Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

[theDoctorisIn]

The House has officially decided to sue Obama for the usurpation of legislative powers, all of which are vested in Congress according to Article I of the US Constitution.

Without a doubt, the courts will rule AGAINST Obama, even it takes 6-18 months.

The question however is how Obama will react. Will he scoff at both the Legislative and Judicial Branches and plow along anyway? What happens then?

Quite literally, the Court will be asked to resolve the following question:

Is Obama a dictator?

And herein lies the problem. If he is a dictator, the Court's opinion will not shake him, it will merely be an opinion.

If they rule that he is not a dictator, then we no longer have need of Congress, since apparently the President can rightfully assume any and all legislative powers at any time. Congress would merely function as Caesar's Rubber Stamp at best. Congress becomes worthless.

Wrong, congress will still have the power of the purse, they have the power to shut the whole thing down, if it really comes to it. Let's see how the dear leader implements his grand plans with no money.

And if Obama just passed another EO appropriating himself money, what then?

I don't think you understand what an Executive Order is. That's not how it works.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

Nope. The only crisis is the one the far right wackobirds are having as they watch whatever influence they had waste away daily.

I can guarantee that the NSA will be another CC, regardless of which party holds the reigns. But this poll is for the EO's only.

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

 

[eagle1462010]

Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

Nope. The only crisis is the one the far right wackobirds are having as they watch whatever influence they had waste away daily.

I can guarantee that the NSA will be another CC, regardless of which party holds the reigns. But this poll is for the EO's only.

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

Please explain it then Doctor...............

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can guarantee that the NSA will be another CC, regardless of which party holds the reigns. But this poll is for the EO's only.

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

Please explain it then Doctor...............

The lawsuit?

It's about the changes to deadlines in Obamacare, none of which were made by "Executive Order".

 

[eagle1462010]

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

Please explain it then Doctor...............

The lawsuit?

It's about the changes to deadlines in Obamacare, none of which were made by "Executive Order".

Thanks.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's staggeringly unlikely that any Judge will accept this case, anyway.

 

[OKTexas]

I can guarantee that the NSA will be another CC, regardless of which party holds the reigns. But this poll is for the EO's only.

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

Please explain it then Doctor...............

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

 

[eagle1462010]

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

Please explain it then Doctor...............

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

So they are seeking an injunction against Obama?

 

[eagle1462010]

Injunction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For restraining or protective orders (family law & harassment), see Restraining order.
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please explain it then Doctor...............

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

So they are seeking an injunction against Obama?

Nope.

It's not exactly clear what they're seeking, other than to embarrass the President.

 

[blackhawk]

You know whats amusing everything Obama is being accused of by the right all the things the left calls wacko, crazy, extremist, paranoid use whatever word you like is the exact same type of stuff the left was accusing Bush of. How many other's remember the claims of Bush is a dictator he's tearing up the Constitution overreaching trying to expand the powers of the executive branch?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In the scope of the minority, there is always a crisis on the way or currently underway. There is no more an impending crisis as there is at any other time. And no, Benghazi isn't a scandal or a cisis.

Seeing how many minorities were democided by far-left regimes, I must agree with them.

 

[OKTexas]

Please explain it then Doctor...............

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

So they are seeking an injunction against Obama?

They are looking to set a precedent that the president can't just change the way a law is implement or enforced without the consent of congress. The ACA is just the easiest example of delaying implementation for political gain and the courts have the power to put a stop to it.

 

[eagle1462010]

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

So they are seeking an injunction against Obama?

They are looking to set a precedent that the president can't just change the way a law is implement or enforced without the consent of congress. The ACA is just the easiest example of delaying implementation for political gain and the courts have the power to put a stop to it.

Don't get me wrong here.........I agree with you that he is in clear violation of the laws.

.....Federal Judge takes the case and rules against the POTUS and Federal Gov't for non-compliance with the law..............appeal appeal SCOTUS rules the same.................

Orders the Gov't to comply with the law.

Again, POTUS ignores them.............Just as he did a contempt charge on Oil Platform Permits in the Gulf of Mexico................

Then what........................

 

[eagle1462010]

Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government to access information and personnel relating to the executive branch. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case" (418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

 

[eagle1462010]

To be a bit more direct. In the Immigration crisis Texas is now taking matters into their own hands. They have told the POTUS to basically FO...................

Why aren't the states doing the same and just implement the law completely in the States as the POTUS has no authority to change the law as he pleases. The changes are unlawful and against the Constitution. Therefore, they are invalid. Force the POTUS to sue the States instead.

The new EPA mandates without Congressional Consent. Tie his ass up in court again and force a delay on implementation and drag it out through appeals and requests for extensions until his butt is out of office.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To be a bit more direct. In the Immigration crisis Texas is now taking matters into their own hands. They have told the POTUS to basically FO...................

How are they "taking matters into their own hands"? What are they doing, exactly?

Why aren't the states doing the same and just implement the law completely in the States as the POTUS has no authority to change the law as he pleases. The changes are unlawful and against the Constitution. Therefore, they are invalid. Force the POTUS to sue the States instead.

Are we still talking about Obamacare? If so - the reason is pretty simple.

No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written.

The new EPA mandates without Congressional Consent. Tie his ass up in court again and force a delay on implementation and drag it out through appeals and requests for extensions until his butt is out of office.

EPA "mandates" have never needed Congressional consent.

 

[dblack]

I voted yes, mostly out of optimism. We need one.

 

[eagle1462010]

To be a bit more direct. In the Immigration crisis Texas is now taking matters into their own hands. They have told the POTUS to basically FO...................

How are they "taking matters into their own hands"? What are they doing, exactly?

Why aren't the states doing the same and just implement the law completely in the States as the POTUS has no authority to change the law as he pleases. The changes are unlawful and against the Constitution. Therefore, they are invalid. Force the POTUS to sue the States instead.

Are we still talking about Obamacare? If so - the reason is pretty simple.

No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written.

The new EPA mandates without Congressional Consent. Tie his ass up in court again and force a delay on implementation and drag it out through appeals and requests for extensions until his butt is out of office.

EPA "mandates" have never needed Congressional consent.

1. Texas is raising funds and using these funds to protect the border. Patrol Boat the the Texas Department of Safety and using those personnel to guard the border. Texas has deployed the Guard for the same reason. They are now setting up detainment areas via tent cities.

2. "No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written" Then change the dang law.............They have to obey the law, or fix the dang thing. You can't have it both ways, and by refusing to follow the law you are in VIOLATION of our NATIONS LAWS. FIX IT.

3 The EPA. So says you. Cap and Trade was rejected. Using ancient Acts to justify doing anything you please is BS. They are an abuse of power. These new regulations should have SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL LAWS TO BACK THEM. They simply don't have that now.

 

[Bush92]

The crisis will be over the power of federal government to spy on the people and deny rights reserved to the states.