Obama must be laughing his ass off right now.
Now all Obama has to do is to begin enforcing the provision and then he can blame the Republicans for the damage that is done. The Republicans made me do it.
They don't call them the Stupid party for nothing.
Instead of this, can't they go after Obama for stuff he's illegally and unconstitutionally doing that nobody wants him to do?
Just impeach the guy. Stop this suing nonsense.
I hope it doesn’t fly becasue of the threat of loosening standing requirements. I agree with Scalia, that standing is an important aspect of keeping the Constitution out of permanent “court receivership.”
The courts badly need to reconsider “standing”. It limits too many cases. They’ve tied their own hands. At the very least they need some well defined exceptions to standing. Possibly they need to reconsider the definition of harm to include laws not being followed.