GOP pushes House toward approving Obama lawsuit

Proponents say action focuses on health care overhaul, designed to prevent presidential power grabs
Associated Press
Jul 30, 2014

 

Republicans pushed a divided House Wednesday toward a campaign-season lawsuit against President Barack Obama, accusing him of deliberately exceeding the bounds of his constitutional authority. Obama and other Democrats derided the effort as a stunt aimed at tossing political red meat to conservative voters.

Just a day before lawmakers were to begin a five-week summer recess, debate over the lawsuit underscored the harshly partisan tone that has dominated the current Congress almost from its start in January 2013.

Republicans said the legal action, focusing on Obama's implementation of his prized health care overhaul, was designed to prevent a further presidential power grab and his deciding unilaterally how to enforce laws. They scoffed at Democratic claims that it would be a waste of taxpayers' money.

"What price do you place on the continuation of our system of checks and balances? What price do you put on the Constitution of the United States?" said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich. "My answer to each is 'priceless.'"

Republicans have repeatedly accused Obama of exceeding his powers in a range of areas, saying he has enforced provisions he likes and ignored others.

These include not notifying Congress before releasing five Taliban members from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for captive Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, blocking the deportation of some children who are in the U.S. illegally and waiving some provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law.

However, Democrats said the lawsuit was simply designed to encourage conservatives to vote in this November's congressional elections. They also warned that it could be a precursor of a more drastic GOP effort. Said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.: "The lawsuit is a drumbeat pushing members of the Republican Party to impeachment."

In fact, Democrats already are using that argument to mine campaign contributions. About two hours before the House was to vote, House Democrats emailed a fundraising solicitation to supporters saying, "Republicans have said this lawsuit has 'opened the door' to impeachment." It asked for support for Democrats who "will finally put a stop to the Tea Party crazies and get President Obama's back."

Some prominent conservatives including former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for Obama's impeachment, and some House GOP lawmakers have not ruled it out. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he has no such plans and has called Democratic impeachment talk a "scam" to raise money.

"Impeachment is off the table. Why hasn't the speaker said that," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

On the road in Kansas City, Missouri, Obama cast the lawsuit as a "political stunt" and a distraction from the public's priorities.

"Every vote they're taking like that means a vote they're not taking to actually help you," he told his audience. He urged Republicans to "stop just hating all the time."

As for the lawsuit's chances of legal success, federal courts are often reluctant to intervene in disputes between the executive and legislative branches. For the suit to survive, the GOP would first have to prove that the House had been injured by Obama's actions. And even if the lawsuit was heard, it is unclear whether it could be decided while Obama was still in office.

Timothy K. Lewis, a former judge in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was nominated by former President George H.W. Bush, said that, with appeals, it would take at least one-and-a-half to two years for the suit to wind through the federal judicial system.

Obama leaves office in January 2017.

Still, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said, "The people's representatives will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness of this president. We will do whatever it takes to hold him and future occupants of the Oval Office accountable."

Democrats say Obama has acted legally and has simply used the authority he has as chief executive.

Said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.: "The House majority has chosen to act up and to act out in order to satisfy the thirst of the blame Barack Obama caucus."

The planned lawsuit would accuse Obama of selectively carrying out the 2010 health care law. That will put House Republicans in the position of asking the courts to hold Obama to the letter of a law that they all opposed and that the House has voted over 50 times to dismantle.

Republicans have particularly objected that Obama has twice delayed the law's so-called employer mandate. The provision requires companies with 50 or more employees working at least 30 hours weekly to offer health care coverage or pay fines, while businesses with fewer than 50 workers are exempt.

The requirement was initially to take effect this year. Now, companies with 50 to 99 employees have until 2016 to comply while bigger companies have until next year.

Democrats warned that the lawsuit could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Republicans provided no specifics about the potential price tag, but the measure would allow House attorneys to hire outside lawyers and require quarterly public reports on expenditures.

Republicans have not laid out a timetable for actually filing the suit.

 

Comments

The Big Dog's back

Repubs wasting more time and money. right wingnuts have no problem wasting taxpayer dollars.

There you go again

If you left wing nuts did your job right the first time, us right wing nuts wouldn't have to go back and fix it. Yep, put that in your pipe and smoke it, Dog Breath.

deertracker

You mean like Bush's messed up economy?

coasterfan

Exactly, Deer!

Let me get this straight. Congress (GOP House) refuses to pass any legislation on Immigration. Actually, Boehner won't even let anything come to a VOTE. So, although both parties agree that something needs to be done, and money needs to be allocated to implement a solution, nothing can get done thanks to Boehner & his buddies. Republicans then scream at Obama for "doing nothing", so he used Executive Action to do what Congress refused to do. Republicans then scream at Obama for DOING SOMETHING.

As if Executive Action is unconstitutional or unlawful... Every single President since 1980 used Exec. Action more often than Obama, and Obama has used it less during his 2nd term than during his first - while being forced to work with the most intransigent Congress of all time.

Contango

Re: "Every single President since 1980 used Exec. Action more often than Obama,"

It ain't the quantity, it's the poor quality.

The Big Dog's back

And gee, if it wasn't quality then it would be quantity. pooh, you are so jealous of Obama. It's your fault your life is so miserable. Why aren't you President? Oh yeah, that Kesslers got in the way.

freespeech1

How about this puppy doo! the world burns and Dems want to raise taxes on soft drinks and such.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/...

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

So instead of using their Constitutional authority directly granted to them, they are using passive-aggressive, "beta" tactics to have the Judicial Branch shake their finger at the Executive on behalf of the Legislative?

Article I, Section 2
"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment."

So...what do they hope for in doing this other than make a spectacle of themselves and show off how cowardly they are to do what they are empowered to do in the Constitution? This frustrates me so much.

Donegan

It is nothing but a show, they look like they are doing something but in reality are doing absolutely nothing. Right now the over reaches are setting precedence and the Republicans are waiting for their chance at the helm knowing they will also be able to over ride the peoples voice in government. The Democrats think is is great that Obama is grabbing more power and neglecting the fact that they will at some point lose that office.
The checks and balances are there for a reason, Destroying them only weakens the people voice. The progressive/liberals cannot think further than the next election so it is pointless even trying to rationalize with them about this.

The Big Dog's back

If the Repubs would negotiate in good faith we wouldn't be where we are at.

Donegan

So you cheer on someone taking away your voice in government? What kind of moron wants a government that is no longer a democracy but a dictatorship where the executive can just run over the peoples opinion? Like i said it is pointless talking to you people till after the Dems lose the presidency and you start whining, Then all anyone can say to you is how much of a hypocrite you are.

The Big Dog's back

Well, that won't happen for at least another 10 years.

Donegan

Thanks for the perfect example of the type of a moron who wants to give up his voice in government.

The Big Dog's back

Now see dumb again I was trying to have a discussion with you without calling you names. But oh no, you just had to go there. And where is zero zone to correct you? Right wingnuts, who needs them.

Donegan

"Well, that won't happen for at least another 10 years"
That's the mindset of you people. You cannot see past the next election. When your party does lose what then, Who will you complain to? Those of us who work to keep our rights and the checks and balances know what happens when power is centralized. History teaches a great many things, try to learn from it.
BTW you haven't tried to have a conversation with anyone on here in years.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

What? Donegan shouldn't have called you a moron. Only he can tell you why but it may have to do with the fact you have a long track record of name-calling, pettiness, and party-before-citizen mentality. If you are willing to to drop those you'd probably see the tone of responses to you lessen as well.

My advice? Try to be better than them. Don't call names. Can I challenge you to go a whole week without saying "right wingnut"? Maintain your composure, don't lob nonsense around, and set a higher conversational standard. If you do that I'll step up by your side every time even if I disagree with you. As for my "delay" here? I do take time off from apparently being the forum police to work, eat, and socialize.

Yet here I am, despite the fact you drug me into this by calling me "zero zone". You're welcome.

EDIT: Just to provide context and constructive criticism, even while you may have wanted to have a mature, civil, and thought-provoking conversation this is what I saw occur:

Opening post: Partisan. Namecalling. Presumption Democrats don't do the same thing.

Reply to Donegan: Partisan. A wholly false presumption Democrats are trying to negotiate at all let alone in good faith. At least you didn't call names - GOOD!

Second Reply: No name calling still - THANK YOU! Partisan presumptions based on nothing tangible that are detached from any kind of context or meaning.

Third Reply: Name calling then a justification of doing it because, for the first time in "ever" (for many of us fellow commentators here) you were trying to be civil. However you then erase whatever progress you made by going back to the elementary school playground and "down to the level" of the same guy you are pointing your finger to as an offender. It's like saying Bush was bad but excusing the same actions under Obama as good. It doesn't work like that. Then you call ME a name when I have nothing to do with your conversation.

Big Dog, most of your problems with contentious replies will fall away when you stop calling people names and stop presuming that Democrats are some flawless Master Race. That doesn't make Democrats bad. It makes them human beings with the same flaws, corruption, good ideas, and triumphs as everyone else. I don't care that you belong to that party. I do care when you pretend like that makes you and they better human beings simply by having an initial after their name.

freespeech1

Puppy, Harry Reid has done absolutely nothing to help the cause. He has a stack of bills on his desk, that he wont present to the senate. This entire government is a joke both sides!! Even your simple mind should grasp that. Both sides of the isle are equally to blame.

The Big Dog's back

Do you know how the Senate works? I doubt it because you wouldn't be saying what you are saying. Why would Reid bring something up for a vote when the votes aren't there? Waste time like the Repubs in Congress do?

freespeech1

I know full well how it works. But for dems to blame repubs for legislation being held up is ignorant at best. Reid will only present bills if it benefits him or his party. There are 50+ job bills sitting there as we speak collecting dust.

Donegan

By holding up the vote he is..........Obstructing congress!

The Big Dog's back

So Reid should put on a show, wasting time and money for something that doesn't have enough votes, either for Repubs or Dems? How about if Reid does the nuclear option with a straight up vote. Would you be happy then?

grumpy

Yep, especially after Nov elections when the other party takes control... and does the same thing. will that be making you happy then? I can make hypotheticals about nonsense as much as any other fool at a keyboard. Does it change anything to make hypotheticals?

Donegan

Voting whether for or against legislation lets the citizens know what their representatives are for and against it. Back room deals do not show the hypocrisy in Washington and the people need to see it to get a handle on who represents them and who does not. It is not a waste of time if you pay attention. Reading propaganda 24/7 gives the people absolutely no idea of who they are voting for. Hillary's voting record for example, She is known to vote FOR wars, For the patriot act, Supports the NDAA and the TPP trade agreements. Without voting we would never know the half of it. Some learn from the votes, Others get caught up in what letter is behind the name.

The Big Dog's back

Yes, Repubs vote in lockstep everytime. And all of those things that you said Hillary voted for all came to fruition. So you like wasting the country's time and money? It's not a backroom deal when you don't have enough votes. Take some time and see how the Senate works. So do you want the Dems to use the nuclear option? Plenty of votes then. You might not like the turnout though.

Donegan

It is all about seeing HOW they vote. Did you like any of those laws when voted in? The more informed the voters the better choices they can usually make if they pay attention.
As for using the Nuclear option if they do it shows that things need to change if the majority does not like what they ram down our throats. For example the ACA, You notice the House was lost to the opposition because of it. The people saw what happens when the Democrats were fully in charge and voted accordingly. Ramming stuff through is not exactly a strong point for your definition of a democracy.
I know how the Senate works, It is to vote on legislation that is passed through the house (That's where legislation is supposed to be introduced)NOT Obstructed by the majority Fuhrer because he does not want to embarrass his party by their votes and outing them on who owns them.

sugar

Corruption from the top down. I for one sick to death of these pols and their games.
We do have some recourse, vote, vote them all out.

ladydye_5

I agree Sugar....vote every single one out. Start over. No more career politicians. If the President has term limits why not Congress too. That is something that seriously needs to be dealt with. Along with all the piggy back bills. When a bill is before Congress only put ONE item on it. No more complete nonsense, unneeded, unrelated bullcrap on bills. One item at a time. When will Congress and the government go back to the People? What happened to that? Seems when you listen to conversations while out and about, noone is really happy with any part of the government right now, Republican or Democrat alike. Young, old, white, black, Hispanic, rich, poor, I find it hard to hear anyone talk highly of what is going on. Vote them all out and start over.

knowitall

Starting over will only delay the inevitable. They will be sucked into the abyss of nothingness that the inept congress seems to be now. It is the system that is bad. Changing the players won't change that. The founding fathers wanted a division of government for a reason. The system has been manipulated since it was first established.

Pterocarya frax...

You are absolutely correct. Look how well term limits has fixed Ohio's state government...not.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Term limits for Congress won't be a silver bullet in and of itself, but it is a wonderful first step to take toward rooting out the cronies and GOBs we currently see. I don't know about you, Pter, but I'm pretty sick of people who have been in Congress a decade longer than I have been alive. Term limits is a progressive step in the right direction, though more steps would have to come afterwards.

The Big Dog's back

A term limits negative point is that in the final term of whomever, what incentive do they have to do anything?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

It seems to be the opposite. That many do much (some would complain too much). However let's look at our current Congress, without term limits, and see just how much incentive they have to do anything other than campaign and sling mud at each other?

You run, you serve a limited amount of time, then you become a citizen again subject to the same laws you helped pass. That's how it should be. Shake out the stagnation and get fresh ideas, progressive action into Congress so it is current with our times.

The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 113th Congress was 57.0 years; and of Senators, 62.0 years.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R429...

Many of those people have been in Congress for a few decades and some a decade longer than I have been alive in total. THIS is why nothing changes because Congress doesn't change. Where's the incentive?

Check out the reelection rates in Congress. Don't worry, this isn't partisan at all. Stare into the problem we have with our Congress:

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigp...

Term limits is a progressive, little-d democratic necessity if we want truly representative government that isn't rife with GOBs and crony ties. It keeps the system flushed and allows the old, rancorous wounds to heal.

Best of all it is completely non-partisan and will not disproportionately mis/under represent anyone. In fact it will empower MORE people to run and have their voices heard. I'd love to have your support for Congressional term limits, Big Dog. That is a genuine sentiment.

Gardenman

Ever since Obama was elected the majority of Republicans in Congress have done nothing but obstruct and hinder doing things positive for the American people. For 6 years this is all we have seen. I don't think they obstruct for Obama is Black or a Democrat etc its obstruction because they lost the election for President in 2008 and 2012.

I firmly believe if Jesus Christ was President and they would work against him if he said I am a Democrat.

I hope the Republicans go right on ahead with all their games of lawsuits and threatened impeachment etc. I think in the end where it counts the most it will come back to hurt then and their actions will haunt them for years to come.

CommonsenseNow

The democrats do not compromise their hard left ideology as a group and are the true party of “no.” A study of the 112th congressional record revealed that 90 percent of House Democrats voted against conservative legislative bills 81 percent or more of the time. Only 21 percent, however, of House Republicans voted for conservative legislative bills 80 percent or more of the time. Compare 90 percent (democrat unity) with 21 percent (republican unity). Republicans were all over the board. I am not a fan of either party. But the dems are in complete lock-step. They DON'T COMPROMISE. And I would leave Jesus's name out of this.

The Big Dog's back

By the time it comes to a vote compromises should have been made. But when you're not let in to the discussions why would Dems vote for something they had no input on?

freespeech1

Kinda like obamacare huh puppy!!! Closed door meetings. What happened to his campaign promise of bills

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

http://www.politifact.com/truth-...

The Big Dog's back

Repubs had plenty of input on the ACA. A lot of their ideas were put in the bill.

freespeech1

But there were many closed door meetings for dems only, not my idea of transparency

CommonsenseNow

The ACA was passed when the dems had a supermajority in both houses. Passed House 219-212: 219 democrats and 0 republicans voted to pass. Passed Senate 60-39: 58 democrats, 2 independents (who caucus with dems), and 0 republicans voted to pass.

The Big Dog's back

So no sense, are you telling me Repubs vote in lockstep? That's funny because when they were campaigning in 2012, Repubs acted like the ACA was their idea.

deertracker

The Heritage Foundation ring a bell?

grumpy

hillarycare ring a bell? that was years before Heritage made their article. hillary tried to push her idea before congress and was shot down in flames... remember? Does that ring a bell? I can go back further for examples of national healthcare if it means anything. Heritage was not the first nor was hillary. How far back can we go for examples?

The Big Dog's back

romneycare ring a bell?

grumpy

Yes that came after Heritage and hillarycare. Do you have a point or are you just stating all you know about the subject? romneycare was NOT a national healthcare policy, it was statewide. The others were national, romneycare is not in the same catagory.

The Big Dog's back

Says you.

grumpy

what do you say is wrong with what I wrote? romneycare being a statewide healthcare? the others being national healthcare? That there were other nationaql healthcare plans brought up before that went nowhere? Or are you just making noise again? Just showing your foolishness?

knowitall

What did Senator McConnell say early into Obam's term? Wasn't it something like the republicans goal is to stop Obama from being able to do anything? Well, surprise. Ain't goina happen. Now they revert to suing, impeach, filibuster, stall, ignore, etc.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Sen. McConnell is a relic from a bygone age and needs to quietly retire to some rolling hills in his home state. He is doing nobody any favors by saying such things between naps. Or maybe he and Sen. Reid can go somewhere on a permanent fishing trip. Just relax and try to enjoy the rest of their days in a place that isn't D.C. so they can see what we little folk have to deal with all the time.

Contango

Re: "if Jesus Christ was President,"

JC already covered that.

See: MK 12:17

A straw man.

coasterfan

Excellent comments, Gardenman.

wasthere

@Gardenman......For the first two years Obama was in office, the dems had control of both the House and the Senate and yet, he chose to do nothing but fly around the country and talk about "the past administration". Why doesn't the democrats remember that when they constantly complain about the Congress? In no way am I defending Congress, but I wouldn't defend ANY politician in Washington right now.

The Big Dog's back

Obama got a lot done the 1st 2 years. You right wingnuts just refuse to admit it.

wasthere

List those accomplishments dog crap.

The Big Dog's back

I've listed his accomplishments before.

grumpy

Yes they were so magnificently meaningless, no one remembers any of them. except for the piece of crap obamacare fiasco.

The Big Dog's back

Just because you won't acknowledge them doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Donegan

Ramming a agenda that has caused more harm than good is not exactly something to brag about. Stalin achieved a lot the first few years he was in power too, Not the best of thing but a lot of it.

knowitall

Did nothing? He did not focus on the economy but passed the biggest and most important piece of social legislation since LBJ and Medicare. Health care for Americans is a good thing.

Wjones44

Obama set us back 20 years

wallyworld16

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

knowitall

Impeachment will take a long time. Why do you want to impeach the congress anyway?

Contango

Re: "Obama of exceeding his powers in a range of areas, saying he has enforced provisions he likes and ignored others."

Every president pushes the boundaries of Executive Power, but the L'enfant terrible-in-Chief has carried it to the extremes.

Biden for President - 2014

Contango

Pres. Obama: "Stop just hatin’ all the time"

Our Ghetto talker-in-Chief.

See? Regardless of the fact that I grew up privileged and I'm in the 1%, I can talk just like you.

What's next, a speech given in Ebonics? lol

http://www.reuters.com/article/2...

Dr. Information

@Contango. To be fair, he does have to find a way to talk to those who voted him in.

Contango

Re: "voted him in."

But you know as well as I that blacks alone couldn't have put his incompetent *ss in the WH.

Now he doesn't care. Which makes him even more socio-politically dangerous.

FLOTUS said that his next election is in Nov.:

http://www.politico.com/story/20...

The Big Dog's back

Obama puts the olive branch out and the Repubs take a chainsaw to it.

Donegan

"We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," B. Soetoro.
The only thing he uses branches for is to prod his goons into abusing their powers to target citizens based on political affiliations.

The Big Dog's back

Actually the way this Congress works, or should I say doesn't work, they are the people's enemy. Less than 10% approval rating? You tell me what they are.

Donegan

I like them stopping government. The less the government does the better. Seems the only thing they actually do in this government is whittle away at the constitution and spend money.
Its known as checks and balances, Right now i like the government held in check.

The Big Dog's back

So you like that 24 billion bill when they shut down the Gov? I thought you didn't like the Gov spending money it doesn't have.

Donegan

That 24 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the 17.7 TRILLION they have spent while they are in session. Thats ALL they do is spend our money and infringe on our constitutional rights.
Heres a Idea, They take your paycheck, All of it and pay for those illegals. Leave me out of it.

deertracker

Every time BD!

wasthere

You know the difference between an olive branch and weed?

CommonsenseNow

He does not overthink things when marketing his message to the public. He doesn't not use the words “fiscal responsibility” or “free markets.” Instead, he picks a line and repeats it over and over and over again: e.g., war on women (it should really be war on blacks since dem policies have resulted in 36 percent of their population being wiped out due to abortion; 33% of abortions today are amongst blacks even though they are only 12.7% of the population); party of no; don’t pay their fair share; etc. He then gets lots of exposure on his message (he likes the word "hate;" he used it with a college audience the other week to describe his opposition). If someone hears it often enough and from enough people, they will believe it without question or examination. It is nothing you can't find in a Marketing 101 book.

Contango

Re: "It is nothing you can't find in a Marketing 101 book."

Spot on!

The late Ted White wrote those great "Making of a President" books.

He noted that we like our politicians nicely packaged like soap powder.

Mr. Obama often allows the truth to slip out when he's gone off-script.

The Big Dog's back

Lack of commonsense, why don't you tell us where you got your info from? briethbart? beck? Who?

CommonsenseNow

It's called my own brain. I know the concept is almost impossible for you to imagine. But as I have always told you, Doggie Dog, there is hope for everyone. Unplug from the feeding tubes of your political party. It may be hard at first. But you may come to see a whole new world.

CommonsenseNow

You know, doggie, you don't really irritate me. As I have continued to say, my pick isn't with us folks at the bottom, outside the Washington bubble. There is a lot more things going on that threaten us than each other's name calling. Read up on how an EMP attack could wipe us out, and then tell me why it isn't being addressed. Read up on Thorium and why China is going to own the world because they now have an unlimited supply of energy. Get above your partisanship; it makes people stupid; it is petty and distracts from the real crap going on that will sneak up on us and take us down.

The Big Dog's back

So it's all in your right wingnut brain huh? Figures, no real facts to back up what you say.

The Big Dog's back

Oh, and like I said before, I don't read alex jones bullspit.

CommonsenseNow

Thanks for the love note. Going to go out on a bike ride and enjoy the evening. I suggest you get out in the fresh air also. Will do you some good. Cheers! xoxo. Hahahahahaha.

coasterfan

Re: Obama's comment to "Stop Being a Hater", I'm pretty sure he was talking to people exactly like Contango.

In one short paragraph, Contango linked Obama to the ghetto and to the 1%. Apparently, his mouth was frothing to the point that he didn't realize that he was contradicting himself. Typical ultra-conservative.

Contango

Re: "linked Obama to the ghetto and to the 1%."

Pres. Obama doesn't often purposely not conjugate his words in order to sound ghetto?

"Samuel L Jackson's extraordinary rant at Obama for trying to 'relate' by dropping his g's"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...

Thought he was 'supposedly' a great speaker?

Pres. Obama isn't part of the 1%?

deertracker

He said "Stop just hatinG all the time" What's ghetto about that and what do you know about the ghetto? Hater!!!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear...

Really are you ...

Sue the President of the United States. Right! Impeach maybe. If congress is going to place a lawsuit on the POTUS for overstepping his authority... Really? On here last I heard, this president was the worst, because he wasn't doing enough. We, the people, need to slap a lawsuit on congress. for two decades worth of uselessness. Not maintaining a standard, unless the standard has been, do not compromise or agree on anything. Kicking the national debt can down the road... So of they place a lawsuit on the President, who is paying for it? If they seek a monetary value and win the suit, who gets the money? Our whole upper level government needs replaced. They all have, and have been, failing the US citizen for years.

I say, because of their failure, replace all of the congressmen and congresswomen with prior service military personnel. Why? To get people in there that are going to do things to make America strong again. With all new fresh people in office, there will no ties to lobbyists. Besides, what is the worst a non military congressperson has experienced in life? A power outage? What is the worst they have seen? a homeless person. A prior service person has had to endure some type of extreme stress with an instilled desire to succeed ( bare minimum, basic training and AIT.). No political ties, no lobbyist ties, just a good old fashion "this needs done, let's do it" attitude.

Contango

Re: "We, the people, need to slap a lawsuit on congress."

Congress is: "We the People."

I don't believe that it's legally or even constitutionally possible to sue the ENTIRE Congress.

Sitting reps and senators are also difficult to remove.

coasterfan

If only Congress WERE "We the People". They have a 10% approval rating because they DON'T represent the people.

The whole GOP mindset is absolute nonsense. This president has done nothing that is even remotely impeachable, especially considering that the last president didn't get impeached for far bigger transgressions/mistakes.

These are people who think 4 dead at Benghazi is a bigger problem than thousands of dead on 9/11, Iraq & Afghanistan, and that the economy/jobs are actually worse under Obama than under Bush. Until they can join the land of reality, it's really difficult to have a sensible conversation with them.

Contango

Re: "If only Congress WERE 'We the People'"

Sorry Sport, the U.S. is a representative democracy.

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

Re: "approval rating,"

The only ones that matter are called elections and they are held periodically.

deertracker

Good to know you believe in elections and they matter!

The Big Dog's back

Oh ,yeah, got the pooh on that one. Elections do matter now pooh huh?

knowitall

Yes, elections matter enough to the republicans that they want to hinder democrats from voting by making it more difficult to register.

wasthere

Democrats aren't able to get to the polls as quick as the republicans? These democrats that you talk about must not be the same ones that can make it to the mall or the bars or the tattoo shop on time?

The Big Dog's back

That would be the trailer trash rednecks you are referring to.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Coasterfan, it's really difficult to have a sensible conversation with you because you do things like dislike the last President but excuse the SAME behavior by this one, continue to repeat the quantity of orders trumps what is in them, be blatantly partisan, fail to provide citations for your points, and implying that Congress is somehow wholly GOP run/led. You also compare net to gross numbers and a whole host of other manipulative language tactics for which I have called you out on frequently.

If you want a conversation, let's have one. But I'm not going to allow you to post hypocritical, partisan garbage while claiming to want to talk things out civilly and as mature adults. I do thank the fact you don't call people names as well as use proper spelling and grammar.

The President has done impeachable things just as the last one has. However, it would seem that Congress is too cowardly to put a stop to the abuse of the station and power of President. So we see the same garbage regurgitated over and over, always ratcheting up because no line was made. I have no clue why you, a supposedly educated man, enjoys "catch me if you can" Presidents and don't actually seek progressive measures to rein in this kind of mentality and behavior.

Nope, the same tired status quo for you. Very stereotypically Republican of you.

The Big Dog's back

I love it when you chastise us Libs while regurgitating your SOS. Don't beat me masta, I won't say it again. Please don't beat me.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Yet nothing you said has disproved the points I was making to coasterfan. Thus, I can only presume I am correct? You or coasterfan can politically cry out the sky is green every day, but I will continue my "SOS" and regurgitate that it is blue...because it is blue. No matter what you say or how many times you say it.

There's nothing complex to it. It's not a part of a grand scheme nor right-wing conspiracy. You don't like President Bush? Fair enough. Now hold this President to a higher standard and stop making excuses. Do you believe the quantity of something surpasses what the something does? Then you should write to Sen. Brown and ask murder laws be amended that if a person is shot or stabbed less than three times it shouldn't be murder. After all, quantity counts, not what a single act itself did.

Do you see? This has nothing to do with me being partisan or "picking on" someone. Did you read my remark to Dr. Information when he made a wholly inappropriate comment about the President's college-bound daughter? I'm tired of seeing supposedly smart people beat their heads into walls when they don't have to do that. It helps nobody!

How is it that I seem to be the progressive one when talking to older "progressives" like yourself and coasterfan? If you or he want an honest conversation I am all for it! Just leave the party at the door and let's talk facts as people, not parties. There are some sacred cows that will have to be put to pasture if we want to really have change we can believe in.

CommonsenseNow

* Twice as many soldiers died under Obama in Afghanistan than Bush.
* If you are so simple minded to think that "4 dead at Benghazi" is the entire point, then you really need to get up to speed.
* The economy/job numbers are highly manipulated; if you are simply a "one-stepper" (give me one number, one piece of information that will verify what i WANT to believe) and never look past the unemployment and job numbers, you will never know the true picture. You pick. Give me your proof the economy is doing better and let's have a real conversation looking at how those numbers were derived.

But doesn't sound like you want to know. You are happy with one-steps and two labels ... and of course it all makes you feel so smart and smug.

Really are you ...

What is the worst a deployed military person has seen? The worst is probably classified. But the experience gained would be invaluable. That experience is raw, and life seen at its lowest point from foreign conflicts up close and personal.

The Big Dog's back

The only reason the Repubs haven't tried to impeach the President yet is because it would hurt their chances in November. People need to know if Repubs keep the majority in the House and gain seats in the Senate, the next 2 years nothing will get done, like now. Right wingnuts won't have a problem spending a 100 plus millions on this.

meowmix

Maybe they could ring up old Ken Starr to see what is has been up to these days eh? Hell, it only cost the taxpayers $65 million to impeach President Clinton. Ken might offer a discount to congress to pursue President Obama!

Contango

Re: "Ken Starr,"

The man was just doin' the job that he was asked to do.

The character assassination by the Clinton political machine was wholly mean-spirited.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

It'd be nice if our President or AG Holder would actually appoint an independent council once in a while to look into things. But they don't seem to be too concerned by anything that is going on to do such a thing.

As for your figure? It is false in that all that money wasn't used just for Clinton's impeachment (brought on by lying to a Federal court, not by his sexual romp). The total you mention was also including the money spent to investigate the Clintons' corrupt Whitewater land deal and a few other misdeeds by the former first family.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/s...

grumpy

re: "As for your figure? It is false in that all that money wasn't used just for Clinton's impeachment (brought on by lying to a Federal court, not by his sexual romp). The total you mention was also including the money spent to investigate the Clintons' corrupt Whitewater land deal and a few other misdeeds by the former first family."

It is always about the cover-up... not the original mis-deed. Same as with Nixon, it wasn't the burglary that brought him down it was the cover-up and what was found when they started looking. It is never about the mis-deed. Both Nixon and Clinton found that out. Some folks have trouble seeing the problems with covering up "small" wrongs when you are in public office. After all it was just sex.. it was just a robbery... it was just a lie...

The Big Dog's back

I didn't know the Clinton's were convicted of anything to do with Whitewater. Do you know something I don't?

Contango

Read the Starr Report when it came out in the Chicago Trib.

Helped illustrate the finer weaseling talents of "Slick Willie."

Always enjoyed that he stated that he was "mentoring" Monica.

'Interesting' euphemism. :)

The Big Dog's back

Tell me again what the Clintons were convicted of.

Contango

Re: "convicted of."

Pres. Clinton: Lying under oath.

The Big Dog's back

With Whitewater moron.

meowmix

See Big Dog?? They bring up crap that has/had nothing to with my original point. Good god, Clinton lied about getting a BJ in the oval office. REALLY???

knowitall

Wouldn't you?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I certainly brought something up to match your original point and it has yet to be rebutted. I read others' posts before replying to them, especially if I challenge that person to something they said. As for your quick dismissal of President Clinton? It isn't about what he lied (though that itself has other perceptions/ramifications), it is the fact that: HE. LIED. TO. A. FEDERAL. COURT.

That NORMALLY puts people in jail. And you want to just give a pass to people who lie in Federal court under oath? What is wrong with you? Is this the leadership you crave? You want someone as President who can just look someone in the eye and lie to them...in court of all places...let alone to the American public about a whole slew of other things?

wasthere

Something like the 3.7 billion your hero wants to spend on the "illegals" right?

knowitall

Here we go! The party of no frivolous lawsuits wants to start a frivolous lawsuit.

The Big Dog's back

Exactly.

grumpy

The repubes aren't against frivolus lawsuits. They are for loser pays. Not the same thing. But it would kill your talking point to be accurate in you example. When the loser has to pay both sides lawyer expenses it tends to stop stupid lawsuits. I take it from your comments that now you wish to back loser pays?

The Big Dog's back

Bullspit! they made frivolous lawsuits an issue in their campaign.

The Big Dog's back

http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/gop-n...

You're so full of it. Tort reform ring a bell? Now go back to bed.

grumpy

How is tort reform backing friviolous lawsuits? it is about limiting personal injury payouts? Have you ANY idea about what you write? Your link was to a opinion piece that was about some repubes that want to bring a law suit against the president... not about a political party tyhat wants to bring a lawsuit. Note iopinion piece, and individual, not party. There is a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor...

The Big Dog's back

Go bad to bed. When you wake up maybe you can join the big boy conversation.

pntbutterandjelly

(1) Establish term limits
(2) abolish all lobbying
(3) Each candidate gets "x" amount of money for campaigns and no more
(4) Term limits for SCOTUS
(5) None of this will ever happen

knowitall

I pick door number 5.

KURTje

Some people still angry he got re-elected again.