John Boehner and Republicans just voted to sue the President.

[esmith]

As you stated previously, you do not much understand Constitutional law, and you have made some mistakes in the past on this, including above. Executive orders are not unconstitutional and have been used by all Presidents, and I'll betcha you complaineth not when "W" Bush, who used them more than Obama, was president.

Maybe if you watched something other than the Fox Propaganda Channel you wouldn't be making so many mistakes. BTW, I spent a lot of time teaching the Constitution in my political science classes since all federal law must refer back to it directly or indirectly.

So, "I rest my case".

Look metis, you obviously have a fixation about certain news channels and your mistaken assumptions of what or who I disagree with has no bearing on the current issue. I assume that you think that you know Constitutional law better than a Constitutional lawyer, fine; so be it. However, I am going to go with a Constitutional lawyer before a political science teacher. Would you please explain, since you seem to think you know Constitutional law better than a Constitutional lawyer, why you disagree with Jonathan Turley, and explain why he is wrong.

You may have rested your case but you have not given any evidence that proves your point.

 

[metis]

Look metis, you obviously have a fixation about certain news channels and your mistaken assumptions of what or who I disagree with has no bearing on the current issue. I assume that you think that you know Constitutional law better than a Constitutional lawyer, fine; so be it. However, I am going to go with a Constitutional lawyer before a political science teacher. Would you please explain, since you seem to think you know Constitutional law better than a Constitutional lawyer, why you disagree with Jonathan Turley, and explain why he is wrong.

You may have rested your case but you have not given any evidence that proves your point.

There are constitutional lawyers on different sides of just about any spectrum you can think of. And you repeatedly have shown you do indeed have a "fixation" with Fox "News".

As far as executive orders are concerned, you can have easily looked that up, but apparently that way too much to expect from you. So, here's a source that at least will provide you with some information: Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, a reminder that Obama taught constitutional law, but that certainly ain't gonna phase you one iota. Your partisanship knows no bounds, and I certainly ain't the only one here that's commented on that-- "fair and balanced" you ain't. So, go right ahead and keep posting more Limbaughesque nonsense-- like he, all you do is spout partisan nonsense.

 

[tytlyf]

I think Obama knows what he's doing. He taught Constitutional Law as well.

In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book.[44][45] He then taught at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law

 

[esmith]

There are constitutional lawyers on different sides of just about any spectrum you can think of. And you repeatedly have shown you do indeed have a "fixation" with Fox "News".

As far as executive orders are concerned, you can have easily looked that up, but apparently that way too much to expect from you. So, here's a source that at least will provide you with some information: Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, a reminder that Obama taught constitutional law, but that certainly ain't gonna phase you one iota. Your partisanship knows no bounds, and I certainly ain't the only one here that's commented on that-- "fair and balanced" you ain't. So, go right ahead and keep posting more Limbaughesque nonsense-- like he, all you do is spout partisan nonsense.

I think Obama knows what he's doing. He taught Constitutional Law as well.

He "lectured" on Constitutional law. Obama will press his executive powers as far as he can as any president will do. In Obama's case it appears that he has overstepped his authority as Professor Turley has stated.
Yes, I am a partisan conservative and will do my best to insure that certain conservative principles are followed. Yes, I watch Fox News and Fox Business. Do I agree with everything they put forth? No, but I find that they are just about the only news program that will cover certain issues within the news. You accuse me of "spouting partisan nonsense", yet you and others are just as partisan. I am more considerate of those that hold opposite views from mine not unlike some on this forum. Case in point "nonsense"!

 

[metis]

He "lectured" on Constitutional law. Obama will press his executive powers as far as he can as any president will do. In Obama's case it appears that he has overstepped his authority as Professor Turley has stated.
Yes, I am a partisan conservative and will do my best to insure that certain conservative principles are followed. Yes, I watch Fox News and Fox Business. Do I agree with everything they put forth? No, but I find that they are just about the only news program that will cover certain issues within the news. You accuse me of "spouting partisan nonsense", yet you and others are just as partisan. I am more considerate of those that hold opposite views from mine not unlike some on this forum. Case in point "nonsense"!

You have been the master of stereotypes, which is why I put you on my ignore list previously because of that and your penchant for personal insults.

As one who grew up in a Republican family and mostly voted Republican earlier on, today's Republican Party is not the same party my parents and I used to support decades ago. OTOH, do I always agree with Obama? Absolutely not, but I could see why you would think I do as your incessant use of stereotypes clouds your vision.

Anyhow, enough is enough-- the court(s) will decide this.

 

[esmith]

Let me ask a very simple question.
How would those of you who object to the complaints against Obama's executive orders and possible violation of the Constitution feel if the following occurred.

Sometime in the near future a President issues an executive order stating that abortions after the 9th week of pregnancy is illegal unless it is to save the mothers life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let me ask a very simple question.
How would those of you who object to the complaints against Obama's executive orders and possible violation of the Constitution feel if the following occurred.

Sometime in the near future a President issues an executive order stating that abortions after the 9th week of pregnancy is illegal unless it is to save the mothers life.

That an expensive and silly lawsuit is the dumbest and least productive way of fighting against it.

 

[esmith]

Let me ask a very simple question.
How would those of you who object to the complaints against Obama's executive orders and possible violation of the Constitution feel if the following occurred.

Sometime in the near future a President issues an executive order stating that abortions after the 9th week of pregnancy is illegal unless it is to save the mothers life.

That an expensive and silly lawsuit is the dumbest and least productive way of fighting against it.

Just wondering if you read the my post? You referenced it, but it appears your response doesn't address the question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just wondering if you read the my post? You referenced it, but it appears your response doesn't address the question.

There are Constitutional procedures in place, and democratically defeating an unpopular motion is far more better, realistic, and cheaper than resorting to the new American past-time of suing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It seems that there are those that are willing to give Obama a pass on anything that he wants to do; However if a president does not exemplify their social and political views attempted to do the same thing there would be those ( in Congress) calling for his impeachment as was the case in 2005. So, again for those of you who do not have the education to determine the necessity for stopping the current president or future president for overstepping his or her Constitutional authority I suggest you listen to those that are Constitutional lawyers and those that do not see the ongoing and future current Constitutional crisis as a problem are a problem. I rest my case.

No one is giving him a pass...it's just I don't see how the lawsuit has merit given this was something the previous administration did and on more than one occasion as well....and the fact that congressional republicans actually wanted him to do exactly what he did. Just the other day they voted to proceed with the lawsuit but turned right around a day later and said that the president didn't need their permission to do something about the border issue. So if he did do something that would be him taking "executive action".....:areyoucra

 

[esmith]

No one is giving him a pass...it's just I don't see how the lawsuit has merit given this was something the previous administration did and on more than one occasion as well....and the fact that congressional republicans actually wanted him to do exactly what he did. Just the other day they voted to proceed with the lawsuit but turned right around a day later and said that the president didn't need their permission to do something about the border issue. So if he did do something that would be him taking "executive action".....:areyoucra

It seems that the consensus of those that see no need for this action is for the reason "previous administrations" have done it so why now. Well, maybe it is time to put a stop to presidents assuming more and more power that was not granted to them by the Constitution. Each president has had a tendency to take more and more "power" into the Executive branch of the government. Is it not possible that if this continues there will really be no reason to have a Congress, just let the President do what he wants. This president has made it quite clear that if the Congress will not do what he wants he will take executive actions to implement his agenda. It is time to stop this overreaching of presidential powers once and for all and make it clear to this president and future presidents that the power rest with the people not the president.

 

[tytlyf]

This president has made it quite clear that if the Congress will not do what he wants he will take executive actions to implement his agenda.

Yep, and rightfully so. When you have republicans in congress with abysmal approval ratings (TP types even worse), then there is a reason for such actions. If republicans would increase their approval rating and actually do something, then this wouldn't be required.
Republicans can blame themselves. Sue all you want, democrats invite it.

 

[Tarheeler]

It seems that the consensus of those that see no need for this action is for the reason "previous administrations" have done it so why now.
...

You should probably stop making assumptions, esmith. You don't seem to be very good at it.

There is no need for this action because nothing wrong or improper has been done. The office of the President has always retained the authority and ability to use executive action in this capacity as the Chief Executive. It doesn't matter what side of the isle the President comes from, nor does it matter what issue is being addressed; executive discretion has been used by all presidents, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court time after time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It seems that the consensus of those that see no need for this action is for the reason "previous administrations" have done it so why now. Well, maybe it is time to put a stop to presidents assuming more and more power that was not granted to them by the Constitution. Each president has had a tendency to take more and more "power" into the Executive branch of the government. Is it not possible that if this continues there will really be no reason to have a Congress, just let the President do what he wants. This president has made it quite clear that if the Congress will not do what he wants he will take executive actions to implement his agenda. It is time to stop this overreaching of presidential powers once and for all and make it clear to this president and future presidents that the power rest with the people not the president.

And House Republicans made it clear that if Obama does what they want, they'll sue him. It's true of every president, but it seems Obama is especially cursed to "Damned if I do, damned if I don't."
And good luck on getting people to vote, or removing the electoral college. The power should be held by the common citizens, but there is so much money, lobbying, and special interests, bribery and extortion that there will need to be a monumental paradigm shift in American culture and politics to make any difference. It also doesn't help that so many are convinced this is still 1776 and all of our problems can easily be fixed by resorting to the way things were in a world that no longer exists.

 

[metis]

OK, we hear the Republican mantra that Obama is usurping the Constitution by taking unilateral action, but then Boehner comes back with saying that Obama needs to do more, such as on the issue of immigration.

 

[Willamena]

There are Constitutional procedures in place, and democratically defeating an unpopular motion is far more better, realistic, and cheaper than resorting to the new American past-time of suing.

New?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some related info in today's news....
Five myths about impeachment - The Washington Post

Note: Infer nothing from this post.
I know some wanna...but don't.

 

[esmith]

I still have not seen any response to the question I asked in post #26. Is it that you are afraid to answer it?

 

[Tarheeler]

I still have not seen any response to the question I asked in post #26. Is it that you are afraid to answer it?

I've explained why I won't engage in your hypotheticals in the past. If you're having a bout of "CRS", you can always peruse our past exchanges to refresh your memory.

 

[metis]

I still have not seen any response to the question I asked in post #26. Is it that you are afraid to answer it?

An executive order cannot go against a SCOTUS decision.