the house votes to sue Obama

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

In another act of sheer stupidity, the house has voted to sue Obama because
he has failed to implement Obamacare. Yah, they sued him to implement something
they voted to remove over 50 times. the lawsuit will crash and burn because the Congress
doesn’t have standing to sue Obama. Standing simply means Obamacare doesn’t affect
them at all. To sue in such a matter, you have to show how obamacare has hurt you
personally and congress with its goldplated health care plan doesn’t have anything to
do with obamacare. When the lawsuit fails and it will, Then the house will turn to impeachment
because they will say, a lawsuit failed and our only option is impeachment. there are several problems
beyond the lawsuit, first of all, the GOP has lost the narrative because the white house has turned
the tables on the GOP by simply bringing up impeachment at every chance it can thus forcing the
GOP to deny it is in favor of impeachment. when the GOP turns and suddenly votes to impeach in
January, they will look like idiots after saying all those months they weren’t in favor of impeachment
and now suddenly they are in favor of impeachment. Of course the right wing lacks skills in logic and
rational thinking and they will not be able to comprehend how the sudden shift will be seen by the American
public. The reason the GOP can’t vote impeachment before nov is simply because impeachment is
thought by the American public as being a really bad idea. But the bottom line is this,
The GOP now feels that every time a democrat gets elected president the GOP should vote impeachment
because they can’t win election the fair way, so they must try to win them with impeachment
and stealing elections such as in 2000, 2004. So when Hilary wins in 2016, within a short period of time
the GOP will suddenly begin the impeachment campaign because frankly that is the only thing
the GOP can do once the dems win the white house in 2016.

Kropotkin

2

They’re just so far disconnected from what it is that they’re supposed to be doing, and from the majority of the public that they actually think this will be seen as something other than a waste of time and resources when they should have been doing things to help the public. It’s shameful Peter. Just like that fake fillibuster that dude did not long ago. Total idiocy.

3

It is just the same social engineering psychology game played on the masses. Since the next Chosen president is one of strong mass disfavor, the incumbent must be made to appear bad or unworthy just before the changeover so that the masses will be more inspired (psychologically induced) to say, “Well, at least she is better that that he was”. It is used in the “mass programming” for TV soap operas all the time (since the 50-60’s).

4

This may be a rather long reply, so be warned. Precedent has been set for impeachment trials. A law suit, or civil court proceeding, against a sitting president is, however, different and there is no precedent set; it’s something new and different.

Peter, you’re correct in saying that, in order to even get to trial, the plaintiff has to show cause. In this case, the plaintiff (House) is saying that it has standing because, in not implementing one part of the Health Care Reform Act, the President has gone beyond his Constitutional power as the Executor of the law and has strayed into the power realm of the Legislative branch. This is the basis of the suit and, if accepted, would give the plaintiff standing in and of itself.

Constitutionally, the House doesn’t have the authority to start the Impeachment process. That’s a part of the Senate’s responsibilities. Can it then, as only a part of Congress, bring a civil suit against the President? That’s my first question. The House doesn’t stand alone as the entire Legislative Branch of the government. However, anyone can bring suit against anyone else, in the real world. So we’re back to legal standing, once again.

Let’s assume, though, that a Federal Court takes the case. No matter what the verdict, the ‘other side’ has the right to appeal it at a higher court. This can take months. Even expedited, the appeals process can take years to get to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is under no obligation to hear it since it chooses its own docket. This means, no matter what, the probability is that President Obama will have finished his term and left office before a final decision is made. Hopefully, everyone involved knew this.

So why do it at all? One answer is obviously the mid-terms. The GOP wants to control Congress which they hope to do by discrediting the Democratic Party through the President. Even though the House can’t start impeachment, the fact that it was even thinking about it gave it a platform from which it could broadcast the GOP’s ‘gripes’ against the President. The initial ‘tools’ the GOP used what back when the President was first elected didn’t work, so the House brought up Libya and Benghazi. The party tested the waters with that, but it did work, either. The majority of pundits didn’t believe the President’s actions in those two incidences constituted “high crimes and misdemeanors” needed for Impeachment. But the media reported it all.

The same thing is happening in quick-step with the law suit. It has created a way to publicize the GOP position against President Obama and the Democratic Party before the mid-term elections. Just as the ‘birther’ controversy won some people over, the hope now seems to be that the lawsuit will win over enough people to give the GOP control of all of Congress.

But what about the future? That’ll depend on what’s happening now, won’t it? And it should depend on an acceptable legal definition of ‘presidential orders’ to include when and how they can be used. Should something like that be put to a vote of the people since it involves the duties and responsibilities of the President? Or should it be left to the Federal Courts?

It seems to me, the last two Congresses have forgotten its role as delineated in the Constitution.

Enjoy,

Liz :slight_smile:

5

the new scenario looks kinda like this:

After the election, probable in Dec. the GOPers bring out
impeachment charges in the house. the vote will be a party line vote
and thus goes onto the senate whereas the senate will never get 67 votes to impeach,
within a month or so of the vote, the house and senate GOP will then do a government shutdown with
the threat being only by OBAMA and Biden resigning, will they return the government to
operation. This is looking like the plan of attack the GOP will use over the winter.
So look around Dec or Jan, for the ball to get rolling. By using the government shutdown
as a threat to force Obama and Biden to resign, they get the third in line into the presidency
and that is the speaker of the house, the crybaby himself, boner. this scenario becomes far
more likely if the GOP wins both house and senate, slightly less likely if they win only the house.
Will it work, very seriously doubt it.

Kropotkin

6

I would be happy to see the government shut down, even in the manner… It would be nice for everyone to realize how little they need it.

7

[quote=“Eric_The_Pipe”]

[quote=“Peter Kropotkin”]
the new scenario looks kinda like this:

After the election, probable in Dec. the GOPers bring out
impeachment charges in the house. the vote will be a party line vote
and thus goes onto the senate whereas the senate will never get 67 votes to impeach,
within a month or so of the vote, the house and senate GOP will then do a government shutdown with
the threat being only by OBAMA and Biden resigning, will they return the government to
operation. This is looking like the plan of attack the GOP will use over the winter.
So look around Dec or Jan, for the ball to get rolling. By using the government shutdown
as a threat to force Obama and Biden to resign, they get the third in line into the presidency
and that is the speaker of the house, the crybaby himself, boner. this scenario becomes far
more likely if the GOP wins both house and senate, slightly less likely if they win only the house.
Will it work, very seriously doubt it.

Eric: Kropotkin, I would be happy to see the government shut down, even in the manner… It would be nice for everyone to realize how little they need it."

K: Ah, a person who has no clue. So we just have a business utopia where we are all happy workers
in a business utopia where there is no government and the business decides our fates, you know like
in the 1870’ through the 1900’s where workers worked 12 hour days, seven days a week, where children
the age of 5 worked a minuim of 10 hours a day seven days a week, where there are no benefits of any kind,
so we don’t have vacations little less vacation pay, we don’t have workers protection like safe working laws
to protect us from losing body parts or even death, we don’t have 40 hour work weeks, we don’t have
overtime laws, we don’t have social security laws, we don’t have any type of guarentees of any kind to
protect us from business that will take avantage of us. Yah, that the ticket, a business utopia that was
rejected by America by 1910. Without government the business world would be a tyranny of immense
proportion and without any type of checks and balances that government has, business tyranny is far
worse than any government tyranny because there is no way to oppose a business tyranny.

Kropotkin

8

I remember not only saying that same thing, but recommending it. A government should not be constantly awake any more than a person should, and for the exact same reasons. The nation needs some serious sleep time, delta-sleep.

9

That just happened, and the Feds blockaded state and national parks just to show how terribly important they are.

10

Create an economic expectation and dependency on the government and then shut it down?

If they wouldn’t create the dependency, they wouldn’t have such an impact.

Of course, and not by coincidence, many moves have been made to declare all national parks as the property of the Homeland Security Department. HSD doesn’t shut down. So don’t think those parks are just sitting there, inactive. The public isn’t allowed in the parks and thus surrounding businesses suffer. Homeland Security is costing the economy $26.8 billion in the effort to obtain ownership and move in their equipment. That’s how “important” the government is.

And note that such domination games are always done when Congress isn’t supervising thus is undermined. Thus before any shut-down, Congress should make seriously hard lines to not cross.