- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 33,000
- Reaction score
- 13,973
- Location
- FL - Daytona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Casting Barack Obama as a president run amok, the House voted on Wednesday for a bill that would expedite congressional lawsuits against the chief executive for failure to enforce federal laws.
The vote was 233-181 in the Republican-led House as GOP lawmakers excoriated Obama for multiple changes to his 4-year-old health care law, steps he's taken to allow young immigrants to remain in the United States and the administration's resistance to defend the federal law banning gay marriage.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, the GOP maintained that the bill was necessary as the president has selectively enforced the nation's laws.
"Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn't get his way," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Democrats countered that the legislation was merely election-year rhetoric to address a non-existent problem. The measure stands no chance in the Democratic-led Senate.
Under the bill, the House or Senate would have a fast track for any civil lawsuit against the president if that president "failed to meet the requirement of Article II, section 3, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States to take care that a law be faithfully executed."
Once litigated in district court, any appeals would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sponsor of the bill, read a series of statements by Obama when he was an Illinois senator in which he warned of the encroachment of the executive on the powers of the other branches of government.
Sitting idly by saying nothing denotes approval. Glad to see a few are brave enough to stand up to tyranny.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, British Philosopher.
Interesting POV, these few are not brave in any way,shape, or form. What is the consequence of their action? What is the blow back? NONE
Now what are the odds of this ever becoming law- NIL to NONE
It's more like those 'brave' mice coming up with the idea that a bell on the cat would warn them when it approaches- but who would bell the cat?
Meaningless debate in the House over a bill that stands ZERO chance of passing isn't going to get that bell on, and isn't brave.
Coming up with a plan that can actually work- now THAT would be something...eace
Something you wouldn't like.
Regurgitating trite phrases is the same as doing nothing.
Debating bills that have ZERO chance of passing is doing less than nothing.
Clucking on the sidelines is doing nothing.
If you believe the reason for the 2nd A is to stop gubmint tyranny, and the CONs love throwing that word around, then not so brave men are sitting idly by doing nothing. :doh
just saying, sometimes the rhetoric is way out in front of the facts...
It was already voted upon, and passed. That means the People's representatives, the House, have already decided the bill should be law, that means something. If you don't think it will make it through the weak-ass senate, that says something too. It may not become law, but it's not the same as doing nothing.
It was already voted upon, and passed. That means the People's representatives, the House, have already decided the bill should be law, that means something. If you don't think it will make it through the weak-ass senate, that says something too. It may not become law, but it's not the same as doing nothing.
Actually it is WORSE than doing nothing since it is taking time that could be used for productive legislation. The do nothing, know nothing House strikes again. It's time to throw the bums out.
Actually it is WORSE than doing nothing since it is taking time that could be used for productive legislation. The do nothing, know nothing House strikes again. It's time to throw the bums out.
Just the reverse. The House has brought a legitimate issue and solution forward for that issue. The failure if there is one falls directly on the senate if they fail to consider this issue. The House has done it's job here.
LOL @ productive legislation. Isn't that an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp?
All you Obama worshippers cover your ears cuz I know you hate to hear this truth...
If Obama was white, he'd have already been impeached.
Because he's black, he never will be... no matter what he does.
Sad, but true.
The Houses "job" is to pass legislation that will become law. The normal process involves consulting with the Senate to that end. If that is not done it is nothing but a waste of time.
Good Lord...Conservatives always talk about impeachment. Hate to break it to you but a President with different political views than you isn't grounds for impeachment...be he black or white.
Good Lord...Conservatives always talk about impeachment. Hate to break it to you but a President with different political views than you isn't grounds for impeachment...be he black or white.
You mean like how democrats always talked about impeachment of reagan and bush? Please don't attempt to imply that conservatives are the only ones that do this.
House backs bill to sue president over laws
Is this party politics with no chance of passing, or is it a definitive statement that has purpose?
The Houses "job" is to pass legislation that will become law. The normal process involves consulting with the Senate to that end. If that is not done it is nothing but a waste of time.
No, the House's job is to represent the people more directly and propose legislation that concerns them that will be considered by the senate. The two bodies then begin the dance of reconciliation.
It's only a waste of time if the senate fails in it's job and refuses to consider the People's motions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?