House Votes to Sue Obama (Updated) (Video)

I cant imagine what we could accomplish if we didn't waste the resources of government to pull political theatre at the peoples expense.....

a reply to: stirling

More of the same do nothing congress. They would rather find time to attack the opposite party rather than doing the nations business. However, I have to give the "B - I -T -C - H" award to the Republicans, since their track record of pushing for impeachment is consistent for the past two democratic presidents. If they would spend as much time developing alternative proposals rather than trying to ridicule and impeach every democratic president in office, maybe they would win some liberal votes. Suing a sitting president by voting for it along party lines, is really showing where their priority lies. This is just another shoot yourself in the foot theatrics that will only cause them to lose more votes come election time. When will they ever learn?

More worthless actions by Boehner the sock puppet Rhino, it's the same old deal which is = absolutely nothing accomplished whatsoever.

What we have here folks, is a government enabled invasion of the United States of America. Guess who is paying for that invasion? = YOU!

The lunatic, mentally deranged Democrats will continue with their policy to destroy any kind of commonsense laws that might even slightly halt this insanity, or the bankruptcy of America that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are behind.

Anyone who is not an imbecile, understands that these liars are only pretending all for future votes from millions of illegal aliens who they will grant amnesty.

I believe no Republican will ever win the Oval Office for at least 8 years after the next election if that happens.

My point is, both of these Bankster controlled parties do not care about anything other than more votes. I know, I know, it's like a broken record because here on ATS we have all heard it a thousand times before, I understand that.

Also, Some of these sell outs on both sides are complete mad men and women (like Nancy Pelosi & John McCain) and could care less about the implications of such actions on the already pathetic low job numbers here in the USA. They pretend that is not a fact. = LIARS.

It's all been said before, and until the people all rise up and demand change it will be business as usual, and if and when the most ignorant morons or pre-occupied slaves finally wake up, by then it will be far too late.

These same idiots are voting for their own demise, only they are too drugged up and stupid to even realize it as of yet, or ever for that matter.

They weigh everyone on both sides down until you feel like it's a waste of time to even try or repeat to provide the evidence that proves that these old, outdated D.C hacks in empty suits are all of our enemies, ALL of our enemies.

The number #1 first step onto the road of a possible change, is TERM LIMITS for all of these career liars and criminals that don't care about jobs or the rule of law no matter what side of the corral you are herded into.

Think for yourself, forget fake party lines. Nothing will change as long as we are all divided. They have done their work very well to prevent any kind of unity through their master of puppets controlled mass media.

Ok, I am done with the political circus side show for now. Hope you all enjoyed it. Now go back to sleep like good little cattle. Best wishes!

~$heopleNation

So they voted on the possibility of suing obama, and that the best you guys have. Geez i wonder how long this oh so scary pending possibility of a lawsuit will last.

Perhaps we are witnessing the end of the GOP.
If this is what they want to spend valuable time on, especially with what is going on presently...
I think they have collectively voted themselves out of any meaningful positions in the future of US Government.
Makes ya sick.

a reply to: bjax9er

They can sue him and the courts are required to hear the case. The issue in this case is not about obamacare or the mandates. It centers on a law being passed and signed into law, only to have the President use executive order's to "change the law", which is something he cannot do.

If Obama wanted a delay he should have worked with Congress on having them pass a modification that would legally allow the delay in implementation etc etc.

Obamas use of EO's undermines the authority of Congress and creates injuries to separation of Powers - A constitutional violation.

What I find confusing by some members on this site is they demand the government be held accountable and to stop shredding the Constitution.

Now that Congress has moved on it, the very same people complain about it being a political stunt etc. What Congress is doing is defending its authority and relevancy.

Given the situation I can see this case going to the supreme court since the core of the issue is a constitutional one. Executive orders can only be applied to the Executive branch.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It centers on a law being passed and signed into law, only to have the President use executive order's to "change the law", which is something he cannot do.

What are you babbling about? Obviously you have never even bothered to read the bill... it is not about EO's.

Obamas use of EO's undermines the authority of Congress and creates injuries to separation of Powers - A constitutional violation.

Obama has signed fewer EO's than any president since Grover Cleveland, back in 1908!

www.washingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: hellobruce
What are you babbling about? Obviously you have never even bothered to read the bill... it is not about EO's.

I did.. Apparently you failed to understand it and it is about the use of executive orders.

H.RES.676 -- Providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States. (Introduced in House - IH)

HRES 676 IH

113th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 676

Providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 22, 2014

Mr. SESSIONS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

RESOLUTION

Providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official's duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision.

Sec. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of Representatives of a decision to initiate or intervene in any civil action pursuant to this resolution.

Sec. 3. The Office of the General Counsel of the House of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall represent the House in any civil action initiated, or in which the House intervenes, pursuant to this resolution, and may employ the services of outside counsel and other experts for this purpose.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Obama has signed fewer EO's than any president since Grover Cleveland, back in 1908!

I agree. However if you look and compare the EUO's of Obama and the former Presidents, you will see the former Presidents did not try to use EO's to make Congress irrelevant. Nor did they use EO's to change / modify / nullify laws that were passed.

The ACA mandates when parts of the law go into effect. The President used executive orders to delay the mandate and several other provisions of the law.

If Congress passes a law, and the President signs it, and that law says on this day these provisions of the law kick in, the President cannot ignore it, nor can he lawfully change / modify or delay it.

Issue with laws is the purview of Congress and when conflict arises the Judicial branch.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH - CONGRESS
Article 1

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article 1 Section 8

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Please point out below where it states the President has the authority to modify laws / delay laws / ignore laws. Also please point out where it says the President can ignore / bypass Congress when the President does not get his way.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH - PRESIDENT

The president is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and of the state militias when these are called into federal service.
The president may require opinions of the principal officers of the federal government.
The president may grant reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment (i.e., the president cannot pardon himself or herself to escape impeachment by Congress).

Section 2 grants and limits the president's appointment powers:

The president may make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators who are present agree.
With the advice and consent of the Senate, the President may appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise described in the Constitution.
Congress may give the power to appoint lower officers to the President alone, to the courts, or to the heads of departments.
The president may make any of these appointments during a congressional recess. Such a "recess appointment" expires at the end of the next session of Congress.

Section 3 opens by describing the president's relations with Congress:

The president reports on the state of the union.
The Recommendation Clause:[36] The president has the power and duty[37] to recommend to Congress's consideration such measures which the president deems as "necessary and expedient".
The president may convene either house, or both houses, of Congress.
When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on the time of adjournment, the president may adjourn them to some future date.

Section 3 adds:

The president receives ambassadors.
The president sees that the laws are faithfully executed.
The president commissions all the offices of the federal government.

So yes - This is about the use of executive orders to change provisions in the ACA.

Inconsistent with their duties means taking an action that is not specifically allowed in their position. Like the President using EO's to make his own legislation.

a reply to: xuenchen

If this law suit holds up, and a politician can be sued for doing his job; does it also mean we can sew them for not doing their jobs.
It would appear the American people, as well as the economy, have been damaged on several levels by the inaction of the current congress, so mabe a class action suit is in order.
At the very least it could be something to think about. You know the courts are real big on presidence.

a reply to: teamcommander

There is absolutely no reason to sue if our elected officials dont do their job.

I say that because if people got of their butts and voted these idiots out, we would be in a better position than we are now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: teamcommander



There is absolutely no reason to sue if our elected officials dont do their job.



I say that because if people got of their butts and voted these idiots out, we would be in a better position than we are now.

O K< then why worry about suing Obama?
He will be out of office soon and we can elect someone else to do nothing.
This time,just like congress.
I know you will think that to be a good thing.

a reply to: teamcommander

If this law suit holds up, and a politician can be sued for doing his job; does it also mean we can sew them for not doing their jobs.

If this lawsuit goes forward, then I truly hope there is a counter suit filed by the executive branch.

This lawsuit just pisses me off. This is basically the right wing using OUR tax dollars to campaign. Yes, this lawsuit is nothing more than a midterm campaign tactic. Everyone in Congress that voted for this lawsuit should be censured and/or removed from office.

Nevertheless, this lawsuit will never see the light of day; as Congress can not prove that they were harmed by the POTUS delaying the mandate....in fact, they wanted it until it happened.

It's a shame that there is no cure for crazy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

They don't have standing. Especially when only half of congress is suing.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to do anything in this case.

Only the congress has the power to rein in a lawless president.

Read up on articles 1 2 and 3 of the constitution.

And no the courts are not required to take up any case.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: TiedDestructor

What did he do to be persecuted like this? Wanted to get us out of wars, wanted to get us a health system that all can go to? Just please don't answer that because I am done. Stick a fork in the Presidency for good for Republicans.

SERIOUSLY ?

There was absolutely NO REASON for the ACA.

Because a government program ALREADY EXISTED.

Called MEDICAID.

Medicaid in the United States is a social health care program for families and individuals with low income and resources. The Health Insurance Association of America describes Medicaid as a "government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care."

en.wikipedia.org...

I wonder why people IGNORE the largest healthcare 'provider' in this country is the US Government.

That accounts for over 100 million people between medicare, and medicaid.

Want to know why 'insurance' is so 'expensive' ?

Because the government has cornered the market.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Wait...didn't the Republicans like the fact that he delayed the employer mandate? Now they are suing him for it? Please set me straight if I am wrong.

Also, what happens if Obama is found "guilty"?

I guess it will be a clause to impeach. lol

I doubt this is going to go anywhere, along with impeachment.

Wait hasn't the ACA been changed over 40 times since it was passed in to 'LAW' ?

Yep.

And half of those changes have been done unilaterly by the potus himself.

www.galen.org...

'Faithful execute' the laws of this country is part of his JOB description.

Not kick the can down the road because of politics delaying, and changing it because ?

They should have actually read the GD thing before the passed it.

The People's House is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. No president should go beyond his Constitutional boundaries, and this particular administration has pushed it to the limits. He's a lawyer, and he uses our laws when it's convenient and ignores them when he wants to. It's time our House calls him out on it.

Now, we need the States to stand up to his over reach!

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Quite frankly, to me this whole thing has become a new genria of entertainment.

I think we have all heard of "political theater", I figure this should be called a "political comedy".

a reply to: queenofswords

Yes, they are, like today. The House rejects its own border crisis bill because of the tea party part of the GOP. Now they want our persecuted President to do an executive order. Which they are suing him for. Sociopaths.

originally posted by: teamcommander
O K< then why worry about suing Obama?

The House is suing Obama over abuse power.

originally posted by: teamcommander
He will be out of office soon and we can elect someone else to do nothing.

If we allow the President to continue to illegally use executive orders to make changes, why should we assume it will only be restricted to immigration or the aca.

What if Obama decides the election laws are too restrictive and he decides to use an EO to make changes to election laws?

originally posted by: teamcommander
This time,just like congress.
I know you will think that to be a good thing.

Congress is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What if Obama didn't do any of your what ifs that fill your post??
What if he is just doing what every president has done?
What if this lawsuit is completely bull?
What if it rained lemon drops and malt balls?