I guess that's what Mark was saying. I'd like to see him behind a microphone, discussing his lawsuit on TV. I'm now holding my breath waiting for McConnell and Boehner to call him.
Posted on 06/21/2014 6:13:59 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
What philosopher Harvey Mansfield calls “taming the prince” — making executive power compatible with democracy’s abhorrence of arbitrary power — has been a perennial problem of modern politics. It is now more urgent in the United States than at any time since the Founders, having rebelled against George III’s unfettered exercise of “royal prerogative,” stipulated that presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity and qualitatively different.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We have a political system of government, of which the Judicial Branch is a part. The question is the extent that the Judiciary and the Presidency impinge on the role of the Legislative Branch.
So the House has already passed a bill that would give expedited judicial action on a lawsuit filed by Congress in specific instances when the executive branch is lawless (basically). But that bill will be killed by the Senate and foreign enemy combatant in the White House.
Is Will saying that the House by itself can authorize a lawsuit brought forward by the House as a whole, which should meet the already-existing criteria for “standing”?
I think Will does a good job of identifying the legal conundrum we’re in.
There should be no excuse for the Senate to block the House bill. Somehow we’ve got to get over this idea that we just have to accept that democrats are lawless and will always get away with it. Tom Daschle received so much static from his constituents that he actually went against the democrat agenda on abortion and (gasp!) represented his constituents. That should not be a rare thing; it should be the norm.
And we need to be engaging the constituents who keep electing lawless SOB’s - turning the question back on them, as to whether the Constitution’s protections (separation of powers, checks and balances, and Constitutional governance) should really be negated by judicial interpretation that it’s “nobody’s business” if government is lawless. If the Constitution’s requirements can never actually be followed, the Constitution has effectively been nullified by judicial fiat. And we need to be asking the east and west coasts if that’s really what they support. Because the crooks they keep electing are totally lawless because of that judicial fiat.
And I say we should bus the whole dang bunch of illegals that have invaded TX into the east coast and California before we ask these questions.
You don't sue the renegade CEO. You fire him. And if you are chickensh!t, then you don't belong on the board of directors.
I seem to remember hearing about a case like this in the last few weeks. The first guy on the board of directors to get voted off the board by the shareholders was named Eric Cantor.
ambiens calor tyrannus
What if Congress votes this or that and the State Governors do not enforce?
This would require Xongress to vote in a new temporary leader and break the hold by the Feds. Pure and simple.
We are indeed too late for impeachment or votes of no confidence.
I guess that's what Mark was saying. I'd like to see him behind a microphone, discussing his lawsuit on TV. I'm now holding my breath waiting for McConnell and Boehner to call him.
I think the idea is that they sue the IRS. Or somebody sues the IRS. Mark's foundation had success against the EPA, so there is precedent.
When a BoD fires a CEO, the CEO gets a lawyer and threatens litigation against the company and the directors. So, the rationale for firing the CEO is put “on trial”, if the matter is not settled prior to the lawsuit being filed or adjudicated.
Even if the matter is settled, the back and forth between the company’s lawyers and the ex-CEO’s lawyers resembles a trial with claims and counter-claims flying every which way.
Donald Trumps’ “You’re Fired!” is total fantasy in our litigious society.
I like Will’s plan because it allows the conservatives to say that they are NOT impeaching BHO, just clarifying some of his executive actions, similar to the way Democrat claims of Executive Privilege have been settled by the Courts.
Soap box.
Ballot box.
Bullet box.
We’re somewhere between stage two and stage three.
Impeach the lawless bastard. We can put up with a president Biden for a few years.
Realistically speaking, what can the House do when the Senate is comprised of lawless idiots who will always vote the party line?
What can anybody do to stop Obama’s lawlessness? We all talk about getting on our Congress-critters’ butts but what are we supposed to tell them to do, when the Senate can (and will) stop anything they try? The whole dang country is hostage to the idiots who keep electing lawless thugs. How do we remedy that?
I think Will has done an excellent job of identifying how the Constitution’s checks and balances have been rendered moot by judicial interpretations thus far.
I’m afraid to give the courts power to decide if a POTUS is acting unconstitutionally because the courts are also compromised. But that is the fault of the lily-livered Congress-critters who hold that faithfulness to the Constitution is not a critical criteria for which judicial nominees should be confirmed. Instead of trying to be popular with the media, the people we send to DC need to be keenly aware that THEY are the watchdogs, and if they let the wolves in the country will literally be eaten alive.
I believe Ben Sasse had a great idea for trying to reduce the power of the political-media complex: move the Capitol out of the media centers. Put it in Podunk City, which the media despises. Put it where they can smell manure from cows and where there’s not a nightclub for 100 miles.
I think we need to look at the systemic problems and try to fix them. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again expecting the results to be different.
Those who object to what Will is suggesting - what is your remedy for the lawlessness? Just b!tching doesn’t fix anything. There’s a reason we’re in the mess we’re in. What do YOU say is the root reason, and what can be done about it?
No offense against Mark Levin, but I take some of these suggestions with a grain of salt because he's a lawyer by trade and therefore would see a legal action as the best course of action. "When your tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail to you," and all that.
We have a lawless Senate. What can the House do about that?
Same argument that was used when Republicans considered the "nuclear option" in the Senate last time they held it. Republicans can't do it because Democrats might. Of course, Harry Reid went ahead and did it anyway.
It's long past time to take off the damn gloves with these people. Fight for SOMETHING. Stand for SOMETHING.
The problem with the "loyal opposition" Republican Party is that it is too much 'loyal' with not nearly enough 'opposition'.
Your points are well taken. I continue to be amazed at the shear number of supposedly conservative commentators and TV and radio hosts who still describe this evil man as merely incompetent, who continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, who can’t intuitively understand at a glance or a brief listen that this man is a purposeful, criminal, traitorous destroyer of America, brought to power and maintained in power by anti-American forces within and without our nation.
I believe our own media spokesmen and educators are either really stupid, or bought and paid for, or have been threatened into compliance yet lacking the honor to then simply quit being apologists for what’s happening.
Question: Does Congress have the authority to impeach Eric Holder? If so, this would be a good place to start. If not, who does have the authority to remove him?
1. That's because the CEO who is fired by the company now has legal standing to file a lawsuit on the basis of some kind of financial loss that he can demonstrate.
2. The CEO usually has no recourse in a court of law in a case like this because the CEOs terms of employment are spelled out in a contract with the company. Courts will rarely issue a ruling on the law that overrides the terms of a legally binding contract signed between two parties. Yes, you heard that right ... the terms of a legal, enforceable contract will almost always override the law in a court case.
Go back and see what happened to former U.S. Senator and New Jersey governor Jon Corzine when he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and got involved in a dispute with the leadership of the company. One day he showed up at the office in his limousine and he simply wasn't allowed into the building. The told him to 'eff off ... and 'eff off he did.
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.