http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/25/boehner-plans-to-file-suit-against-obama-over-alleged-abuse-executive-power/

HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER TO FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA OVER ALLEGED ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE POWER

6/25/2014 12:25:23 PM

I bet Obama pronounces his name Boner, and only refers to him as "Boner"

That's what this is about.

6/25/2014 12:47:10 PM

6/25/2014 1:00:25 PM

6/25/2014 1:08:56 PM

So this is Boehner's plan to placate the Tea Party so he keeps his speakership. Nice.

6/25/2014 3:03:43 PM

6/25/2014 3:12:25 PM

this is about that plan to tax tanning beds

6/25/2014 3:25:55 PM

LOL and people wonder why congressional approval ratings are so abysmal (at times in single digits). They are reeking of desperation, and I will gladly hand them a shovel, because they are digging their own grave.

6/25/2014 3:38:44 PM

not to mention that Obama (with 180 executive orders) hasn't used as many Executive Orders as the previous president (291) or as many as conservative idol Reagan (381) and isn't on track to

[Edited on June 25, 2014 at 3:44 PM. Reason : added totals]

6/25/2014 3:44:12 PM

more like "about time"

this pseudo dictator needs to face justice.

6/25/2014 3:44:19 PM

its time to impeach Obama

6/25/2014 3:47:41 PM

lol. boner is such a dork

6/25/2014 4:00:29 PM

Quote :

"mep Jun 25, 2:28 p.m. When ANY govt official takes the oath of office... whatever office that is... they are bound by that oath. Obama vowed by oath to uphold the laws of the US Constitution... laws as they were passed by Congress and duly enacted into law by a Presidential signature. That oath bounds him to uphold all of the laws... not just the ones he agrees with. Nor does this give him the authority to disregard laws or alter them to suit his own agenda. (Think DOMA and Obamacare). To do otherwise is a blatant violation of service. Regardless of your views... the President is not above the law. Although Obama's use of executive orders pushes those limits. It will be GOOD to involve the judicial branch in this dispute with the legislative branch... it is why we have three branches of govt... checks and balances. Boehners action is the system at work. Be thankful for this action... for the next President may take Obama's playbook to a whole new conservative level. Then what?"

Smath74, why do you and your conservative buddies think he is a dictator anymnoreso than any previous president? What's the "aggressive unilaterialism"? Sorry, I don't have time to delve into this, and just scanning the article and the comments, nobody seems to want to talk specifics.... unless you consider "Obamacare" a specific.

6/25/2014 4:09:17 PM

As soon as Bush goes to jail then you can talk about Obama impeachment fantasies.

6/25/2014 4:21:57 PM

Quote :

"The following was sent by House Speaker John Boehner to rank-and-file Republicans about the lawsuit he intends to bring against the administration over abuse of executive authority. "For years Americans have watched with concern as President Barack Obama has declined to faithfully execute the laws of our country - ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others, and at times, creating laws of his own. Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," even if the president does not agree with the purpose of that law. Under the Constitution's separation of powers principle, only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate. On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce - at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him. On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day. Presidents have traditionally been granted a degree of latitude with respect to the enforcement of the law, and tension between the branches of our government is hardly new. But at various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained. President Obama's aggressive unilateralism has significant implications for our system of government, and presents a clear challenge to our institution and its ability to effectively represent the people. If the current president can selectively enforce, change or create laws as he chooses with impunity, without the involvement of the Legislative Branch, his successors will be able to do the same. This shifts the balance of power decisively and dangerously in favor of the presidency, giving the president king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators. It also has consequences for our economy and its ability to grow and create jobs. It's bad enough when Washington politicians force laws upon the people that make it difficult for private-sector employers to meet payrolls, invest in new initiatives and create jobs. It's even worse when those same laws are arbitrarily enforced on the whims of the individual entrusted with the responsibility of carrying them out, adding uncertainty for private-sector job creators and families on top of the challenges they already face week-to-week. Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I'm asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn't elect a monarch or king. Every Member of the People's House took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is only through strong action by the House in response to provocative executive action by the Executive Branch in the past that the separation of powers intended by the Framers has been preserved. For the integrity of our laws and the sake of our country's future, the House must act now. I intend to bring to the floor in July legislation that would authorize the House of Representatives - through the House General Counsel and at the direction of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) - to file suit in the coming weeks in an effort to compel the president to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country. The legislation would follow regular order and be considered by the Rules Committee following its introduction, prior to its consideration by the full House. Under our system of government, the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which: There is no one else who can challenge the president's failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws; There is no legislative remedy; and There is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president's failure. I believe the House must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles at stake and to protect our system of government and our economy from continued executive abuse. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our country. When this legislation is introduced in the coming weeks, I ask that you review it and join me in supporting it when it goes before the House.""

6/25/2014 5:37:20 PM

6/25/2014 6:04:35 PM

Republicans have already given up on 2016.

6/25/2014 7:08:03 PM

^that's the first thing I thought when I saw this

6/25/2014 7:51:47 PM

^^this

Also. I am very interested in the facts that Boehner will be bringing to this lawsuit. In reality I'm sure we will never see an actual suit, this is just another rally the base stunt.

6/25/2014 8:41:14 PM

^me too.

Instead of whining and tantrums, I want to see some technical legal arguments. Boehner isn't an idiot, he won't bring a suit unless he thinks there is a decent chance he can win on at least one instance (or else he's gonna look incredibly stupid and the tea party will throw him under the bus).

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but some of Obama's moves do seem a little sketch (of course I agree they are likely no worse than some past presidents)

6/25/2014 9:10:56 PM

Quote :

"this pseudo dictator needs to face justice."

So he's a fake dictator? I think you're looking for quasi.

6/25/2014 10:26:58 PM

youre right

time for democrats to take back congress

6/25/2014 10:28:09 PM

K

6/25/2014 10:47:57 PM

On a per-term basis, Obama has issued less executive orders than all but one president (Bush 41) going back to Grover Cleveland's second term.

On a per-year basis, you have go back to Chester Arthur to find a president who issued fewer executive orders than Obama.


[Edited on June 27, 2014 at 1:41 AM. Reason : ^^^ nobody ever accused him of being smart.]

6/27/2014 1:40:35 AM

^it's not about the number of executive orders, but more about what the orders are themselves.

and the term "pseudo-dictator" is a common enough phrase that some would say accurately describes what obama is (or wants to be)

6/27/2014 4:16:30 AM

i've never heard the term psuedo-dictator (although I avoid right-wing talk radio)

6/27/2014 7:19:30 AM

^^ which ones are the most egregious then?

6/27/2014 9:06:20 AM

OBAMACARE!!!1

6/27/2014 9:28:22 AM

Some might argue Obama felt it was necessary to take executive action BECAUSE of congress' inability to come to decisions, engage in bipartisan legislation, and the GOP dedication to blocking any and everything the administration might want to pursue.

The real kick in the dick here isnt that this lawsuit would be hard to win, nor is it the fact that by the time this would even hit the courts Obama would be long gone from office.... Its the fact that tax dollars will be wasted on this pointless BS.

6/27/2014 9:44:41 AM

^pretty much.

I certainly haven't agreed with some of his executive orders; and there's been some that I did agree, but I felt were overstepping his powers... but let's not pretend that congress would have gotten anything done, so Obama has done what he thinks he has to. I haven't read into this lawsuit, but I could see a scenario where I would agree with it.

[Edited on June 27, 2014 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2014 10:43:50 AM

this is going to kill Obama's legacy and approval ratings and will cause Democrats to lose seats in congress. After Clinton's impeachment trial, his approval ratings plummeted and Democrats lost so many seats in congress!



[Edited on June 27, 2014 at 10:54 AM. Reason : italics for sarcasm]

6/27/2014 10:53:58 AM

Quote :

"Some might argue Obama felt it was necessary to take executive action BECAUSE of congress' inability to come to decisions, engage in bipartisan legislation, and the GOP dedication to blocking any and everything the administration might want to pursue."

checks and balances are essential. obama is trying to skirt around them. this is the problem.

6/27/2014 12:18:30 PM

...how?

6/27/2014 12:19:17 PM

There is no doubt checks and balances are essential.... But are you SURE that is what congress is doing with their partisan bickering? Are you SURE that's what is happening by blocking any and everything the administration pursues?
Or is it a case of petty and childish obstruction masquerading as checks and balances? Yeah, that's it.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain how the administration has been skirting the checks and balances system moreso that other administrations?

Back to the original point though... This lawsuit still would not address any perceived skirting of the checks and balances system. Its pointless.

6/27/2014 2:01:13 PM

petty and childish obstruction IS a check and balance.

6/27/2014 6:10:44 PM

^ So are executive orders

6/27/2014 8:43:53 PM

See when Obama decides to have his administration use the powers that past Congresses have given to the Executive Branch, it's an abuse of power, but when it comes to overstepping your authority IOKIYAR!

Quote :

"I bet Obama pronounces his name Boner, and only refers to him as "Boner" That's what this is about."

For srs, every time I've heard Obama say Boehner's name, he pronounces it "BAY-nurr" which is about as close as you can get while still using sounds in the English language; however, some dolts who make the Left look bad do pronounce it like that and when I see a liberal Facebook page post something like that to mock him (or his skin tone) I'm SMDH.

6/27/2014 10:14:15 PM

Executive orders are part of the constitution. Boehner hates the constitution and America.

6/28/2014 12:38:08 AM

Quote :

"petty and childish obstruction IS a check and balance. ^ So are executive orders"

exactly. there you have it folks; business as usual.

carry on.

^except for this guy (he sucks).

6/28/2014 10:04:39 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/politics/boehner-obama-impeachment/

Quote :

"House Speaker John Boehner flatly denied Tuesday that congressional Republicans are moving to impeach President Barack Obama, blasting talk about it as "a scam started by Democrats at the White House." "We have no plans to impeach the President. We have no future plans," Boehner told reporters after a weekly meeting with GOP members. Boehner said "this whole talk about impeachment" comes from "the President's own staff" and from congressional Democrats."

7/30/2014 3:23:28 PM

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/
Democrats Are Way More Obsessed With Impeachment Than Republicans




[Edited on July 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

7/30/2014 3:24:28 PM

Shouldn't the title of the article be, "Democrats smartly capitalize on the republican fringe wanting to impeach Obama"?

I mean is this really a surprise to anyone? Romney made one comment about 47% of Americans and then it got repeated 10 bazillion times by democrats.

If you don't want the other side repeating what the dumb asses on your side say you shouldn't be giving them a venue to speak to the public

[Edited on July 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM. Reason : a]

7/30/2014 3:29:58 PM

they are capitalizing on the real republican desire to sue him, that wasn't an MSNBC creation

[Edited on July 30, 2014 at 3:32 PM. Reason : because it's ridiculous and fair game to make fun of]

7/30/2014 3:32:18 PM

^^ Romney wasn't fringe, he was running for president, but that's an accurate characterization of this situation.

But that doesn't make it right. It's still a ploy that serves to mischaracterize the ideology of a group of people for the purpose of clouding or confusing "real" issues.

It's similar to when republicans say liberals want to take your guns, or hate freedom, or hate businesses, or want class warfare, or aren't patriots (like TGD says), etc.. They can maybe point to one person who said this, or who they can mis-quote as saying this, and then it negatively affects all policy positions.

I'm not necessarily against fighting dirty, but if that's what this is, we should just honestly recognize this.

7/30/2014 4:04:58 PM

I wouldn't disagree with saying it's fighting dirty

But I do think it's on a slightly better level than your comparison to taking guns hating freddom, etc. Those things are gross exaggerations of anything a high profile democrat has actually said.

On the other hand, while impeachment is certainly an exaggeration of suing Obama, it's exactly what Palin and some other higher profile people have said.

Fringe or not fringe, these are people with positions of power:

http://www.dccc.org/newsroom/entry/house_republicans_refuse_to_rule_out_impeachment/

[Edited on July 30, 2014 at 4:25 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/30/2014 4:14:26 PM

House approves a lawsuit, pretty hilarious, but I could see this becoming a fiasco if it gains some momentum.

7/30/2014 10:35:43 PM

Would this be a trial before a DC district judge, panel of judges, or a jury? I wouldn't think it would go straight to the Supreme Court but idk. It would become the 21st century OJ trial as far as the media coverage... Not whether the black man on trial is guilty or innocent.

7/31/2014 8:09:38 AM

if this lawsuit moves forward it will save Obama's approval ratings and his legacy

7/31/2014 8:30:39 AM

^^lol no, none of that is ever going to happen. The lawsuit has no legal merit, it's pure political theater and they'll stop it before it ever reaches a court of law. Now, when Obama issues those immigration executive orders, you might see enough pissed off Republicans to actually try to impeach.

7/31/2014 8:45:23 AM

Boehner just said that Obama can fix the immigrant crisis with an executive order, is trolling

8/1/2014 5:34:00 PM