Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/13/2013 1:36:11 AM EST
Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.

View Quote


In other words violating his oath of office.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 1:44:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By Socio:
Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.

View Quote


In other words violating his oath of office.
View Quote

Neat idea...won't go anywhere.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:22:03 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:

Neat idea...won't go anywhere.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:
Originally Posted By Socio:
Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.



In other words violating his oath of office.

Neat idea...won't go anywhere.


And that's the saddest most odious ignominy of this quandary.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:31:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:51:24 AM EST
The whole town should be taken to court except the courts need to be taken to the courts.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:53:56 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:

Neat idea...won't go anywhere.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:
Originally Posted By Socio:
Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.



In other words violating his oath of office.

Neat idea...won't go anywhere.


Which by definition;

dictatorship

dic·ta·tor·ship [dik-tey-ter-ship, dik-tey-] Show IPA


noun

1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.


2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.


3. the office or position held by a dictator.


Means the US is now under a dictatorship.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:59:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By krpind:
I don't think anyone has the authority to make the President do any of that stuff. He is supposed to just do it.

The whole division of powers thing makes it impossible for one branch to force another branch to do something. I realize our system has been perverted, but I don't think a single court would rule otherwise. But who knows.

Even if a court did, how is the court going to enforce it? Go arrest him if he refuses? That seems unlikely.
View Quote


That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office to which I am about to enter.

His duties are spelled out in Article II. He is violating the constitution.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 3:23:13 AM EST
Civil suit?
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 3:34:22 AM EST
Dear Leader knows its just a show for their constituents.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 3:36:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:
Neat idea...won't go anywhere.
View Quote


It's a terrible idea. It would violate the seperation of powers, which is why an intelligent judge would dismiss the case.

The Constitution contains a remedy for a situation in which the President refuses to execute the laws. The fact that Congress is unwilling to use that remedy is not a justification to ignore the Constitution.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 3:40:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 3:43:17 AM EST by Bhart89]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


It's a terrible idea. It would violate the seperation of powers, which is why an intelligent judge would dismiss the case.

The Constitution contains a remedy for a situation in which the President refuses to execute the laws. The fact that Congress is unwilling to use that remedy is not a justification to ignore the Constitution.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By beardog30:
Neat idea...won't go anywhere.


It's a terrible idea. It would violate the seperation of powers, which is why an intelligent judge would dismiss the case.

The Constitution contains a remedy for a situation in which the President refuses to execute the laws. The fact that Congress is unwilling to use that remedy is not a justification to ignore the Constitution.


What is "Impeachment" for $1000 Alex...

ETA: Valerie Jarratt and team are banking on white guilt to prevent any impeachment charges against the first black POTUS and are taking full advantage. If GWB tried half of what Obama has already done all the democrats and half the republicans would have removed him.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 3:42:53 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


It's a terrible idea. It would violate the seperation of powers, which is why an intelligent judge would dismiss the case.

The Constitution contains a remedy for a situation in which the President refuses to execute the laws. The fact that Congress is unwilling to use that remedy is not a justification to ignore the Constitution.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By beardog30:
Neat idea...won't go anywhere.


It's a terrible idea. It would violate the seperation of powers, which is why an intelligent judge would dismiss the case.

The Constitution contains a remedy for a situation in which the President refuses to execute the laws. The fact that Congress is unwilling to use that remedy is not a justification to ignore the Constitution.


Yup. The fact that Congress is unwilling to use that remedy is indicative of either just how nutless they actuallly are, or how much they actually don't care.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 3:49:52 AM EST
If he doesn't have to obey the law then neither do I.

Fuck Obama.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 3:52:52 AM EST
Mouth Breather of the House will probably be supportive of this… right?
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:25:22 AM EST
Obama can be IMPEACHED.

But, I doubt that he'll be removed from office.

Aloha, Mark
Top Top