DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:


Politics aside, the implementation delays were at the request of certain affected parties for the sake of eventually full implementation. You WISH to make it political, but have utterly no proof of that assertion. Now, do you?

Those interested parties were Democrats up for re-election in November. If you think it was something else, then YOU show the proof.

CUDA, thanks for the linkage. Now, if you note, those bills are simply tied up in the Senate for unspecified reasons. This does vary from the immigration bill which simply isn't being brought to the floor for an up down vote. The Senate, as you no doubt know, is REALLY complicated. Some things might get held to be bundled into larger legislation(noted in the article), sometimes a single, anonymous member can block a bill from consideration. My point earlier was, and still is, that laying the complexities of the Senate ALL at the feet of Harry Reid or even the Dems(note the article cites many Dem sponsored bills that have died the Senate death)is unfair....and, I don't even LIKE Harry Reid.

that may be the truth. But when Harry Reid makes the comments he makes, then Harry Reid takes all the blame for the Senates appearance of failure.

CUDA wrote:that may be the truth. But when Harry Reid makes the comments he makes, then Harry Reid takes all the blame for the Senates appearance of failure.

in one sense, that's fine with me.....but, to be truly honest, I know it's an unfair statement.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:that may be the truth. But when Harry Reid makes the comments he makes, then Harry Reid takes all the blame for the Senates appearance of failure.

in one sense, that's fine with me.....but, to be truly honest, I know it's an unfair statement.

tell that to John Boehner. is he REALLY any better or worse then Harry Reid?

hesitate to use 'better' or 'worse'. Fact is, he has FAR more power over his Chamber(or should) and certain peculiarities of the Senate can't hinder him(such as Silent Holds, filibuster rules, etc) from greasing the skids from start to finish. Now, the problem Boehner faces is that he can't control his own delegation.....at all. So, his issues are similar, but different, if you know what I'm trying to say.

I thought the problem was not the president doing his job when need be, but taking deliberate actions, that circumvent the congress’s "intent".

You know…the difference between having to take action and “wanting” to take action.

At least that’s the impression I get from all of his bragging (Obama) and the complaints from congress.

that's what the law suit is about.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:No he is not 'writing legislation' in a literal sense.
He is effectively creating legislative results at odds with the existing legislation.
And not simply because some rascally republicans stole his lunch money.

He is doing things like tying up the process to delay court appearances, ordering reviews...then crying that he doesn't have enough judges! While his team sends these newcomers out on their own recognizance to appear later at a court date that the team seems to have lost the receipts that were the only way to know if they have showed up or not...

proof please, of the extent of the above.

If I post it will you concede you were wrong?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:He is postponing, simply for political considerations, the implementation of certain parts of the ACA.

sorry, but not true. Politics aside, the implementation delays were at the request of certain affected parties for the sake of eventually full implementation. You WISH to make it political, but have utterly no proof of that assertion. Now, do you?

Lol! What a dodge. It wasn't a political consideration it is...uh...just for..uh..certain affected parties. Lol, yea! It was politically expedient to accommodate those certain parties!
Do you have any proof otherwise!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:He may not be the first one to do it. Maybe not even the best at it, that doesn't really matter what matters is it is happening 'effectively' not literally, no, but effectively, and I don't think he is capable of doing anything you wouldn't defend so you'll have to cope with how your protests are received since that is a result of your reputation preceding your act.

I had faith in you.....you had to throw in one outright lie. On more than one occaision, I have cited policies of the administation I bitterly disagree with, most recently of the 'Red Line' statement in Syria(although the fact that he restrained the US from essentially arming or strategically aiding ISIS by doing nothing starts to look like a good call), and the decision to creep back into Iraq(although, I tend to sympathise with helping the refugees in the mountains). But, you couldn't help yourself, could you? You have to make up Will's Reality, as ever, and claim that I always defend every action or decision. Liar. Why would you dare to imagine that your words carry much credibility here, at this point. It's almost a daily thing with you.

Lol. You just proved my point perfectly! You cite times you allegedly disagree with him...but insert all sorts of exceptions to your supposed disagreement by agreeing with that which you didn't agree with first! You disagreed before you agreed. Way to go slick or should I say Kerry?

Will Robinson wrote:If I post it will you concede you were wrong?

If you post it, I will read it and decide if I was.

Do you have any proof otherwise!

it's a matter of record that the Chamber of Commerce and others requested the delay. If's a matter of record that Obama granted same. Anything else would seem to be guesswork, unless you have proof otherwise.

Lol. You just proved my point perfectly! You cite times you allegedly disagree with him...but insert all sorts of exceptions to your supposed disagreement by agreeing with that which you didn't agree with first! You disagreed before you agreed. Way to go slick or should I say Kerry?

no, I clearly state my disagreement in real time. If hindsight proves me wrong, I'll state it. Just like, for instance, hindsight makes me wonder if they shouldn't have just rammed through a Public Option in the ACA, even if doing so required waiting to campaign upon it in 2010 so as to get sufficient votes in the Congress to do so. For the record, that last part is the truest political blunder I've seen from the administration.

Slick how did the citizens benefit from giving the special interests what they wanted? How did the ACA benefit from losing the revenue it would have taken in from staying on schedule?

Your attempt to paint that as a non political decision is akin to Clinton suggesting playing hide the cigar with Monica was mentoring an intern!

So where's the text of the lawsuit?

Dont have text of the actual suit, but here is text of Boehners letter outlining his grievances.


MEMO

To: House Colleagues

From: Speaker Boehner

Re: “[T]hat the Laws Be Faithfully Executed. . .”

Date: June 25, 2014

For years Americans have watched with concern as President Barack Obama has declined to faithfully execute the laws of our country – ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others, and at times, creating laws of his own.

Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” even if the president does not agree with the purpose of that law. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers principle, only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate.

On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce – at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him. On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day.

Presidents have traditionally been granted a degree of latitude with respect to the enforcement of the law, and tension between the branches of our government is hardly new. But at various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained.

President Obama’s aggressive unilateralism has significant implications for our system of government, and presents a clear challenge to our institution and its ability to effectively represent the people.

If the current president can selectively enforce, change or create laws as he chooses with impunity, without the involvement of the Legislative Branch, his successors will be able to do the same. This shifts the balance of power decisively and dangerously in favor of the presidency, giving the president king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.

It also has consequences for our economy and its ability to grow and create jobs. It’s

bad enough when Washington politicians force laws upon the people that make it difficult for private-sector employers to meet payrolls, invest in new initiatives and create jobs. It’s even worse when those same laws are arbitrarily enforced on the whims of the individual entrusted with the responsibility of carrying them out, adding uncertainty for private-sector job creators and families on top of the challenges they already face week-to-week.

Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn’t elect a monarch or king.

Every Member of the People’s House took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is only through strong action by the House in response to provocative executive action by the Executive Branch in the past that the separation of powers intended by the Framers has been preserved. For the integrity of our laws and the sake of our country’s future, the House must act now.

I intend to bring to the floor in July legislation that would authorize the House of Representatives – through the House General Counsel and at the direction of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) – to file suit in the coming weeks in an effort to compel the president to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country. The legislation would follow regular order and be considered by the Rules Committee following its introduction, prior to its consideration by the full House.

Under our system of government, the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which:

There is no one else who can challenge the president’s failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws;There is no legislative remedy; andThere is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president’s failure.

I believe the House must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles at stake and to protect our system of government and our economy from continued executive abuse. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our country. When this legislation is introduced in the coming weeks, I ask that you review it and join me in supporting it when it goes before the House.

CUDA wrote:Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama?

Yeah, I'm SURE he gets asked this all the time.

I've been hearing people express that concern for quite a while now. Isn't a foreign concept.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama?

Yeah, I'm SURE he gets asked this all the time.

ya and I'm sure you've traveled around with him to disput his claim. Hes a Republican you don't think his constituents dont ask him that question? You cannot possibly be that stupid

CUDA wrote:Hes a Republican...

Yeah, and that's the kind of garbage they like to feed everyone in their party. OMG OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST AND HE WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA!!!11!!!!1!

Hilarious. So which is it? Is Obama a "do nothing" president or is he actually getting things done?

You really have zero clue on how our government is supposed to work do you.

CUDA wrote:You really have zero clue on how our government is supposed to work do you.

We have three branches of government and right now one of them is completely useless because of partisan bickering. It is a tremendous drain on our society. Go ahead and come up with a solution that doesn't simply blame "Obama and the liberals" for everything. I dare you.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:You really have zero clue on how our government is supposed to work do you.

We have three branches of government and right now one of them is completely useless because of partisan bickering. It is a tremendous drain on our society. Go ahead and come up with a solution that doesn't simply blame "Obama and the liberals" for everything. I dare you.

only one huh. Ya your bias and or ignorance is showing. Which one is it?

CUDA wrote:only one huh.

You need to go back to school and learn how to read. Show me where I said "only one," tough guy.

CUDA wrote:Ya your bias and or ignorance is showing. Which one is it?

You also need to go back to school and learn how to write a coherent sentence. Do you want me to choose between and "and" or and "or?" The proper way to phrase the above is to say, "Which one is showing, your bias or ignorance?" And who has a bias toward a branch of government? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yo man, Judicial Branch rulez! Dey be philosophizing about the law instead of those Legislative punks who just write them. Scalia and Breyer are mah boyz!

Actually the way it’s phrased gives you three choices.

Ignorance
Bias
Or both.

well, so much for fair and reasonable.

/end thread?

Spidey wrote:Actually the way it’s phrased gives you three choices.

Ignorance
Bias
Or both.

I'm guessing he wasn't able to figure that out.

Ferno wrote:well, so much for fair and reasonable.

/end thread?

I'm still waiting ferno. I've posted my thought but since then I've gotten nothing but crickets ftom you.

slick interjected, pretty reasonably. but you havent commented in almost a week. What's up?

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:only one huh.

You need to go back to school and learn how to read. Show me where I said "only one," tough guy.

vision wrote:We have three branches of government and right now one of them is completely useless

seriously just one post removed? You were saying?

Yours was a statement. Mine was a question.

learn the difference "tough guy"

Vision I'd say you have shown a pretty clear bias toward the executive branch as displayed by your qualifier that any examination of government dysfunction not include finding any fault for its contribution to the situation.
So I guess your protests are useless.

Will Robinson wrote:Vision I'd say you have shown a pretty clear bias toward the executive branch...

Totally. I love the exec branch because Presidents are much cooler than Justices or Senators. I mean really, what little kid wants to grow up and be a senator? It's the Prez all the way. We put their faces on our money, how cool is that! My panties get wet every time I pull a picture of Ulysses S. Grant out of my pocket and hand it to a shopkeep. America, f-yeah! I love all the execs: Madison, Nixon, Cleveland, Bush... all rock stars to me, even that crazy Whig Fillmore (or as I like to call him "Mill-Fill").

I guess I let all you House scrubs jerk each other off and make my exit. GO EX! Whoop Whoop!

well thanks for contributing....... like always.........

CUDA wrote:well thanks for contributing......

Contribute to what? The idiotic things Gowdy says like "people would respect the House more if the Executive branch would respect the law?" (Not quoted verbatim.) How about "people would respect the house if we were not completely corrupted by corporate interests?" That would make sense. I can't get behind this exec order BS because it's just a smokescreen for anti-Omaba nonsense. Bush gave more exec orders than Obama and America survived Roosevelt who gave waaaaay more orders than either of them combined.

Grow up.

Grow up.

did we hurt you widow feewings???

again thanks for adding to the conversation. NOT

please enlighten all of us here and point to one thing in this thread that you have posted that has had ANY positive contribution to it. JUST ONE.

it shouldn't be that hard ............ RIGHT?

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:well, so much for fair and reasonable.

/end thread?

I'm still waiting ferno. I've posted my thought but since then I've gotten nothing but crickets ftom you.

slick interjected, pretty reasonably. but you havent commented in almost a week. What's up?

was prepping for an airshow and now I think I have something going on with my kidneys. And because of both things, i've been absolutely wiped.

CUDA wrote:again thanks for adding to the conversation...please enlighten all of us here and point to one thing in this thread that you have posted that has had ANY positive contribution to it.

To you, "positive" is any circle-jerky things your sidekicks here will post. The positive message I bring is: Relax. This current president is so boring and average I can't believe all the ridiculous stuff read from the likes of you and your friends. Every one of you thinks his presidency is the end of 'Murica -- this includes goofy Gowdy too.

Also, there isn't a single thing you can write to hurt my feelings. You do realize you are just comedy for me, right? Bunch of clowns, haha.

I'll take that answer as a no.

Thanks for participating in this survey

Vision, CUDA...

...please use your better judgement, and keep it professional.

Here's what strikes me as odd.

The affordable care and patient protection act is a 2500+ page bill, which was passed by roughly 2/3rds of all representatives. So, how does one person, Obama rewrite that?

that would be an absolute monumental undertaking.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama?

Yeah, I'm SURE he gets asked this all the time.

he begged for these very sorts of requests for MONTHS on his website. Sort of the same mindset that leads Rep. Issa to barnstorm the country with his little committee, begging for ACA horror stories, and refusing to have the committee hear, or put into record, positive stories. Ya get the response you wanted at the outset.....seems to be the way the GOP rolls these days.

callmeslick wrote:.....seems to be the way the GOP rolls these days.

and the Democrats would NEVER do anything like that would they????

what a crock of partisan ★■◆●