House Republicans vote to sue President Obama

[Chicog]

It seems I misspoke when I said nothing quantitative around here originates from the ME.

 

I overlooked the 10,080 posts as of this writing. I did however note the square face aspect of it. So would I be only half as removed from society? 

 

 

Any chance you could translate that into something comprehensible?

 

 

[chuckd]

 

 

 

 

 

The Democratic party didn't start all the rattletrap about impeaching Prez Obama, but I see no point to engaging in a they said, no you said tet-a-tet with any of the many Republicans here to include other extreme and pertubating right wingers who are not of the Republican party. 

 

The bottom line of the very recent past is that the radical right Republicans in the House impeached Prez Clinton while the Senate found the president not guilty by 16 votes less than the required number to convict and thus remove him from the presidency. The 16 vote majority included Democrat and Republican senators. 

 

I do hope the lawsuit gets to the U.S. District Court in Washington so the judge can throw it out on a summary dismissal which is very likely to happen should it meander that far. The U.S. courts dismiss such lawsuits between Congress and the Executive because 99% of them fall under the Doctrine of Political Question, not on any actual legal questions or issues.

 

Doctrine of Political Question

An issue that the federal courts refuse to decide because it properly belongs to the decision-making authority of elected officials.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Political+question+doctrine

 

Congress for instance has many times tried to sue the president - several presidents - over the War Powers Act and failed. The U.S. courts always have ruled the issues in those particular failed lawsuits fall properly under the Doctrine of Political Question, not under any legal questions or issues. The courts have dismissed every such case. This specious one is yet another such instance of political question, or issues.

 

And thanks for your kind and generous welcome back. During my 40 days in the wilderness I found an existing global forum where I'm still giggling over the things I can say without consequence in Thailand or at TVF   .

 

You oughta try it sometime.      

 

 

The first hurdle any law suit against Obama will have to cross is whether Congress has standing to file the law suit in the first place.  Once standing is established, I suppose the suit could go forward.

 

However your recent history left out one other incident of attempted impeachment.

 

Your memory bank must have lapsed during 2008 when Dennis Kuchinich (D-OH) sponsored, along with 11 co-sponsors, articles of impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors against then sitting President George W. Bush.

 

It was killed in the Judiciary Committee but the articles were officially filed.

 

Following is an interesting article on the current impeachment talks.  In reality, who is really doing all the impeachment talk?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Democrats Are Way More Obsessed With Impeachment Than Republicans

 

12:54 PM JUL 30 By NATE SILVER

 

House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that Republicans have no plans to impeach President Obama, and that all the impeachment talk was driven by Democrats hoping to stir up their base.

 

<snip>

 

Consider, for example, the Sunlight Foundation’s Capitol Words database, which tracks words spoken in the House and Senate. So far in July, there have been 10 mentions of the term “impeachment” in Congress and four others of the term “impeach.” Eleven of the 14 mentions have been made by Democratic rather than Republican members of Congress, however.

 

<snip>

 

The scoreboard so far in July: Fox News has 95 mentions of impeachment, and MSNBC 448. That works out to about 2.7 mentions per hour of original programming on MSNBC, or once every 22 minutes. (This data is as of late Tuesday afternoon.)

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/

[Chicog]

As long as Republicans keep bringing it up, you can expect the Dems to keep using it.
 
No different to the Republicans raising money off the back of the Benghazi "scandal" while it kept getting brought up by the, er, GOP.
 
Maybe Boehner should try and be a little more unambiguous and disassociate himself from the likes of Bachmann and Palin.
 
It would also help if he told the truth:
 

"It's all a scam started by Democrats at the White House," Boehner said at a Republican leadership press conference. 

 

 

As I posted elsewhere, it was not. Various Republicans have been batting out various versions of "Impeach Obama" for several years now.

 

And the only reason Boehner is having to come out now and backtrack is because he realises that every time a Tea Party spokesman cries "Impeach Obama", another round of (probably quite successful) emails goes out.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

 

Because he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law? A law they have voted to repeal 52 times. Is the public really dumb enough to swallow this?

The real issue is Obama's abuse of Presidential decrees..

Apparently they couldn't get him in any other way than use a technicality in Obamacare.

 

Quite right. In fact he is not enforcing the law by decree which is against the Constitution as it is his job to ENFORCE ALL the law, not just the bits he likes.

His other crimes are many ( not upholding the employer mandate in Obamacare, not enforcing immigration law, not protecting the borders, not ordering Holder to prosecute Lerner etc ), but they aren't suing him for every transgression.

[Publicus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Democratic party didn't start all the rattletrap about impeaching Prez Obama, but I see no point to engaging in a they said, no you said tet-a-tet with any of the many Republicans here to include other extreme and pertubating right wingers who are not of the Republican party. 

 

The bottom line of the very recent past is that the radical right Republicans in the House impeached Prez Clinton while the Senate found the president not guilty by 16 votes less than the required number to convict and thus remove him from the presidency. The 16 vote majority included Democrat and Republican senators. 

 

I do hope the lawsuit gets to the U.S. District Court in Washington so the judge can throw it out on a summary dismissal which is very likely to happen should it meander that far. The U.S. courts dismiss such lawsuits between Congress and the Executive because 99% of them fall under the Doctrine of Political Question, not on any actual legal questions or issues.

 

Doctrine of Political Question

An issue that the federal courts refuse to decide because it properly belongs to the decision-making authority of elected officials.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Political+question+doctrine

 

Congress for instance has many times tried to sue the president - several presidents - over the War Powers Act and failed. The U.S. courts always have ruled the issues in those particular failed lawsuits fall properly under the Doctrine of Political Question, not under any legal questions or issues. The courts have dismissed every such case. This specious one is yet another such instance of political question, or issues.

 

And thanks for your kind and generous welcome back. During my 40 days in the wilderness I found an existing global forum where I'm still giggling over the things I can say without consequence in Thailand or at TVF   .

 

You oughta try it sometime.      

 

 

The first hurdle any law suit against Obama will have to cross is whether Congress has standing to file the law suit in the first place.  Once standing is established, I suppose the suit could go forward.

 

However your recent history left out one other incident of attempted impeachment.

 

Your memory bank must have lapsed during 2008 when Dennis Kuchinich (D-OH) sponsored, along with 11 co-sponsors, articles of impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors against then sitting President George W. Bush.

 

It was killed in the Judiciary Committee but the articles were officially filed.

 

Following is an interesting article on the current impeachment talks.  In reality, who is really doing all the impeachment talk?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Democrats Are Way More Obsessed With Impeachment Than Republicans

 

12:54 PM JUL 30 By NATE SILVER

 

House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that Republicans have no plans to impeach President Obama, and that all the impeachment talk was driven by Democrats hoping to stir up their base.

 

<snip>

 

Consider, for example, the Sunlight Foundation’s Capitol Words database, which tracks words spoken in the House and Senate. So far in July, there have been 10 mentions of the term “impeachment” in Congress and four others of the term “impeach.” Eleven of the 14 mentions have been made by Democratic rather than Republican members of Congress, however.

 

<snip>

 

The scoreboard so far in July: Fox News has 95 mentions of impeachment, and MSNBC 448. That works out to about 2.7 mentions per hour of original programming on MSNBC, or once every 22 minutes. (This data is as of late Tuesday afternoon.)

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/

 

 

The extreme right tea party sector of U.S. politics keeps at it, bug-eyed Energizer Bunnies on supercharge. 

 

The far out right wingnut Breitbart News claims Sarah Palin first mentioned impeachment in an op-ed piece in its online newspaper.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/27/Sarah-Palin-More-Americans-Will-Support-Impeachment-if-Obama-Lawlessly-Enacts-Another-Executive-Amnesty

 

I'd never quoted the nutcake Breitbart News in my life which shows that the he said, no they said back and forth is absurd; specious, the equivalent of the dog chasing its tail while barking endlessly. The bean counting energizer rabbit right needs to give it up for the sake of reason, balance, their own sanity and credibility. I can produce data to blow the skewed and selective claims you pass on out of the war bunker but I choose not to do so.   

 

Besides, you'd know no one watches MSNBC anyway except Fox Not The News to find out what Ed Schultz is saying about 'em. 

 

Dennis the Menace Kucinich is irrelevant and immaterial to the lawsuit the U.S. courts will reject based on the long standing Doctrine of Political Question established by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison in 1803, who wrote for the court majority,

 

 

“The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.”

 

 

 

The suit is entirely political in its nature so anyone who thinks legal standing per se is the basis needs to get a new legal advisor, to include the radical Republicans in the House who, unlike some others, are not kidding themselves at all about it being entirely political.

 

The first question for a U.S. court of law in this instance is whether the suit is justiciable. As Chief Justice Marshall has defined this issue, It is not justiciable. Standing is only one question involved to determine justiciability. The Doctrine of Political Question is in this instance the vital question and the House Republicans don't have a leg to stand on.

 

The president acted based on his constitutional and legal statutory authority of executive discretion.

 

Case closed.

[Chicog]

 

 

Because he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law? A law they have voted to repeal 52 times. Is the public really dumb enough to swallow this?

The real issue is Obama's abuse of Presidential decrees..

Apparently they couldn't get him in any other way than use a technicality in Obamacare.

 

Quite right. In fact he is not enforcing the law by decree which is against the Constitution as it is his job to ENFORCE ALL the law, not just the bits he likes.

His other crimes are many ( not upholding the employer mandate in Obamacare, not enforcing immigration law, not protecting the borders, not ordering Holder to prosecute Lerner etc ), but they aren't suing him for every transgression.

 

 

As already stated, if delaying the implementation of a law is so bad, how come they (or the democrats for that matter) weren't screaming at Bush for it?

Answer: Because it's just a bunch monkeys throwing poo in the hope that some of it sticks.

[Chicog]

Very much an opinion piece as far as modern times are concerned. I don't think there's any particular problem with the POTUS sending his kids to a high security private school. Who would argue with any president doing that?

But I am keen to find out some supporting evidence for this comment:

"In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools."

 

It's a little bit vague, isn't it?
 

More trouble has cropped up for the D.C. school voucher program, the only federally funded program in the country that sends children to private school using public money to pay the tuition.

A new U.S. General Accountability Office report says that  the local agency that administers the program — which has used $152 million in federal funds since 2004 for more than 5,000 students from low-income families – lacks the “financial systems, controls, policies, and procedures” to ensure that federal funds are being spent legally. It also says the U.S. Education Department has not exercised its oversight responsibilities well enough.

Created by a Republican-led Congress in 2004, the  D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Program has been kept alive by Republican leaders in Congress who have ignored every report of mismanagement of the program, as well as opposition from the Obama administration. Last year,legislators even threatened to cut funding to D.C. public schools if the voucher program was shut down.

 

 

Not quite how it's portrayed.

 

 

 

In a June 13 letter to Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the American Federation of Teachers argued that the "voucher program has proven to be flawed and ineffective, and there is no justification for providing funds to expand the program." Plus the AFT stated, "Scarce federal resources should be focused on that goal as President Obama has recommended in his proposed budget, rather than on an ineffective program providing private school vouchers for a few students."

 

Nope, don't see any racism there.

Added: In fact this does seem to be a left wing philosophy - rather than ignore an underfunded public education system by giving a get-out to a select few, better funding and management of the public school system benefits more people.

Of course, in practise this doesn't often happen.

 

I speak as someone who benefited from a similar system in the UK at a time when my brother was going through the public school system which was utter crap.

 

But decentralising school management and making their funding dependent on results has had a good effect. It means school managers and teachers have to up their game and it would seem most have responded. The schools that do the best get more funding, can build more facilities and offer more programs, and thus get more students.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

I was referring to the factual stuff in the 50s and 60s. The latest stuff is mostly opinion, but it was the first article that I saw that was pretty honest about the recent past..

 

 

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

I wouldn't dispute any of it UG but is it relevant to the status quo?

[Publicus]

 

 

Because he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law? A law they have voted to repeal 52 times. Is the public really dumb enough to swallow this?

The real issue is Obama's abuse of Presidential decrees..

Apparently they couldn't get him in any other way than use a technicality in Obamacare.

 

Quite right. In fact he is not enforcing the law by decree which is against the Constitution as it is his job to ENFORCE ALL the law, not just the bits he likes.

His other crimes are many ( not upholding the employer mandate in Obamacare, not enforcing immigration law, not protecting the borders, not ordering Holder to prosecute Lerner etc ), but they aren't suing him for every transgression.

 

 

The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that ''he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Enforcement of the laws is another distinct aspect of the president's duties.) The wording of the concept was extensively debated by the Constitutional Convention in 1788 until the Committee on Detail produced the extant language from among a basket of possibilities.

 

The congress writes laws a paragraph at a time. The courts decide cases one at a time. The president however must oversee the faithful execution of all the laws simultaneously. So the president - any and every president - has a sweeping mandate to take the overview, exercise philosophical and constitutional judgment, and to manage his supervisory duties with fidelity to statutory and constitutional law. 

 

Which makes it clearly frivolous to accuse the Obama administration with violating the Constitution's mandate to take care that the laws be faithfully executed when it instead and in fact implemented the ACA's exchange provisions in ways that are faithful to the ACA's text, to the purpose of the Congress that enacted it, and to the needs of millions of hard-working Americans for access to affordable health insurance.
                              
The philosophical opponents of Prez Obama and the ACA, led by the Republicans in the House, are engaged in political and policy driven PR and a self-indulgent stunt. This reality is confirmed by none other than conservative editor-in-chief of RedState.com, Erick Erickson. Erickson says the lawsuit is a "political stunt wasting taxpayer dollars," and that he believes it is "designed to incite Republican voters who might otherwise stay home" to go to the polls to vote in the November election. http://www.redstate.com/2014/07/09/john-boehner-is-right-on-impeachment/

 

The lawsuit has nothing to do with the constitution. It tries to thicken political fog rather than to slice through the reactionary right's carefully laid fog. The radical right sector are not interested in improving or preserving the ACA. The House tea party Republicans who have voted 52 times to repeal the ACA are trying to drag the courts back into the fight hoping to get a second bite of their rotten apple. 

 

The president believes in the rule of law. House Republicans and many Republicans in the Senate believe in the rule of politics. 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Publicus

[chuckd]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Democratic party didn't start all the rattletrap about impeaching Prez Obama, but I see no point to engaging in a they said, no you said tet-a-tet with any of the many Republicans here to include other extreme and pertubating right wingers who are not of the Republican party. 

 

The bottom line of the very recent past is that the radical right Republicans in the House impeached Prez Clinton while the Senate found the president not guilty by 16 votes less than the required number to convict and thus remove him from the presidency. The 16 vote majority included Democrat and Republican senators. 

 

I do hope the lawsuit gets to the U.S. District Court in Washington so the judge can throw it out on a summary dismissal which is very likely to happen should it meander that far. The U.S. courts dismiss such lawsuits between Congress and the Executive because 99% of them fall under the Doctrine of Political Question, not on any actual legal questions or issues.

 

Doctrine of Political Question

An issue that the federal courts refuse to decide because it properly belongs to the decision-making authority of elected officials.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Political+question+doctrine

 

Congress for instance has many times tried to sue the president - several presidents - over the War Powers Act and failed. The U.S. courts always have ruled the issues in those particular failed lawsuits fall properly under the Doctrine of Political Question, not under any legal questions or issues. The courts have dismissed every such case. This specious one is yet another such instance of political question, or issues.

 

And thanks for your kind and generous welcome back. During my 40 days in the wilderness I found an existing global forum where I'm still giggling over the things I can say without consequence in Thailand or at TVF   .

 

You oughta try it sometime.      

 

 

The first hurdle any law suit against Obama will have to cross is whether Congress has standing to file the law suit in the first place.  Once standing is established, I suppose the suit could go forward.

 

However your recent history left out one other incident of attempted impeachment.

 

Your memory bank must have lapsed during 2008 when Dennis Kuchinich (D-OH) sponsored, along with 11 co-sponsors, articles of impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors against then sitting President George W. Bush.

 

It was killed in the Judiciary Committee but the articles were officially filed.

 

Following is an interesting article on the current impeachment talks.  In reality, who is really doing all the impeachment talk?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Democrats Are Way More Obsessed With Impeachment Than Republicans

 

12:54 PM JUL 30 By NATE SILVER

 

House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that Republicans have no plans to impeach President Obama, and that all the impeachment talk was driven by Democrats hoping to stir up their base.

 

<snip>

 

Consider, for example, the Sunlight Foundation’s Capitol Words database, which tracks words spoken in the House and Senate. So far in July, there have been 10 mentions of the term “impeachment” in Congress and four others of the term “impeach.” Eleven of the 14 mentions have been made by Democratic rather than Republican members of Congress, however.

 

<snip>

 

The scoreboard so far in July: Fox News has 95 mentions of impeachment, and MSNBC 448. That works out to about 2.7 mentions per hour of original programming on MSNBC, or once every 22 minutes. (This data is as of late Tuesday afternoon.)

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/

 

 

The extreme right tea party sector of U.S. politics keeps at it, bug-eyed Energizer Bunnies on supercharge. 

 

The far out right wingnut Breitbart News claims Sarah Palin first mentioned impeachment in an op-ed piece in its online newspaper.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/27/Sarah-Palin-More-Americans-Will-Support-Impeachment-if-Obama-Lawlessly-Enacts-Another-Executive-Amnesty

 

I'd never quoted the nutcake Breitbart News in my life which shows that the he said, no they said back and forth is absurd; specious, the equivalent of the dog chasing its tail while barking endlessly. The bean counting energizer rabbit right needs to give it up for the sake of reason, balance, their own sanity and credibility. I can produce data to blow the skewed and selective claims you pass on out of the war bunker but I choose not to do so.   

 

Besides, you'd know no one watches MSNBC anyway except Fox Not The News to find out what Ed Schultz is saying about 'em. 

 

Dennis the Menace Kucinich is irrelevant and immaterial to the lawsuit the U.S. courts will reject based on the long standing Doctrine of Political Question established by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison in 1803, who wrote for the court majority,

 

 

“The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.”

 

 

 

The suit is entirely political in its nature so anyone who thinks legal standing per se is the basis needs to get a new legal advisor, to include the radical Republicans in the House who, unlike some others, are not kidding themselves at all about it being entirely political.

 

The first question for a U.S. court of law in this instance is whether the suit is justiciable. As Chief Justice Marshall has defined this issue, It is not justiciable. Standing is only one question involved to determine justiciability. The Doctrine of Political Question is in this instance the vital question and the House Republicans don't have a leg to stand on.

 

The president acted based on his constitutional and legal statutory authority of executive discretion.

 

Case closed.

 

 

I never claimed Kuchinich had anything to do with the proposed law suit against Obama.  Kuchinich is no longer a member of Congress so it might be hard for him to influence anything in that August body.  I said he sponsored the articles of impeachment against Bush in 2008.

 

As far as Brietbart is concerned...you're the only one that is quoting him.  I really don't care if you want to use him for your sources.   Apparently you believe the article you quoted is accurate so quote away. 

 

As I said, Standing must be established first before anything else can take place.  Then I suppose today's new word, "justiciablility" can be applied to the suit.

 

I'll be sure to send your legal opinion to the Supreme Court Justices so they can stand down.  You've got the legal angles covered.

[Rumblecat]

 

I was expecting the usual nonsense by the Fox News tools.   

 

The American people think that Obama is the worst president since WW2. Why even bother 

making justifications and excuses for his failed policies? No one is buying it anymore. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507.html

 

And apparently the "American people" is under one and a half thousand people in a telephone poll, the majority of whom that voted for him as worst being registered Republicans... yet still as best president he beat both Bushes (even with their scores combined), Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Ford, Johnson... but yeah, that's the American People speaking, that's evidence... :) 
 

[Publicus]

 

 

 

The first hurdle any law suit against Obama will have to cross is whether Congress has standing to file the law suit in the first place.  Once standing is established, I suppose the suit could go forward.

 

However your recent history left out one other incident of attempted impeachment.

 

Your memory bank must have lapsed during 2008 when Dennis Kuchinich (D-OH) sponsored, along with 11 co-sponsors, articles of impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors against then sitting President George W. Bush.

 

It was killed in the Judiciary Committee but the articles were officially filed.

 

Following is an interesting article on the current impeachment talks.  In reality, who is really doing all the impeachment talk?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Democrats Are Way More Obsessed With Impeachment Than Republicans

 

12:54 PM JUL 30 By NATE SILVER

 

House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that Republicans have no plans to impeach President Obama, and that all the impeachment talk was driven by Democrats hoping to stir up their base.

 

<snip>

 

Consider, for example, the Sunlight Foundation’s Capitol Words database, which tracks words spoken in the House and Senate. So far in July, there have been 10 mentions of the term “impeachment” in Congress and four others of the term “impeach.” Eleven of the 14 mentions have been made by Democratic rather than Republican members of Congress, however.

 

<snip>

 

The scoreboard so far in July: Fox News has 95 mentions of impeachment, and MSNBC 448. That works out to about 2.7 mentions per hour of original programming on MSNBC, or once every 22 minutes. (This data is as of late Tuesday afternoon.)

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/

 

 

The extreme right tea party sector of U.S. politics keeps at it, bug-eyed Energizer Bunnies on supercharge. 

 

The far out right wingnut Breitbart News claims Sarah Palin first mentioned impeachment in an op-ed piece in its online newspaper.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/27/Sarah-Palin-More-Americans-Will-Support-Impeachment-if-Obama-Lawlessly-Enacts-Another-Executive-Amnesty

 

I'd never quoted the nutcake Breitbart News in my life which shows that the he said, no they said back and forth is absurd; specious, the equivalent of the dog chasing its tail while barking endlessly. The bean counting energizer rabbit right needs to give it up for the sake of reason, balance, their own sanity and credibility. I can produce data to blow the skewed and selective claims you pass on out of the war bunker but I choose not to do so.   

 

Besides, you'd know no one watches MSNBC anyway except Fox Not The News to find out what Ed Schultz is saying about 'em. 

 

Dennis the Menace Kucinich is irrelevant and immaterial to the lawsuit the U.S. courts will reject based on the long standing Doctrine of Political Question established by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison in 1803, who wrote for the court majority,

 

 

“The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.”

 

 

 

The suit is entirely political in its nature so anyone who thinks legal standing per se is the basis needs to get a new legal advisor, to include the radical Republicans in the House who, unlike some others, are not kidding themselves at all about it being entirely political.

 

The first question for a U.S. court of law in this instance is whether the suit is justiciable. As Chief Justice Marshall has defined this issue, It is not justiciable. Standing is only one question involved to determine justiciability. The Doctrine of Political Question is in this instance the vital question and the House Republicans don't have a leg to stand on.

 

The president acted based on his constitutional and legal statutory authority of executive discretion.

 

Case closed.

 

 

I never claimed Kuchinich had anything to do with the proposed law suit against Obama.  Kuchinich is no longer a member of Congress so it might be hard for him to influence anything in that August body.  I said he sponsored the articles of impeachment against Bush in 2008.

 

As far as Brietbart is concerned...you're the only one that is quoting him.  I really don't care if you want to use him for your sources.   Apparently you believe the article you quoted is accurate so quote away. 

 

As I said, Standing must be established first before anything else can take place.  Then I suppose today's new word, "justiciablility" can be applied to the suit.

 

I'll be sure to send your legal opinion to the Supreme Court Justices so they can stand down.  You've got the legal angles covered.

 

 

I see you haven't any idea either why you inserted Dennis the Menace and his mirror G.W. in to this thread.

 

No one should think I believe Brietbart. I employed the Brietbarf right wingers to further demonstrate my point that the they said, they said claims are specious.

 

Justiciability is determined by several factors, standing being only one. Justiciability is superior to standing which is but a component of justiciability itself. The Doctrine of Political Question is a component of justiciability so it can (and should) be applied to this lawsuit. (I recall this stuff from university as a poly sci major a hundred years ago and remember it mostly due to the excellent prof, though I've had to somewhat refresh myself on it).

 

No one knows what a court is going to do, not any more than a lawyer can say what a jury will do before it's seated, while it's seated and, some say, after it's been discharged.

 

The Doctrine of Political Question exists and it was formulated in 1803 for this kind of case, that's all. I'm saying the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is very likely to apply it given the U.S. judicial system is based on case (common) law and case law precedent.

[Publicus]

I was referring to the factual stuff in the 50s and 60s. The latest stuff is mostly opinion, but it was the first article that I saw that was pretty honest about the recent past..

 

 

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

 

There's still this from last year that has carried over in to this year and looks like will continue in to next year.......and the year after that......and the year after that..........

 

 

RNC: Voters see GOP as ‘scary’ and ‘out of touch'

 

The Republican National Committee concedes in a sprawling report Monday that the GOP is seen as the party of “stuffy old men” and needs to change its ways.

 

The suggestions are among dozens the committee makes in what RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has dubbed an “autopsy” of the party’s 2012 failures and a roadmap forward.

 

The report devotes many pages to the need to better connect with minority, female and young voters. Comprehensive immigration reform is a critical first step, it says.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-report-gop-scary-out-of-touch-88974.html

 

 

Prez Truman signed the Executive Order to end racial segregation throughout the U.S. military and to integrate black Americans into the mainstream of the armed forces. Prez Eisenhower faithfully carried on in executing the law, as did Prez Kennedy, Prez Johnson, Prez Nixon et al.

 

I see from the post some people have fun rewriting a lot of history.

[Chicog]

Speaking as an independent observer, I think the monkey poo will influence a large number of voters more than actual substance. The Koch brothers TV money will be quite influential.

[Loptr]

 

 

 

Because he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law? A law they have voted to repeal 52 times. Is the public really dumb enough to swallow this?

The real issue is Obama's abuse of Presidential decrees..

Apparently they couldn't get him in any other way than use a technicality in Obamacare.

 

Quite right. In fact he is not enforcing the law by decree which is against the Constitution as it is his job to ENFORCE ALL the law, not just the bits he likes.

His other crimes are many ( not upholding the employer mandate in Obamacare, not enforcing immigration law, not protecting the borders, not ordering Holder to prosecute Lerner etc ), but they aren't suing him for every transgression.

 

 

The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that ''he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Enforcement of the laws is another distinct aspect of the president's duties.) The wording of the concept was extensively debated by the Constitutional Convention in 1788 until the Committee on Detail produced the extant language from among a basket of possibilities.

 

The congress writes laws a paragraph at a time. The courts decide cases one at a time. The president however must oversee the faithful execution of all the laws simultaneously. So the president - any and every president - has a sweeping mandate to take the overview, exercise philosophical and constitutional judgment, and to manage his supervisory duties with fidelity to statutory and constitutional law. 

 

Which makes it clearly frivolous to accuse the Obama administration with violating the Constitution's mandate to take care that the laws be faithfully executed when it instead and in fact implemented the ACA's exchange provisions in ways that are faithful to the ACA's text, to the purpose of the Congress that enacted it, and to the needs of millions of hard-working Americans for access to affordable health insurance.
                              
The philosophical opponents of Prez Obama and the ACA, led by the Republicans in the House, are engaged in political and policy driven PR and a self-indulgent stunt. This reality is confirmed by none other than conservative editor-in-chief of RedState.com, Erick Erickson. Erickson says the lawsuit is a "political stunt wasting taxpayer dollars," and that he believes it is "designed to incite Republican voters who might otherwise stay home" to go to the polls to vote in the November election. http://www.redstate.com/2014/07/09/john-boehner-is-right-on-impeachment/

 

The lawsuit has nothing to do with the constitution. It tries to thicken political fog rather than to slice through the reactionary right's carefully laid fog. The radical right sector are not interested in improving or preserving the ACA. The House tea party Republicans who have voted 52 times to repeal the ACA are trying to drag the courts back into the fight hoping to get a second bite of their rotten apple. 

 

The president believes in the rule of law. House Republicans and many Republicans in the Senate believe in the rule of politics. 

 

 

If that were the case, then the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, would put any one of the 358 bills passed by the House in the last 4 years to a vote on the Senate floor...  I find it humorous every time Obama lambasts the Congress in the media for not doing anything, when in fact it's Harry Reid which is clogging up the plumbing...

 

EDIT:  I forgot to address your comment about the President believing in the rule of law... He may believe in it, but he sure as hell have a problem with enforcement, including his own ACA bill which is what the GOP law suit is about... Oh, and how about enforcement of the sovereignty of the US by closing the freaking borders? 

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Loptr

[Chicog]

[quote name="Loptr" post="8208625" timestamp="1407346642"][quote name="Publicus" post="8208323" timestamp="1407339187"] [quote name="thaibeachlovers" post="8206871" timestamp="1407319885"] [quote name="vinniekintana" post="8179873" timestamp="1406818250"] [quote name="phuketandsee" post="8178800" timestamp="1406803514"]Because he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law? A law they have voted to repeal 52 times. Is the public really dumb enough to swallow this?[/quote]
The real issue is Obama's abuse of Presidential decrees..
Apparently they couldn't get him in any other way than use a technicality in Obamacare.
 [/quote]
Quite right. In fact he is not enforcing the law by decree which is against the Constitution as it is his job to ENFORCE ALL the law, not just the bits he likes.
His other crimes are many ( not upholding the employer mandate in Obamacare, not enforcing immigration law, not protecting the borders, not ordering Holder to prosecute Lerner etc ), but they aren't suing him for every transgression.
 [/quote]
 
The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that ''he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Enforcement of the laws is another distinct aspect of the president's duties.) The wording of the concept was extensively debated by the Constitutional Convention in 1788 until the Committee on Detail produced the extant language from among a basket of possibilities.
 
The congress writes laws a paragraph at a time. The courts decide cases one at a time. The president however must oversee the faithful execution of all the laws simultaneously. So the president - any and every president - has a sweeping mandate to take the overview, exercise philosophical and constitutional judgment, and to manage his supervisory duties with fidelity to statutory and constitutional law. 
 
Which makes it clearly frivolous to accuse the Obama administration with violating the Constitution's mandate to take care that the laws be faithfully executed when it instead and in fact implemented the ACA's exchange provisions in ways that are faithful to the ACA's text, to the purpose of the Congress that enacted it, and to the needs of millions of hard-working Americans for access to affordable health insurance.
                              
The philosophical opponents of Prez Obama and the ACA, led by the Republicans in the House, are engaged in political and policy driven PR and a self-indulgent stunt. This reality is confirmed by none other than conservative editor-in-chief of RedState.com, Erick Erickson. Erickson says the lawsuit is a "political stunt wasting taxpayer dollars," and that he believes it is "designed to incite Republican voters who might otherwise stay home" to go to the polls to vote in the November election. http://www.redstate.com/2014/07/09/john-boehner-is-right-on-impeachment/
 
The lawsuit has nothing to do with the constitution. It tries to thicken political fog rather than to slice through the reactionary right's carefully laid fog. The radical right sector are not interested in improving or preserving the ACA. The House tea party Republicans who have voted 52 times to repeal the ACA are trying to drag the courts back into the fight hoping to get a second bite of their rotten apple. 
 
The president believes in the rule of law. House Republicans and many Republicans in the Senate believe in the rule of politics. 
 [/quote]
 
If that were the case, then the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, would put any one of the 358 bills passed by the House in the last 4 years to a vote on the Senate floor...  I find it humorous every time Obama lambasts the Congress in the media for not doing anything, when in fact it's Harry Reid which is clogging up the plumbing...
 
EDIT:  I forgot to address your comment about the President believing in the rule of law... He may believe in it, but he sure as hell have a problem with enforcement, including his own ACA bill which is what the GOP law suit is about... Oh, and how about enforcement of the sovereignty of the US by closing the freaking borders? 
 [/quote]

How many of those supposed 358 bills benefit the American people as opposed to the GOP backers? Pull one out for a laugh. I pulled a few and pissed myself laughing. Especially the GOP 'jobs bills'. There are at least two sides to that coin :)

[Chicog]

Not a popular witch hunt then...

 

 

A majority of Americans disapprove of the House Republican lawsuit against President Barack Obama, which charges that he overstepped his authority in failing to enforce the Affordable Care Act in a timely manner, according to a new CBS Newspoll.

The House of Representatives voted last week along party lines to authorize Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to file a suit forcing the president to enforce the law -- in particular the mandate on employers who do not provide health care coverage. Five Republicans joined all Democrats in opposition to the lawsuit.

In the CBS poll, released Wednesday, 54 percent of Americans said they disapproved of the suit, while 37 percent said they approved of it. A similar poll conducted by CNN last month found that Americans disapprove of the GOP effort against the president by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/obama-lawsuit-executive_n_5656484.html

[Chicog]

Only the Democrats talking about impeachment eh?

 

 

 

Republican Rep. Walter Jones thinks Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money — he says the impeachment of President Obama would be a better option.

“I am one that believes sincerely that the Constitution says that when a president, be it a Republican or a Democrat exceeds his authority and you can’t stop the president from exceeding his authority, then we do have what’s called impeachment,” Jones said on the Talk of the Town radio program Monday. “Thank Alexander Hamilton. He felt that the Congress need to use this process to get the attention of a president. And if the president had lost the public trust then move forward in that area. We recently had a vote to go to federal courts. I did not vote for that. I was one of five.”

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mr-jones-shalalalalalalala

[chuckd]

 

 

 

 

I see you haven't any idea either why you inserted Dennis the Menace and his mirror G.W. in to this thread.

 

 

 

It was in response to this statement you on 05 Aug 2014 at 17:17:33  made in post number 84.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"The bottom line of the very recent past is that the radical right Republicans in the House impeached Prez Clinton while the Senate found the president not guilty by 16 votes less than the required number to convict and thus remove him from the presidency. The 16 vote majority included Democrat and Republican senators."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your reflection on the "very recent past" concerning impeachments was glaringly missing the MOST recent.

[Publicus]

 

 

Because he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law? A law they have voted to repeal 52 times. Is the public really dumb enough to swallow this?

The real issue is Obama's abuse of Presidential decrees..

Apparently they couldn't get him in any other way than use a technicality in Obamacare.

 

Quite right. In fact he is not enforcing the law by decree which is against the Constitution as it is his job to ENFORCE ALL the law, not just the bits he likes.

His other crimes are many ( not upholding the employer mandate in Obamacare, not enforcing immigration law, not protecting the borders, not ordering Holder to prosecute Lerner etc ), but they aren't suing him for every transgression.

 

 

It is routine for presidents to extend a deadline in a law that establishes complex legislation, such as the ACA.

 

The EPA for instance has a long history of administratively extending legal deadlines written in to laws enacted by Congress.

 

The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 authorizes a president to extend a statutory deadline written in a law. The APA recognizes that delayed implementation of rules, beyond statutory deadlines, is within the Executive Branch's constitutional and lawful discretion, as long as such delays are "reasonable.''        

 

The courts have ruled since 1946 that a president has the constitutional authority to extend a statutory deadline. The courts have held the extending of a statutory deadline must be reasonable, not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise irresponsible. 

 

Prez Bush in 2006 extended the statutory enrollment period for the prescription payments changes to Medicare, no problem. Of course Prez Bush didn't have a majority in the House campaigning to kill the new Medicare prescription benefits law.

 

The lawsuit is cheap and raw politics by the Republican majority in the House. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It will go nowhere in the U.S. courts.

 

The political views of the extreme right tea party do not rise to the level of constitutional issues. The radical reactionary right needs to reverse its reckless course to instead respect the constitution, to recognize and respect the separation of powers, to respect the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 and a great deal more.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Publicus

[Loptr]

How many of those supposed 358 bills benefit the American people as opposed to the GOP backers? Pull one out for a laugh. I pulled a few and pissed myself laughing. Especially the GOP 'jobs bills'. There are at least two sides to that coin

 

Please, let's not be coy...  Show use one fiscal budget presented by the democrats in that last 6 years... Better yet, show us any bill presented by the Senate in the last 4 years that has passed the House...   See how that works...  

[Loptr]

Only the Democrats talking about impeachment eh?

 

 

 

Republican Rep. Walter Jones thinks Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money — he says the impeachment of President Obama would be a better option.

“I am one that believes sincerely that the Constitution says that when a president, be it a Republican or a Democrat exceeds his authority and you can’t stop the president from exceeding his authority, then we do have what’s called impeachment,” Jones said on the Talk of the Town radio program Monday. “Thank Alexander Hamilton. He felt that the Congress need to use this process to get the attention of a president. And if the president had lost the public trust then move forward in that area. We recently had a vote to go to federal courts. I did not vote for that. I was one of five.”

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mr-jones-shalalalalalalala

 

One would think that anyone with any sense would be talking about impeachment after the lawlessness of the current administration... Between the POTUS and the AG, they have racked up a dozen or so scandals in the last 6 years...  The latest being the manipulation of the Dreamer act and opening the borders of the country to any and all...  Or what, you haven't been paying attention? 

 

Impeachment has been in the press by both sides of the aisle... The democrats have been playing it up for fund raising purposes and rallying their base attempting to get the vote out in November so the democrats can salvage the Senate, which is not going to happen... 

 

Since you seem to be a democratic supporter, perhaps you can explain the 39% approval rating of the POTUS? 

[Loptr]

Only the Democrats talking about impeachment eh?

 

 

 

Republican Rep. Walter Jones thinks Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money — he says the impeachment of President Obama would be a better option.

“I am one that believes sincerely that the Constitution says that when a president, be it a Republican or a Democrat exceeds his authority and you can’t stop the president from exceeding his authority, then we do have what’s called impeachment,” Jones said on the Talk of the Town radio program Monday. “Thank Alexander Hamilton. He felt that the Congress need to use this process to get the attention of a president. And if the president had lost the public trust then move forward in that area. We recently had a vote to go to federal courts. I did not vote for that. I was one of five.”

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mr-jones-shalalalalalalala

 

Here you go Chicog, for a bit of balance on your assertion...

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/214553-dems-talk-about-impeachment-20-times-as-much-as-gop

 

Dems talk about impeachment 20 times as much as Republicans

Congressional Democrats have talked about the impeachment of President Obama 20 times more than Republicans have on the House and Senate floors. 

Since the start of the 113th Congress last year, Democrats have used the word “impeach” or “impeachment” regarding Obama 86 times, according to a review of the Congressional Record by The Hill.

Utterances on the floor from Republicans about impeaching Obama, in contrast, have been relatively rare. Only three Republicans in this Congress have raised the subject on the House floor, and the words have been used a total of four times by GOP members.

Most of the talk has come from House Democrats, with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) alone using the words 18 times in two separate speeches late last month.

 

 

[Chicog]

 

Only the Democrats talking about impeachment eh?

 

 

 

Republican Rep. Walter Jones thinks Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money — he says the impeachment of President Obama would be a better option.

“I am one that believes sincerely that the Constitution says that when a president, be it a Republican or a Democrat exceeds his authority and you can’t stop the president from exceeding his authority, then we do have what’s called impeachment,” Jones said on the Talk of the Town radio program Monday. “Thank Alexander Hamilton. He felt that the Congress need to use this process to get the attention of a president. And if the president had lost the public trust then move forward in that area. We recently had a vote to go to federal courts. I did not vote for that. I was one of five.”

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mr-jones-shalalalalalalala

 

Here you go Chicog, for a bit of balance on your assertion...

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/214553-dems-talk-about-impeachment-20-times-as-much-as-gop

 

 

Dems talk about impeachment 20 times as much as Republicans

Congressional Democrats have talked about the impeachment of President Obama 20 times more than Republicans have on the House and Senate floors. 

Since the start of the 113th Congress last year, Democrats have used the word “impeach” or “impeachment” regarding Obama 86 times, according to a review of the Congressional Record by The Hill.

Utterances on the floor from Republicans about impeaching Obama, in contrast, have been relatively rare. Only three Republicans in this Congress have raised the subject on the House floor, and the words have been used a total of four times by GOP members.

Most of the talk has come from House Democrats, with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) alone using the words 18 times in two separate speeches late last month.

 

 

 

 

I thought I'd made my position clear, however since you may have not read back far enough -

Republicans started bringing up the I word at least three years ago and, whilst they may not use it often, they are using it often enough for the Dems to jump up and scare their supporters into a bit of fundraising.

 

I don't dispute the figures above, I simply dispute the assertion that the Dems started it, and that the Dems are the only ones using it.

[Chicog]

Since you seem to be a democratic supporter, perhaps you can explain the 39% approval rating of the POTUS? 

 

 

Bad press. There isn't a ton of good news around is there, and he is the one who's going to get the blame for it, whether it's his fault or not.

How do you explain this:
 

 

 

Thirty-one percent of those surveyed said they had a somewhat or very positive impression of Democrats in Congress, and 19 percent had a positive impression of congressional Republicans.

 

 

 

[KarenBravo]

 

Only the Democrats talking about impeachment eh?

 

 

 

Republican Rep. Walter Jones thinks Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money — he says the impeachment of President Obama would be a better option.

“I am one that believes sincerely that the Constitution says that when a president, be it a Republican or a Democrat exceeds his authority and you can’t stop the president from exceeding his authority, then we do have what’s called impeachment,” Jones said on the Talk of the Town radio program Monday. “Thank Alexander Hamilton. He felt that the Congress need to use this process to get the attention of a president. And if the president had lost the public trust then move forward in that area. We recently had a vote to go to federal courts. I did not vote for that. I was one of five.”

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mr-jones-shalalalalalalala

 

Here you go Chicog, for a bit of balance on your assertion...

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/214553-dems-talk-about-impeachment-20-times-as-much-as-gop

 

 

Dems talk about impeachment 20 times as much as Republicans

Congressional Democrats have talked about the impeachment of President Obama 20 times more than Republicans have on the House and Senate floors. 

Since the start of the 113th Congress last year, Democrats have used the word “impeach” or “impeachment” regarding Obama 86 times, according to a review of the Congressional Record by The Hill.

Utterances on the floor from Republicans about impeaching Obama, in contrast, have been relatively rare. Only three Republicans in this Congress have raised the subject on the House floor, and the words have been used a total of four times by GOP members.

Most of the talk has come from House Democrats, with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) alone using the words 18 times in two separate speeches late last month.

 

 

 

 

Oh dear.....another rabid Republican.

All prisoners of their own ideology and incapable of critical thinking.