Jump to content
Will_Power

House voted "yes" to sue Obama

Recommended Posts

 

The House of Representatives just took a vote -- and it wasn't to raise the minimum wage, put in place equal pay, create jobs, or reform our broken immigration system.

Instead, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives just voted to sue the President for using his executive authority.

 

Just thought this was interesting and informative that they officially voted to sue Obama. Personally, I didn't think they would get this far - but I was wrong.

 

P.s. no political debates in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that... is that even possible/legal?

 

I just realized how biased the email was that was sent out from the white house (which is what I quoted from). They're suing him on the grounds of not using his executive authority correctly - he was supposed to consult with congress before making some of the actions he did but he did not. I believe, as far as I understand with my limited knowledge of politics, that is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized how biased the email was that was sent out from the white house (which is what I quoted from). They're suing him on the grounds of not using his executive authority correctly - he was supposed to consult with congress before making some of the actions he did but he did not. I believe, as far as I understand with my limited knowledge of politics, that is legal.

I don't think I've ever heard of one branch of the government suing another (They're really not suing Obama personally, bu the office of the Presidency). I mean, which side does the Attorney General choose? Also, they're suing him, they're not bringing him on on charges, which means that Congress doesn't believe that he actually committed a criminal offense. What kind of damages are they looking for here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that... is that even possible/legal?

Is it possible to sue the presidential office for breaking legal procedure, such as a refusal to enforce the law of the land? Yes.

 

*shrug* I think the House's action is correct, but I think it's politically inapt. I don't expect them to win this fight, and I expect the fallout to be disastrous.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to sue the presidential office for breaking legal procedure, such as a refusal to enforce the law of the land? Yes.

 

*shrug* I think the House's action is correct, but I think it's politically inapt. I don't expect them to win this fight, and I expect the fallout to be disastrous.

Well, that's the thing. They're admitting that he's not breaking the law by suing instead of trying to get criminal charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's the thing. They're admitting that he's not breaking the law by suing instead of trying to get criminal charges.

 

No one is claiming that Obama as a private citizen has broken criminal law. Instead, they're arguing that his office has violated constitutional procedure.

 

For example, if President Clinton lies under oath, then he has violated the penal code of the district where he testified. If he is convicted of perjury, he will be convicted of criminal charges under criminal law.

 

On the other hand, if Representative Boehner authors an unconstitutional law, and Congress passes that law, then in a sense he and Congress have broken the law of the land. This is not, however, a violation of criminal law, and it will not lead to criminal charges. It might lead to a lawsuit.

 

That's the crux of the suit--that the presidential office has acted unconstitutionally. 

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminal law is distinct from constitutional procedure. For example, perjury involves breaking a law in the penal code, and it brings criminal charges, even if the person breaking the penal code is President Clinton.

 

No one is claiming that Obama as a private citizen has broken criminal law. Instead, they're arguing that his office has violated constitutional procedure, which is against the law broadly understood, but it is not a criminal offense.

Hmm... I obviously have to talk to my lawyer friends more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shrug* I think the House's action is correct, but I think it's politically inapt. I don't expect them to win this fight, and I expect the fallout to be disastrous.

 

The House action might be correct in an objective sense, but the Republican Party is doing it for childish, political reasons. If it is to be a public good, the curtailment of the imperial presidency has to be a non-partisan movement, not an expression of infantile party squabbling. 

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The House action might be correct in an objective sense, but the Republican Party is doing it for childish, political reasons. If it is to be a public good, the curtailment of the imperial presidency has to be a non-partisan movement, not an expression of infantile party squabbling. 

 

The fifteenth amendment was objectively righteous law…if only its supporters had fought for it for the right reasons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The House action might be correct in an objective sense, but the Republican Party is doing it for childish, political reasons. If it is to be a public good, the curtailment of the imperial presidency has to be a non-partisan movement, not an expression of infantile party squabbling. 

How is it childish? The only way the acts of the executive branch can be overturned is by the Judaical branch. How else would Congress get this curtailed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fifteenth amendment was objectively righteous law…if only its supporters had fought for it for the right reasons!

 

I understand the idea that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. However, I think the partisan essence imbued within action will horrible corrupt it beyond usefulness. 

 

How is it childish? The only way the acts of the executive branch can be overturned is by the Judaical branch. How else would Congress get this curtailed? 

 

It is childish because the Republicans do not give a darn about curtailing the powers of the imperial presidency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

I understand the idea that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. However, I think the partisan essence imbued within action will horrible corrupt it beyond usefulness. 

 

 

It is childish because the Republicans do not give a darn about curtailing the powers of the imperial presidency. 

 

For me personally, I'm happy when the branches keep each other in check.  Republicans, Democrats, I don't care who - friggen sue the president if he's out of line. That's the best way to preserve our rights and to keep the government from becoming too efficient.

Edited by JAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally, I'm happy when the branches keep each other in check.  Republicans, Democrats, I don't care who - friggen sue the president if he's out of line. That's the best way to preserve our rights and to keep the government from becoming too efficient.

 

I am so sick and tired of (insert adult word) in politics. I am cynical about it all. I am not saying they should not sue the President. I am merely saying that I will criticize them when they do, for the monstrous reasons they are doing it for. I have discovered in life that we need to be intensely and eternally critical. If we are Christians then we have to work for the Kingdom of God on Earth and not rest until it has dominion. Maybe the reason there is so much heartache, corruption, death and violence in the world is because people give in too easily. This is why I am eternally critical of every socialist and communist movements. I generally dislike other socialists and communists for being boorish and stupid.

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect everyone including atheists, but this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes :) "If there is no God, everything is permissible" -Dostoyevsky 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

the Republican-controlled House of Representatives just voted to sue the President

 

shocked-will-smith.gif

Edited by Mike Spero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh politics are so childish and annoying now (Then again they've always been)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

ugh politics are so childish and annoying now (Then again they've always been)

 

No, we used to just cane our opponents and challenge them to duels.  Let's go back to that.  I'm dead serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

I really don't see why it's silly and childish to sue the President for refusing to enforce the law. Is it silly and childish to bring discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional laws before the court? It's just the same principle--government organizations need to follow procedural law, and when they don't, the only way to challenge them is to literally make a federal case out of it.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

I really don't see why it's silly and childish to sue the President for refusing to enforce the law. Is it silly and childish to bring discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional laws before the court? It's just the same principle--government organizations need to follow procedural law, and when they don't, the only way to challenge them is to literally make a federal case out of it.

 

It is infantile because there is no spirit of truth behind it. The only reason these Republicans care that the President is refusing to enforce the law is because he is not their President. It is a move meant to fool the public into thinking that the Republican party cares about concepts like justice and the good. It is a discourse that is meant to alienate people from the Democratic party, not from the imperial presidency per se. The Republicans want to portray President Obama and the Democrats as the enemies of freedom. It will only seek to provide ideological cover for the Imperial Presidency under Republican leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is infantile because there is no spirit of truth behind it. The only reason these Republicans care that the President is refusing to enforce the law is because he is not their President.

 

I really just don't believe this is the case. While there are certainly supporters of the imperial presidency in Republican ranks, like **** Cheney and Mr. Bush, I think much of the current leadership really is disturbed by Obama's refusal to enforce legislation he doesn't like and genuinely fear the consequences of making that an unchallenged precedent.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really just don't believe this is the case. While there are certainly supporters of the imperial presidency in Republican ranks, like **** Cheney, I think much of the current leadership really is disturbed by Obama's refusal to enforce legislation he doesn't like and genuinely fear the consequences of making that an unchallenged precedent.

 

Ah yes, **** Cheney...

 

In other news, I support an Imperial presidency. The HR refuses point-blank to work with the POTUS' agenda or get anything done besides what they want to get done. To whine and moan and sue the Prez because you forced him to use executive measures just to get things done certainly *is* childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×