It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House GOP signals it could sue Obama for executive overreach

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The U.S. House is gearing up for a possible onslaught of *Obama.Executive.Orders* that may be designed to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Obama LLC has been shouting about how they can't seem to get their ways imposed through normal legal ways. Ways like negotiating and compromising to get legislations passed through Congress.

E.O.'s can be challenged in court by law, as in subject to judicial review.

The problem is, Obama could easily issue an order anyway and let the cards fall where they may long after the intended damage is done and possibly even irreversible.

We need to be extra careful because IMO, Obama has a history of using the "Opposite Intentions" debate tactic.

Some of the EOs will not be what they appear to be.

Beware of the illusions.

House GOP signals it could sue Obama for executive overreach



House Republicans are mocking President Obama's plans to circumvent Congress to achieve key policy priorities and are not ruling out suing his administration for executive overreach.

House Republican leaders spoke during a Tuesday morning news conference, just hours before Obama delivers his fifth State of the Union address. They argued that if Obama really wants to boost economic growth and living conditions for middle-class Americans, he should work with them -- not around them -- on bipartisan jobs legislation. Obama's plan to rely on executive orders to push his agenda is expected to be a major theme of Tuesday evening's speech.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, declined to rule out taking legal action against the White House if House Republicans determine that an Obama executive order unconstitutionally bypasses the legislative branch. Boehner said he does believe that Obama has the power to raise the minimum wage for employees hired to fulfill new government contracts, but said House Republicans would closely monitor the plethora of executive orders the president is vowing to pursue this year.


Checks & Balances

 




United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law[1] when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes,

E.O.'s Explained



edit on Jan-28-2014 by xuenchen because:





posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I've got my beer and snacks all ready for the State of the Union (Psychotic, BTW) speech. It should be fun.

Even have a conference call set up to a couple of buds in other states so we can talk over each other while yelling at the TV. LOL



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I get the sneaking suspicion that the SOTU address will be mostly ignored. We know what the REAL state of the union looks like... and, it isn't pretty at the moment. Mr. President, you cannot polish a turd... but feel free to have fun trying.
edit on 28-1-2014 by madmac5150 because: Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
You know, when I saw the media reporting about him possibly going with a EO this morning, it got me thinking.

Many people here complain and discuss him having been a "Constitutional Lawyer", and how he seems to completely disregard it.

Think about it. With him being that, seems it would make him brilliant at getting around the constitution. And maybe that is the whole point. (for him)

IDK

I have had it all the way around, with politicians on both sides.
A whole lot of doing whatever they want, with no care at all for the general public.

And a whole lot of nothing being done by us about it.
Well, except for a select few, who are then labeled as spies, traders, terrorists, ect.
edit on 28-1-2014 by chiefsmom because: clarify



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The sotu will sound like this


I blah blah blah.
Previous administration blah blah blah
I blah blah blah
Income inequity blah blah blah
I blah blah blah
Affordable care act / be patient blah blah
Unforeseen problems blah blah blah
Unemployment down blah blah blah
I,,,bin laden blah blah blah
Thank you and good night.

Under his breath ( suckers )



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Yeah if Obama does his EO's to make sure someone pushes a broom makes the same pay as wall street executive.

That so called 'income inequality' is suppose to be on the menu.

For example.

Skilled and unskilled labor should make the same 'wages' !

Oh yeah I can see him getting 'sued' over that.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

neo96
Yeah if Obama does his EO's to make sure someone pushes a broom makes the same pay as wall street executive.

That so called 'income inequality' is suppose to be on the menu.

For example.

Skilled and unskilled labor should make the same 'wages' !

Oh yeah I can see him getting 'sued' over that.


I heard a snippet about him pushing for federal employees minimum wage to be upped to 10 something.

Equality? loll.....in whose eyes



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


Obama and company don't even want to address the problem of that.

The biggest reason is there is more unskilled labor now than ever before mostly due to the asinine ideology he, and his party are famous for.

The only thing they want to do is put a band aid on the situation that created it, and never address the root cause.

And of course it is so people can go out and buy more stuff making them evil corporations even richer.

It is corporate fascism under a slightly hipper rap.

And here comes the EO's to exacerbate the problems.
edit on 28-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
And now we have ultra maniac John Podesta confirming the insanity.



President Obama has "warmed up" to using executive authority, and when he believes "he has the authority" to "make progress" without action by Congress, he will do it, White House adviser John Podesta told NPR Tuesday morning.

"But he doesn't like to do this, does he?" the NPR host asked Podesta.

"Uh, I think he's warmed up to it," Podesta replied, laughing.



Podesta: Obama's 'Warmed Up' to Executive Action; Will Use It for 'Climate Change and Energy Transformation Agenda'

Extreme Danger Ahead !!




posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
- en.wikipedia.org... -

IF the president issues an executive order that some people feel isn't constitutional, couldn't they simply refuse to follow it until the legislative branch rules on it's constitutionality? There is a part of me that hopes he tries something and then gets smacked down just to remind him that he isn't the SOLE leader of the U.S. and he needs to remember to work with congress instead of treating them like the enemy.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

xuenchen
And now we have ultra maniac John Podesta confirming the insanity.



President Obama has "warmed up" to using executive authority, and when he believes "he has the authority" to "make progress" without action by Congress, he will do it, White House adviser John Podesta told NPR Tuesday morning.

"But he doesn't like to do this, does he?" the NPR host asked Podesta.

"Uh, I think he's warmed up to it," Podesta replied, laughing.



Podesta: Obama's 'Warmed Up' to Executive Action; Will Use It for 'Climate Change and Energy Transformation Agenda'

Extreme Danger Ahead !!





I think Obama has always loved trying to play GOD.

What he really doesn't like is Democracy.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Myth024
 


You can even trust congress to do whats right for the people. Look at obama care....forcing Americans to buy healthcare or be penalized.
congress gave that a green light and it does nothing for most Americans but put them in a bigger hole or an early grave.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Myth024


IF the president issues an executive order that some people feel isn't constitutional, couldn't they simply refuse to follow it until the legislative branch rules on it's constitutionality? There is a part of me that hopes he tries something and then gets smacked down just to remind him that he isn't the SOLE leader of the U.S. and he needs to remember to work with congress instead of treating them like the enemy.

 


"IF the president issues an executive order that some people feel isn't constitutional, couldn't they simply refuse to follow it until the legislative branch rules on it's constitutionality?"

Probably but maybe not.

A challenge in court would have to include a petition to stay or delay until ruled on.

Otherwise, somebody could get prosecuted (or targeted).



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

shaneslaughta
reply to post by Myth024
 


You can even trust congress to do whats right for the people. Look at obama care....forcing Americans to buy healthcare or be penalized.
congress gave that a green light and it does nothing for most Americans but put them in a bigger hole or an early grave.


And to add to that point...

Obama.Care is a perfect example of a "single party" runaway Congress connected with a like minded Executive Branch.

Zero Republicans voted in favor.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Why not just do the conference call over Skype ?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

shaneslaughta
reply to post by Myth024
 


You can even trust congress to do whats right for the people. Look at obama care....forcing Americans to buy healthcare or be penalized.
congress gave that a green light and it does nothing for most Americans but put them in a bigger hole or an early grave.


(I'm guessing you meant to say "You can't.." instead of "You can...")
Part of the problem there, I feel, is that the average American doesn't see how important congressional elections are and some will simply vote along party lines without bothering to really check out a candidate. Voter turnout for congressional elections is much lower than presidential elections and many have no real idea what their representatives are actually doing. We spend so much time focusing on the failures of a president that we forget that any law has to get through congress first. Sure, the president could threaten to veto laws if congress doesn't do what he says but I feel that it would be better for congress to pass the laws they feel they should and then put the blame for any failures after that on the head of the president. If people had seen more of that type of action before the president got elected the second time, maybe he might not have been elected at all. Right now It appears to me that the president is blaming all the failures on congress instead of taking responsibility for his own failings.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

babybunnies
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Why not just do the conference call over Skype ?


My house is a mess? LOL

I don't do Skype, and only rarely text. ATS is the only social media I frequent.

I only have one moniter/TV besides, so I split the difference. Besides, I enjoy it when the cameras are on the crowd, that is always amusing.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 





Many people here complain and discuss him having been a "Constitutional Lawyer", and how he seems to completely disregard it.


Or put another way - "know thy enemy"...



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I know they won't, but I think the GOP should completely troll the SOTU. Heckle from the audience assuming they show up.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

ketsuko
I know they won't, but I think the GOP should completely troll the SOTU. Heckle from the audience assuming they show up.


Well Willie Robertson will be there !!



Tuesday night's State of the Union address may be “happy, happy, happy” with “Duck Dynasty” star Willie Robertson in attendance.

Robertson will head to D.C. as a guest of Louisiana Rep. Vance McAllister, who the reality star endorsed back in November.

"I am proud to have my close friend, constituent and small business owner, Willie Robertson, attend tonight's State of the Union Address as my special guest," McAllister said in a statement, according to E! News. "Willie is thankful for this opportunity and honored to attend. I look forward to the two of us representing the Fifth District in DC this evening and bringing some diversity to our nation's capitol."

Willie will be there !!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join