GOP Tells Obama to Ignore Congress One Day After Suing Him for Ignoring Congress.....

sEEkErsEEkEr Posts: 2,842 Officer
You just can't make this **** up.....:grin

In a statement following the decision to abruptly scrap a vote on the measure, Boehner and his fellow GOP leaders tried to put the onus back on Obama, saying the president had the power to act unilaterally, "without the need for congressional action," to respond to the crisis.

"There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries."


Yet that was a polar opposite message from the one Republicans delivered a day earlier, when they voted to authorize a lawsuit against Obama for "bypass[ing] the legislative process to create his own laws by executive fiat,"

:shrug

«1

Replies

  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    Why are you surprised? You see this type of action from those on the right, here on this very forum everyday. The only decisive portion of the GOP is their indecisiveness.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    The idea seems to be that the president should direct the laws to be enforced, not write/change them, which is unconstitutional.
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    The idea seems to be that the president should direct the laws to be enforced, not write/change them, which is unconstitutional.

    That is not the idea. They are wanting him to waive due process to speed the deportations. Break the law, not enforce it.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • gunby31gunby31 Posts: 5,777 Officer
    It's become a joke listening to the rwnj's on here acting as if they don't know what's going on in congress.
  • sEEkErsEEkEr Posts: 2,842 Officer
    gunby31 wrote: »
    It's become a joke listening to the rwnj's on here acting as if they don't know what's going on in congress.

    Unfortunately the joke directly affects the general welfare of the American people....it's disgusting.....

  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    gunby31 wrote: »
    It's become a joke listening to the rwnj's on here acting as if they don't know what's going on in congress.

    Nothing worthwhile is going on in congress.
    Get back to watching MSNBC, they lose 20% of their viewership while you are here.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer

    The House GOP Border Plan Just Blew Up In Its Face


    AP

    House Republican leadership abruptly postponed and then ultimately pulled a vote on its plan to deal with the crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday, after a conservative revolt left leadership short of the votes needed to pass the bill.

    Soon after House leaders pulled the bill, however, a 3 p.m. ET Republican conference meeting was scheduled in an apparent attempt to revive the bill. Members were advised that additional votes were still possible.

    The original pulling of the bill served as a remarkable setback for House Speaker John Boehner and the incoming House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who had **** support for the border bill.

    This week, House conservatives revolted against the Republican-led border plan, which provides about $659 million in emergency spending for the border crisis through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

    The Republican dissent was led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the conservative freshman firebrand who has miffed House leadership before by meddling in the House's affairs (most notably, last year, ahead of the government shutdown ).

    Cruz has led a wing of conservatives who say any border legislation should include a provision to stop the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Many of the immigrants who have been part of the recent influx coming over the border have been unaccompanied minors, but they are not eligible for the DACA program.

    The conservative ire at the plan led Republican leaders to schedule two votes — one on the border bill and another on legislation that would bar President Barack Obama from delaying the deportation of young, undocumented immigrants. However, shortly after announcing the dual votes, the GOP leadership announced they were both cancelled. This indicates the conservative wing was not satisfied with the legislation to speed the deportation of young immigrants being voted on separately.

    In a statement announcing the cancellation of the border bill vote vote, House GOP leaders blamed Obama for not enforcing current laws as a reason for the concern among House Republicans.

    "This situation shows the intense concern within our conference – and among the American people – about the need to ensure the security of our borders and the president’s refusal to faithfully execute our laws," the GOP leaders — Boehner, Scalise, incoming House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers — said in a joint statement.

    The four leaders also argued Obama can move forward and improve the situation on the border "without congressional action."

    "There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries," they said. "Through an inclusive process, a border bill was built by listening to members and the American people that has the support not just of a majority of the majority in the House, but most of the House Republican Conference. We will continue to work on solutions to the border crisis and other challenges facing our country."

    Reacting to that statement, White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted the House GOP conference " once again proves why the President must act on his own to solve problems." And a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Reid was "glad Republicans have come around."

    "Senator Reid agrees with House Republican leaders’ statement that President Obama has the authority to take steps on immigration reform on his own," the Reid spokesman said. "He's glad Republicans have come around and hopes this means they’ll drop their frivolous lawsuit against the President instead of continuing to waste the American people’s time and money."

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-gop-border-plan-just-181443560.html
    Chubasco.jpg
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 28,376 AG
    Does anyone remember in 1997 Gingrich made a mistake that cost the Republicans 5 seats in the house at midterms. These kind of antics by the GOP leadership remind me of those days.

    The November elections are going to be interesting.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • ThrottleThrottle Posts: 2,836 Captain
    The idea seems to be that the president should direct the laws to be enforced, not write/change them, which is unconstitutional.
    So you're saying existing laws should be enforced and the president should see to it? But that he shouldn't go making up new laws or singling out laws he disagrees with and announces he will not enforce them? Amazing. Some people can't or won't get that distinction. Not people one should take seriously of course, but still, a disturbing number of people.
  • ThrottleThrottle Posts: 2,836 Captain
    That is not the idea. They are wanting him to waive due process to speed the deportations. Break the law, not enforce it.
    You realize that what you call "due process" is actually catch and release, and not at all lawful. The illegals should be held in detention until their "due process" is through, and then deported. Also, the "crisis" wouldn't exist if we'd start enforcing the law. This "crisis" has been intentionally created by the Obama administration in order to create public impetus for "comprehensive immigration reform", much as the federally sanctioned gun running to the Mexican cartels, AKA "fast and furious" was supposed to create a public outcry for more gun control laws. How'd that work out?
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    Throttle wrote: »
    You realize that what you call "due process" is actually catch and release, and not at all lawful. The illegals should be held in detention until their "due process" is through, and then deported. Also, the "crisis" wouldn't exist if we'd start enforcing the law. This "crisis" has been intentionally created by the Obama administration in order to create public impetus for "comprehensive immigration reform", much as the federally sanctioned gun running to the Mexican cartels, AKA "fast and furious" was supposed to create a public outcry for more gun control laws. How'd that work out?


    You may want to familiarize yourself with the law a little before you make this false statement. Take a look at the 2008 law that requires these minors to be released to their relatives as expeditiously a possible.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    For all those who profess to love the rule of law except when it comes to Obama's manipulation/disregard of it...

    Two Bay Area Democrats - Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose - wrote the law now at the center of the controversy over what to do with the 50,000-plus children and other Central American immigrants swamping the Texas border.

    ...She (Feinstein) told Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who wants more flexibility to deport, that the law contains a provision for "exceptional circumstances" that could provide the administration the authority it wants without changing the law.

    She argued that "exceptional circumstances" could be triggered by large numbers coming in.
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-Child-trafficking-law-is-flexible-in-5616012.php


    It is not Obama's job to be Community Organizer in Chief - it is his job to honor his oath to... faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    You will be grateful if the executive office is forced to refrain from legislating...the very next time a president whose policies you disagree with tries to do it. Obama's actions regarding ACA and lack of action regarding the child victimization act are indefensible.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,698 AG
    You suddenly trust Nancy?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    For all those who profess to love the rule of law except when it comes to Obama's manipulation/disregard of it...

    I beg you and anyone else to show where Obama's actions are unprecedented. UN-effffing-precedented. I ask for this every day... I'm beginning to think the whiners don't even know what it means.
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    You suddenly trust Nancy?

    Nancy who?
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    I beg you and anyone else to show where Obama's actions are unprecedented. UN-effffing-precedented. I ask for this every day... I'm beginning to think the whiners don't even know what it means.

    Because you are tilting at windmills. Who the heck cares if there is 'precedence', there is precedence for mass murder, doesn't make it legal. Is it 'legal' is the issue, is it within the oath of office is the issue, is it extra-Constitutional is the issue (meaning outside the authority of executive office). We are in the 'here and now', that is the only place we can deal with it.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • jlh49jlh49 Posts: 3,127 Officer
    Here is one example of his violation of the Constitution.

    "...The U.S. Supreme Court dealt huge blows to leftist policies on Thursday in two separate unanimous rulings. In one ruling, the court ruled unanimously that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when, in 2012, he appointed federal officials to key positions without Senate approval.

    In 2012, Obama violated the Constitution when he made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in lieu of the Senate, which was holding sessions only every three days. Obama contended that the Senate was not really in session, and that it sought to thwart his appointments by not being in session. A lawsuit over the issue came from a labor relations board case against a Yakima Pepsi distributor.

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the president made the recess appointments before us during a break too short to count as recess. For that reason, the appointments are invalid.” The conservative side of the court, including Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, wanted to restrict the president’s power to make recess appointments further.

    The appointments to the NLRB made when Obama violated the Constitution are now invalid, and cases the board may need to revisit cases heard between 2012 and 2013. The Senate has since confirmed Obama’s appointed head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, and so he will remain in that position..."

    http://ktth.com/2014/06/26/obama-violated-the-constituion-says-supreme-court/
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    Because you are tilting at windmills. Who the heck cares if there is 'precedence', there is precedence for mass murder, doesn't make it legal. Is it 'legal' is the issue, is it within the oath of office is the issue, is it extra-Constitutional is the issue (meaning outside the authority of executive office). We are in the 'here and now', that is the only place we can deal with it.

    Why now? We never bothered to deal with it before.

    All presidents the last 100 years + did "it".

    Could it be.... never mind.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    Because you are tilting at windmills. Who the heck cares if there is 'precedence', there is precedence for mass murder, doesn't make it legal. Is it 'legal' is the issue, is it within the oath of office is the issue, is it extra-Constitutional is the issue (meaning outside the authority of executive office). We are in the 'here and now', that is the only place we can deal with it.
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Why now? We never bothered to deal with it before.


    All presidents the last 100 years + did "it".

    Could it be.... never mind.


    We all know WHY NOW
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    10437462_252442514946308_2253496117355540005_n.jpg
    Chubasco.jpg
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    jlh49 wrote: »
    Here is one example of his violation of the Constitution.

    "...The U.S. Supreme Court dealt huge blows to leftist policies on Thursday in two separate unanimous rulings. In one ruling, the court ruled unanimously that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when, in 2012, he appointed federal officials to key positions without Senate approval.

    In 2012, Obama violated the Constitution when he made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in lieu of the Senate, which was holding sessions only every three days. Obama contended that the Senate was not really in session, and that it sought to thwart his appointments by not being in session. A lawsuit over the issue came from a labor relations board case against a Yakima Pepsi distributor.

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the president made the recess appointments before us during a break too short to count as recess. For that reason, the appointments are invalid.” The conservative side of the court, including Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, wanted to restrict the president’s power to make recess appointments further.

    The appointments to the NLRB made when Obama violated the Constitution are now invalid, and cases the board may need to revisit cases heard between 2012 and 2013. The Senate has since confirmed Obama’s appointed head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, and so he will remain in that position..."

    Clause 3: Recess appointments

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.



    Yea, Obama should be hung for not "predicting" the court's interpretation of the word "the".

    ..... intrasession appointments were unconstitutional because the word "the" before the word "Recess" in the Constitution was determined to mean to limit it to only the intersession Recess and it further limited the power by limiting it to only those vacancies that "happen" to occur during the intersession break and not to vacancies that existed prior to the Recess.

    On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that President Obama overreached his executive authority in appointing members to the NLRB while the Senate was still formally in session.[10] Justice Stephen Breyer, in the majority opinion, wrote that the Constitution allows for the Congress itself to determine its sessions and recesses, that "the Senate is in session when it says it is", and that the President does not have the right to unilaterally dictate Congressional sessions and make recess appointments thusly.[11] However, the decision allows the use of recess appointments during breaks within a session for vacancies that existed prior to the break.


    Didn't these vacancies exist prior to "the" break? I thought they did... perhaps not.

    And after it was all said and done, Richard Cordray got to keep his job anyway.

    :shrug
  • jlh49jlh49 Posts: 3,127 Officer
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Clause 3: Recess appointments

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.



    Yea, Obama should be hung for not "predicting" the court's interpretation of the word "the".

    ..... intrasession appointments were unconstitutional because the word "the" before the word "Recess" in the Constitution was determined to mean to limit it to only the intersession Recess and it further limited the power by limiting it to only those vacancies that "happen" to occur during the intersession break and not to vacancies that existed prior to the Recess.

    On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that President Obama overreached his executive authority in appointing members to the NLRB while the Senate was still formally in session.[10] Justice Stephen Breyer, in the majority opinion, wrote that the Constitution allows for the Congress itself to determine its sessions and recesses, that "the Senate is in session when it says it is", and that the President does not have the right to unilaterally dictate Congressional sessions and make recess appointments thusly.[11] However, the decision allows the use of recess appointments during breaks within a session for vacancies that existed prior to the break.


    Didn't these vacancies exist prior to "the" break? I thought they did... perhaps not.

    And after is was all said and done, Richard Cordray got to keep his job anyway.

    :shrug

    You asked for an example and I gave you one authenticated by the Supreme Court, although I am not sure it would matter how many examples were provided. Every time Obama has changed the requirements and/or timelines for implementations of parts of the ACA without going through Congress he has violated the Constitution.

    Next?
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Why now?
    chubasco wrote: »
    We all know WHY NOW

    Let me see if I understand exactly what the two of you are implying, but not brave enough to state outright, apparently...

    President Barrack Hussein Obama has darker skin than any other president. Because his skin is darker, he should not be expected to honor his oath of office. He should not be expected to honor, uphold or obey the Constitution, including but not limited to the separation of powers. His skin shade is of such historical importance that we must refrain from criticism that might injure his fragile psych, because we all know that darker skinned folks bear no blame for their misbehavior. In other words Obama's lawlessness can be overlooked because, after all, his skin is darker than any other president...and allowances must be made. Balderdash!

    The above, my friends, is the implied racism in the reasoning of today's self-proclaimed (in)tolerant folks.

    When actually, it is the flaws in his character that determine the paths he takes, and the words he speaks.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • ThrottleThrottle Posts: 2,836 Captain
    chubasco wrote: »
    You may want to familiarize yourself with the law a little before you make this false statement. Take a look at the 2008 law that requires these minors to be released to their relatives as expeditiously a possible.
    Please cite the relevant part of H.R. 7311, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and explain how exactly it covers the current batch of illegals who are not "trafficking victims" at all. Thanks.
  • jlh49jlh49 Posts: 3,127 Officer
    chubasco wrote: »
    We all know WHY NOW
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    scontentYou really do not want to initiate a conversation about the history of racism in this country by political party, do you?
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    Throttle wrote: »
    Please cite the relevant part of H.R. 7311, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and explain how exactly it covers the current batch of illegals who are not "trafficking victims" at all. Thanks.


    You know they do not qualify for refugee status how? You guessed it????

    Law requires a hearing to make this determination and last I heard over half are expected to qualify based on initial interviews.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    Let me see if I understand exactly what the two of you are implying, but not brave enough to state outright, apparently...

    President Barrack Hussein Obama has darker skin than any other president. Because his skin is darker, he should not be expected to honor his oath of office. He should not be expected to honor, uphold or obey the Constitution, including but not limited to the separation of powers. His skin shade is of such historical importance that we must refrain from criticism that might injure his fragile psych, because we all know that darker skinned folks bear no blame for their misbehavior. In other words Obama's lawlessness can be overlooked because, after all, his skin is darker than any other president...and allowances must be made. Balderdash!

    The above, my friends, is the implied racism in the reasoning of today's self-proclaimed (in)tolerant folks.

    When actually, it is the flaws in his character that determine the paths he takes, and the words he speaks.

    You almost got it.

    Of course everyone expects the president to honor the oath of office. Of course he is expected to honor, uphold and obey the constitution, including the separation of powers. Of course....

    So why were "some" actions of every president in the past with white skin, actions that may or may not have violated the oath of office, tolerated? Why weren't they sued for making recess appointments that may or may not have been during "the" recess?

    Therein lies the difference that is so blatantly obvious. It's undeniable... except by people who harbor intense hatred despite what their church teaches them about harboring hatred.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    jlh49 wrote: »
    You asked for an example and I gave you one authenticated by the Supreme Court, although I am not sure it would matter how many examples were provided. Every time Obama has changed the requirements and/or timelines for implementations of parts of the ACA without going through Congress he has violated the Constitution.

    Next?

    And I except the fact that the court unanimously decided that Obama overstepped his authority by agreeing with the lower court that Obama misinterpreted the word "the" before the word "recess". He really trounced on the constitution.

    As for your last statement, I didn't realize you were an appelate judge or a supreme court justice... wow. That's awesome having your participation here.

    So, when the SCOTUS decides to invalidate obamacare because Obama changed timelines for implentation, will they also retro-activley invalidate all the Medicare Part D remittances made after Bush changed the timeline for its implemenation?
  • jlh49jlh49 Posts: 3,127 Officer
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    And I except the fact that the court unanimously decided that Obama overstepped his authority by agreeing with the lower court that Obama misinterpreted the word "the" before the word "recess". He really trounced on the constitution.

    As for your last statement, I didn't realize you were an appelate judge or a supreme court justice... wow. That's awesome having your participation here.

    So, when the SCOTUS decides to invalidate obamacare because Obama changed timelines for implentation, will they also retro-activley invalidate all the Medicare Part D remittances made after Bush changed the timeline for its implemenation?

    Most often, you never know the background, knowledge, experiences and/or capabilities of those you engage with on the internet; do you?

    I never said other Presidents had not been accused of violating their Oaths of Office, but you hinted at it. As for Bush, let's save that one for another thread.

    I cannot sum up Obama's disregard for the rule of law in this country any better than Grady Lady. But, most people have an opinion, and some, depending on one's perspective, are more credible than others.

    Have a nice day.
  • ThrottleThrottle Posts: 2,836 Captain
    You claimed:
    chubasco wrote: »
    You may want to familiarize yourself with the law a little before you make this false statement. Take a look at the 2008 law that requires these minors to be released to their relatives as expeditiously a possible.
    Still waiting for the citation on that.
    chubasco wrote: »
    You know they do not qualify for refugee status how? You guessed it????
    Law requires a hearing to make this determination and last I heard over half are expected to qualify based on initial interviews.
    What exactly is the basis of presumption that the children may be victims of trafficking, without which a hearing doesn't seem necessary? Also, why are the adults that still make up the majority of illegals allowed to stay? Face it, the kids aren't trafficking victims; they are brought here for a price by Mexican coyotes, apparently with the cooperation of the Mexican government. And whether it's children or adults sneaking in our government is also complicit. Our handling of these huge numbers of illegals is nothing but a green light for even huger numbers, and it's all by design: create a "crisis", don't let it go to waste...
Sign In or Register to comment.