House authorizes GOP-led plan to sue Obama alleging he exceeded constitutional powers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Redswandir;45548970] I find it funny how at the very least 226 people can't understand this[/QUOTE] Most of them understand it, this is just a political stunt so that when elections rev up they can be the candidate that stood up against Obama.

Obama has, and should be held accountable. However, so has just about everyone in the US government... Most presidents have, same with the house and senate. This will get a dumb rating by some retard.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;45550014]Obama has, and should be held accountable. However, so has just about everyone in the US government... Most presidents have, same with the house and senate. This will get a dumb rating by some retard.[/QUOTE] Accountable for what? What has he done that's so wrong?

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;45550014]Obama has, and should be held accountable. However, so has just about everyone in the US government... Most presidents have, same with the house and senate. This will get a dumb rating by some retard.[/QUOTE] Yeah? And congress should be held accountable for not acting in the interests of the American people. Oh wait, both aren't going to happen!

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45550046]Accountable for what? What has he done that's so wrong?[/QUOTE] Being a democrat/black/a muslim/a satan/a dracula

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45550046]Accountable for what? What has he done that's so wrong?[/QUOTE] Doing what Republicans wanted him to do.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;45548077]Instead, one strong arm party would get to push through whatever legislation it felt like and be backed up by the Executive office as well! :D[/QUOTE] Do you not have a Senate? Many parliaments, like Australia's and the UK's are bicameral, just like the US. But even unicameral legislatures like those in New Zealand and Sweden seem to be doing fine. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;45548077]No, seriously. There's a reason why that idea was shot down during the drafting of the United States. The balance of power, and continuity of the system relies on a tension existing between the Judicial, Legislative and Executive offices. When you rebalance the equation by removing the tension the process begins to favor whoever-the-fuck happens to be in power. A good example of this is how badly Milk Snatcher Thatcher and her cronies trampled the opposition during her reign of terror over England.[/QUOTE] Lol at the Margaret Thatcher reference. Americans still voted for a moron like Ronald Reagan. The 'reign of terror' can happen in both systems. But most importantly a parliamentary system still keeps the judiciary separate, and the US (like parliamentary Australia) are at an advantage over the UK as they have constitutions which the judiciary can test all legislation against. You can still have that 'tension' between legislatures and executives, for example our Senate can hold 'estimates hearings' against government departments, and that system can be easily translated to the US Senate. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;45548077]It's not like the wonderful Anglo-colonies and Great Britain's parliaments don't have their own laughable political fuckups that are caused by their systems.[/QUOTE] The Australian and UK parliaments have their 'fuck ups', but not in volumes anywhere close to those in the US as they do not suffer much gridlock. Also pretty much most countries have parliaments (the US is the main exception) and many seem to do well. New Zealand, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland just to name a few. Our current government in Australia may not be liked by a lot of young people, but it was fairly elected and all of the 'fuck ups' with this government are policy decisions which would have happened just as easily in the US.

I'm hoping they get to go through with this just so they can crash and burn, and then be known as the dumbasses who wasted time, effort, and money when there were so many more important things happening at the time.

Republicans are suing the president for not implementing the law they hate more than anything else on the planet fast enough. We are definitely into the twilight zone now.

[QUOTE=TAU!;45550609]I'm hoping they get to go through with this just so they can crash and burn, and then be known as the dumbasses who wasted time, effort, and money when there were so many more important things happening at the time.[/QUOTE] Weren't they already known as that before this?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45550046]Accountable for what? What has he done that's so wrong?[/QUOTE] Being Bush with a liberal candy coating. On a serious note, a more recent one was his executive orders on Russia. The ban on Kalashnikov's coming from Russia is one. Regulation of Commerce is a power of the Legislative branch (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution). This states that "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" does not state the executive branch has that right. Now if Bush or hell even if Reagan were magically president, it would still be wrong in my opinion. My other problems really are against multiple branches, including the executive. NSA snooping, Drone strikes on innocents, drug war, getting involved in other peoples business, etc. I think everyone should be held accountable.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;45551983]Being Bush with a liberal candy coating. On a serious note, a more recent one was his executive orders on Russia. The ban on Kalashnikov's coming from Russia is one. Regulation of Commerce is a power of the Legislative branch (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution). This states that "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" does not state the executive branch has that right. Now if Bush or hell even if Reagan were magically president, it would still be wrong in my opinion. My other problems really are against multiple branches, including the executive. NSA snooping, Drone strikes on innocents, drug war, getting involved in other peoples business, etc. I think everyone should be held accountable.[/QUOTE] I think that example is perfectly constitutional. Congress would have passed a bill that creates the conditions to allow for trade with Russia, they wouldn't have created a bill specifically allowing for the import of just Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Government departments don't need legislative approval to do the smallest things.

[QUOTE=NixNax123;45548793]that's exactly what it means [editline]30th July 2014[/editline] so you want him to enfore the DOMA? and invalidate every gay marriage in the country?[/QUOTE] That is his job. If he doesn't agree with a law, he should be pushing congress to repeal or change it. It would be the same situation if a republican president sent out an executive order telling the ATF to ignore enforcing gun laws.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45547810]Probably 90% of the bullshit in American federal politics would no longer exist if they adopted a parliamentary system where the executive is formed from the primary legislature instead of having them completely separate.[/QUOTE] The trouble with this system is that it gives the executive way too much power, and almost everything can be passed with ease. The party on the executive is always going to have a parliamentary majority and, if you're going to have the same level of parliamentary discipline we have here in the UK, practically every vote goes along party lines, so essentially the executive can get anything through. I'd rather separation of powers that comes with deadlock than a government who can do whatever they want as long as they've been elected. Cameron (our current PM) was elected as a moderate and called himself a moderate, but as soon as he took office he became the same level as Thatcher and he's been able to pass whatever crazy Thatcherite stuff he wants, crippling our public services. It's ultimately very undemocratic.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;45552261]The trouble with this system is that it gives the executive way too much power, and almost everything can be passed with ease. The party on the executive is always going to have a parliamentary majority and, if you're going to have the same level of parliamentary discipline we have here in the UK, practically every vote goes along party lines, so essentially the executive can get anything through. I'd rather separation of powers that comes with deadlock than a government who can do whatever they want as long as they've been elected. Cameron (our current PM) was elected as a moderate and called himself a moderate, but as soon as he took office he became the same level as Thatcher and he's been able to pass whatever crazy Thatcherite stuff he wants, crippling our public services. It's ultimately very undemocratic.[/QUOTE] It's not necessarily a problem inherent of parliamentary systems. The UK, like Australia and the US, elects its primary legislature through a majoritarian system (single-winner electorates), which favours the larger parties and can often lead to a one party majority. Under proportional systems such as the primary legislatures of Israel, Germany and Sweden (all use parliamentary systems), parties will inevitably have to join coalitions to form government (Israel especially due to the low threshold needed for a party to be elected), and if any party tries to step out of line of their coalition obligations the government loses its mandate to govern and the people get to go back to the booths. Or in other words, parties don't want to risk breaking coalitions. Then there is also the point that some parliaments are bicameral, and governments need to negotiate with the upper house. Eg the Hockey budget here in Australia has required extensive negotiation with the Senators of the United party (and other Senate crossbenchers, as the current government does not have a majority in the proportional Senate) to allow the budget from the majoritarian House to pass the proportional Senate. IIRC not even all of the budget measures have passed, like 9 months after the current government was formed.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45552149]That is his job. If he doesn't agree with a law, he should be pushing congress to repeal or change it. It would be the same situation if a republican president sent out an executive order telling the ATF to ignore enforcing gun laws.[/QUOTE] Allowing gays to marry and letting any wacko get a gun without any background check aren't exactly on the same level, though.

Obama signed the Patriot act which violate the 4th amendment. He signed NDAA of 2011 which violates the 6th amendment. He went into Libya without consulting the congress which also violates the constitution. Republicans agree with those violations, which why they are suing him for bullshit reasons. I know this won't get past the facepunch logic which is: republicans = bad, democrats = good. Also let's not forget he ordered the assasination of anwar al-awlaki and his 16 year old son, both without indicting them or charging them with a crime. As an outsider i think one of the key problems with American politics, which is sadly also happening here, is people blindly defending their own party. Only the opposing party can break the laws according to alot of people.

Just going to throw out a few other reasons for impeachment: -Failure to properly protect the residents in the diplomatic compound in Libya (officials never sent more troops to protect the place even after request for more). -Opening the borders, allowing a MASSIVE influx of lone children to wander in, an estimated 60,000 as of June, 2014. -The constant changes in ruling for Obamacare. An example would be the certain parts Obamacare being ignored for a stretch of time, which goes against Article Two of the Constitution. -Finally there is the 44 million dollars spent for vacations and daily life in the House, by Obama.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;45547871]In the midst of a humanitarian crisis on our border and numerous international conflicts, no, launching a lawsuit they know is going to fail in order to stir up the far-right conservative voterbase ahead of midterm elections is more important. [editline]30th July 2014[/editline] A lawsuit that only [B]1/3rd[/B] of polled Americans support. Shouldn't the House be representing the people?[/QUOTE] That many? How even?

[QUOTE=mrpirate;45552590]Obama signed the Patriot act which violate the 4th amendment. He signed NDAA of 2011 which violates the 6th amendment. He went into Libya without consulting the congress which also violates the constitution. Republicans agree with those violations, which why they are suing him for bullshit reasons. I know this won't get past the facepunch logic which is: republicans = bad, democrats = good. Also let's not forget he ordered the assasination of anwar al-awlaki and his 16 year old son, both without indicting them or charging them with a crime. As an outsider i think one of the key problems with American politics, which is sadly also happening here, is people blindly defending their own party. Only the opposing party can break the laws according to alot of people.[/QUOTE] The Patriot Act was signed by George Bush in 2001 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act[/url]

American Politics(tm) pisses me off so fucking much.

[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;45552767]The Patriot Act was signed by George Bush in 2001 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act[/url][/QUOTE] Obama extended it which involves him signing a law violating the 4th amendment. [video=youtube;W9yZdMC4Hng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yZdMC4Hng[/video]

[QUOTE=_Axel;45552452]Allowing gays to marry and letting any wacko get a gun without any background check aren't exactly on the same level, though.[/QUOTE] That doesn't matter. A law is a law and should be enforced. If the president can unilaterally change one law or not enforce it without congress using executive orders, he can do it for any law he wants, including gun laws. You may be fine with Obama "going around the GOP", but would you feel the same way if it was a republican president "going around democrats"? I'm guessing no....

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45552919]That doesn't matter. A law is a law and should be enforced. If the president can unilaterally change one law or not enforce it without congress using executive orders, he can do it for any law he wants, including gun laws. You may be fine with Obama "going around the GOP", but would you feel the same way if it was a republican president "going around democrats"? I'm guessing no....[/QUOTE] In this unfalsifiable hypothetical, would a Democratic House be as completely useless as the current Republican House? [editline]31st July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45552149]It would be the same situation if a republican president sent out an executive order telling the ATF to ignore enforcing gun laws.[/QUOTE] Since the ATF falls within the Department of Justice and therefore under the president, this hypothetical Republican would have a lot of power over how it enforces laws, but issuing an order to ignore enforcing gun laws would likely overstep the boundaries that Congress established when they legislated the creation of the bureau and would therefore be unconstitutional. This is why Obama is instructing the DEA and Department of Justice to focus on harder drugs rather than outright making it policy to ignore cannabis cases.

[QUOTE=Sleeves;45552637]Just going to throw out a few other reasons for impeachment: -Failure to properly protect the residents in the diplomatic compound in Libya (officials never sent more troops to protect the place even after request for more). [B]not even going to humor you on this[/B] -Opening the borders, allowing a MASSIVE influx of lone children to wander in, an estimated 60,000 as of June, 2014. [B]opening the borders? how so? also, what exactly do you have against refugee children? [/B] -The constant changes in ruling for Obamacare. An example would be the certain parts Obamacare being ignored for a stretch of time, which goes against Article Two of the Constitution. [B]what?[/B] -Finally there is the 44 million dollars spent for vacations and daily life in the House, by Obama. [B]and?[/B][/QUOTE] i really love most people who hate obama because they don't even know why they hate him if you really want to complain about obama how about you complain about something he's actually done wrong, like his continued support of Israel, his extension of the patriot act, his support for gitmo, his lack of transparency in government, his support of american citizens being spied on, or how about his drone strikes that kill more civilians than "bad guys" all while citing "gotta protect that american freedom" even though our "freedom" has not been endangered since world war 2 but no, go ahead and complain about dumb shit or the shit that obama has actually done right because you are not intelligent enough to understand a more complex issue nor do you actually care about real policies most obama haters are nothing but ignorant idiots who have no idea why they're shouting and are only doing it because that's what their friend said they should do [editline]31st July 2014[/editline] oh my god Sleeves i just noticed you said "reasons for impeachment" are you serious? you obviously never actually read article two of the constitution, because if you had you'd realize reasons for impeachment include "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." literally nothing you listed there comes close to being a reason for impeachment, i mean seriously you think spending 44 million dollars on vacation is reason for impeachment? maybe you should actually look up the meaning of a word before using it

[QUOTE=Sleeves;45552637]Just going to throw out a few other reasons for impeachment: -Failure to properly protect the residents in the diplomatic compound in Libya (officials never sent more troops to protect the place even after request for more). lol ok -Opening the borders, allowing a MASSIVE influx of lone children to wander in, an estimated 60,000 as of June, 2014. What's wrong with having children be safe? -The constant changes in ruling for Obamacare. An example would be the certain parts Obamacare being ignored for a stretch of time, which goes against Article Two of the Constitution. welcome to the house of representatives -Finally there is the 44 million dollars spent for vacations and daily life in the House, by Obama. ok and? oh no president tries to have free time. you shouldn't deny the most stressful job in the world vacations and the like. that's hilarious [/QUOTE] And also, the patriot act was created by yes George Bush and guess what most of the house voted for it so even if he decided to veto it it would fail to be vetoed. oh god i entered politidrama help

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45547810]Probably 90% of the bullshit in American federal politics would no longer exist if they adopted a parliamentary system where the executive is formed from the primary legislature instead of having them completely separate.[/QUOTE] Well it's often said that the US is the only country which runs despite the presidential systems. Essentially every other has ended up in a junta, revolution or something similar after a protracted deadlock between the executive and legislature. The US doesn't work because of it's constitution, it works despite it's constitution. It's often said that the US didn't end in such a deadlock in the past, because the parties existed mostly to put forward a president. There was a lot of cross party prolifeferation on a lot of agenda. Seems like that has changed though.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;45556780]Well it's often said that the US is the only country which runs despite the presidential systems. Essentially every other has ended up in a junta, revolution or something similar after a protracted deadlock between the executive and legislature. The US doesn't work because of it's constitution, it works despite it's constitution. It's often said that the US didn't end in such a deadlock in the past, because the parties existed mostly to put forward a president. There was a lot of cross party prolifeferation on a lot of agenda. Seems like that has changed though.[/QUOTE] What is your actual point? You keep tempering everything you say by adding "it's often said" or something of that nature. Are YOU saying those things and making those claims?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45548152]I don't think they accounted for a president who doesn't do his job. The president's job is to faithfully execute all laws. He isn't faithfully executing laws, therefore, is not doing his job. If he wanted to write laws, he should have stayed a senator....[/QUOTE] Congratulations. You are what's wrong with this country. I recommend taking a civics class.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45552088]I think that example is perfectly constitutional. Congress would have passed a bill that creates the conditions to allow for trade with Russia, they wouldn't have created a bill specifically allowing for the import of just Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Government departments don't need legislative approval to do the smallest things.[/QUOTE] The Kalashnikov ban is a small part in a bigger executive order. I just used an example. The president has no right to regulate commerce, It's a pretty simple rule. Just because Obama and Congress can't kiss and make up doesn't mean Obama can circumnavigate them. There are rules in place for a reason. I'm not saying to impeach Obama, just he needs an obvious reminder.