White House Expects John Boehner To Try For Impeachment

[Moonglow]

election year shytnanigans...by the weak, splintered GOP...

 

[kaz]

ok, my bad... and my apology Kaz.

Honest mistake, admission of such. We are totally good.

 

[Moonglow]

The House is trying to sue Obama for not executing the laws passed by Congress.

For example, Obama extended the employer health insurance mandate deadline without authorization from Congress.

The key words in that last sentence are "without authorization from Congress."

You see, Congress could easily pass legislation to extend the employer health insurance mandate if they wanted to. But the Republican House is deliberately choosing not to so they can whine and pull out their hair and rent their clothes about Obama "circumventing" them.

It's all theater for the rubes.

Before the lawsuit can proceed, it must be determined if the House even has legal standing to sue Obama.

Should the House be found to have legal standing, the lawsuit could then proceed. If the lawsuit then comes out in their favor, then that would be grounds for impeachment.




Now I want you to ask yourself the odds of all of this coming to pass before 2016.



Theater for the rubes. That's what this is.

As you posted, Obama broke the law. The law didn't give him the authority to move deadlines. In fact, those deadlines were written in legal stone by the use of the words "Shall" and "Must". It takes another bill, passed by both Houses of the Congress and Signed into law by the President changing those words and giving him the authority to unilaterally make changes before he could legally do it.

Of course that was not the only time he broke the law.. but it is a fine example.

Can you quote any case law or are you just speculating?

 

[kaz]

election year shytnanigans...by the weak, splintered GOP...

LOL, the self identification of the liberal drones is hilarious.

Accusation by a Democrat, Democrats react to it as fact.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The House is trying to sue Obama for not executing the laws passed by Congress.

For example, Obama extended the employer health insurance mandate deadline without authorization from Congress.

The key words in that last sentence are "without authorization from Congress."

You see, Congress could easily pass legislation to extend the employer health insurance mandate if they wanted to. But the Republican House is deliberately choosing not to so they can whine and pull out their hair and rent their clothes about Obama "circumventing" them.

It's all theater for the rubes.

Before the lawsuit can proceed, it must be determined if the House even has legal standing to sue Obama.

Should the House be found to have legal standing, the lawsuit could then proceed. If the lawsuit then comes out in their favor, then that would be grounds for impeachment.




Now I want you to ask yourself the odds of all of this coming to pass before 2016.



Theater for the rubes. That's what this is.

As you posted, Obama broke the law. The law didn't give him the authority to move deadlines. In fact, those deadlines were written in legal stone by the use of the words "Shall" and "Must". It takes another bill, passed by both Houses of the Congress and Signed into law by the President changing those words and giving him the authority to unilaterally make changes before he could legally do it.

Of course that was not the only time he broke the law.. but it is a fine example.

Can you quote any case law or are you just speculating?

Here ya go...

Shall Law & Legal Definition

The word ‘Shall’ has the following meanings:
◾An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually ‘shall’ used here is in the mandatory sense.
◾Should . Courts often interpret shall as should. For example, all claimants shall request mediation.
◾May. When a negative word such as not or no precedes shall the word shall often means may. For example, no person shall enter the building without first signing the roster.
◾Will . For example, the defendant shall then have a period of 30 days to object.

The following are some case law interpreting the word shall:

When used in statutes, contracts, or the like, the word "shall" is generally imperative or mandatory.[Independent School Dist. v. Independent School Dist., 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (Minn. 1969)]

"In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term 'shall' is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere permission," etc.[People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 759 (Cal. App. 1932)]

http://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/shall-vs-must
This is quite a common question that we get here at TransLegal and so I'll just start by saying that really there's no hard, fast rule with respect to the use of modal verbs like shall, will, must, may, etc. They can be used pretty much interchangeably.

For example, shall and must are virtually identical in meaning, however shall is usually deemed to be the more formal of the two and is used only in contracts, legislation or similar documents.

Now the definitions up here may be useful. You can see here shall means has a duty to, must is required to, may has discretion or permission to and will expresses a future contingency. As seen here, shall is used when a person or entity has a duty to perform a certain act.

In general, must is used if the sentence's subject is an inanimate object, in other words, where the subject is not a person or a body on which a duty can be imposed.

 

[Siete]

As you posted, Obama broke the law. The law didn't give him the authority to move deadlines. In fact, those deadlines were written in legal stone by the use of the words "Shall" and "Must". It takes another bill, passed by both Houses of the Congress and Signed into law by the President changing those words and giving him the authority to unilaterally make changes before he could legally do it.

Of course that was not the only time he broke the law.. but it is a fine example.

Can you quote any case law or are you just speculating?

Here ya go...

Shall Law & Legal Definition

The word ‘Shall’ has the following meanings:
◾An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually ‘shall’ used here is in the mandatory sense.
◾Should . Courts often interpret shall as should. For example, all claimants shall request mediation.
◾May. When a negative word such as not or no precedes shall the word shall often means may. For example, no person shall enter the building without first signing the roster.
◾Will . For example, the defendant shall then have a period of 30 days to object.

The following are some case law interpreting the word shall:

When used in statutes, contracts, or the like, the word "shall" is generally imperative or mandatory.[Independent School Dist. v. Independent School Dist., 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (Minn. 1969)]

"In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term 'shall' is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere permission," etc.[People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 759 (Cal. App. 1932)]

Shall vs. must - Legal English Lesson
This is quite a common question that we get here at TransLegal and so I'll just start by saying that really there's no hard, fast rule with respect to the use of modal verbs like shall, will, must, may, etc. They can be used pretty much interchangeably.

For example, shall and must are virtually identical in meaning, however shall is usually deemed to be the more formal of the two and is used only in contracts, legislation or similar documents.

Now the definitions up here may be useful. You can see here shall means has a duty to, must is required to, may has discretion or permission to and will expresses a future contingency. As seen here, shall is used when a person or entity has a duty to perform a certain act.

In general, must is used if the sentence's subject is an inanimate object, in other words, where the subject is not a person or a body on which a duty can be imposed.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...edicare-part-d-and-obamacare-health-care-gov/


The Medicare site, meant to help seniors pick benefit plans, was supposed to debut Oct. 13, 2005, but it didn’t go live until weeks later in November. Even then, "the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing," the Washington Post reported at the time


Delayed.

 

[bendog]

Imo, they have a better shot at impeachment than a successful lawsuit over Obama selectively enforcing laws, and even interpreting laws to allow for actions. But the only thing that could possibly help Obama's polls would be impeachment.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Can you quote any case law or are you just speculating?

Here ya go...

Shall vs. must - Legal English Lesson
This is quite a common question that we get here at TransLegal and so I'll just start by saying that really there's no hard, fast rule with respect to the use of modal verbs like shall, will, must, may, etc. They can be used pretty much interchangeably.

For example, shall and must are virtually identical in meaning, however shall is usually deemed to be the more formal of the two and is used only in contracts, legislation or similar documents.

Now the definitions up here may be useful. You can see here shall means has a duty to, must is required to, may has discretion or permission to and will expresses a future contingency. As seen here, shall is used when a person or entity has a duty to perform a certain act.

In general, must is used if the sentence's subject is an inanimate object, in other words, where the subject is not a person or a body on which a duty can be imposed.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...edicare-part-d-and-obamacare-health-care-gov/


The Medicare site, meant to help seniors pick benefit plans, was supposed to debut Oct. 13, 2005, but it didn’t go live until weeks later in November. Even then, "the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing," the Washington Post reported at the time


Delayed.

And just what does comparing roll out problems have to do with Obama breaking the law when he unilaterally delayed portions of the law in direct violation of the law?

Or are you attempting to change the subject because I have proven my point that Obama did break the law?

 

[Siete]

Here ya go...

Did Medicare Part D have the same rollout problems as the Obamacare online marketplaces? | PolitiFact


The Medicare site, meant to help seniors pick benefit plans, was supposed to debut Oct. 13, 2005, but it didn’t go live until weeks later in November. Even then, "the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing," the Washington Post reported at the time


Delayed.

And just what does comparing roll out problems have to do with Obama breaking the law when he unilaterally delayed portions of the law in direct violation of the law?

Or are you attempting to change the subject because I have proven my point that Obama did break the law?

parts of ACA that were delayed were roll outs ... pay attention, the LAW was in effect, roll out parts of the law on the books were delayed ..

get it?

keep trying anyway.

 

[nodoginnafight]

ok, my bad... and my apology Kaz.

I respect this post!

Rep coming when I get re-loaded.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think this statement from the Obama Administration is just a preemptive strike.

No evidence - just a gut feeling.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Did Medicare Part D have the same rollout problems as the Obamacare online marketplaces? | PolitiFact


The Medicare site, meant to help seniors pick benefit plans, was supposed to debut Oct. 13, 2005, but it didn’t go live until weeks later in November. Even then, "the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing," the Washington Post reported at the time


Delayed.

And just what does comparing roll out problems have to do with Obama breaking the law when he unilaterally delayed portions of the law in direct violation of the law?

Or are you attempting to change the subject because I have proven my point that Obama did break the law?

parts of ACA that were delayed were roll outs ... pay attention, the LAW was in effect, roll out parts of the law on the books were delayed ..

get it?

keep trying anyway.

Illegally delayed.

Get it?

Keep trying anyway.

 

[bendog]

I think this statement from the Obama Administration is just a preemptive strike.

No evidence - just a gut feeling.

it's hopeful thinking at the WH, imo.

 

[g5000]

As you posted, Obama broke the law. The law didn't give him the authority to move deadlines. In fact, those deadlines were written in legal stone by the use of the words "Shall" and "Must". It takes another bill, passed by both Houses of the Congress and Signed into law by the President changing those words and giving him the authority to unilaterally make changes before he could legally do it.

Of course that was not the only time he broke the law.. but it is a fine example.

As I said, Congress could fix the problem of the employer mandate any time they choose. Easily.

But the Republican Party has instead decided it is more important to sue Obama than fix the problem. They are putting party before country.

 

[Siete]

And just what does comparing roll out problems have to do with Obama breaking the law when he unilaterally delayed portions of the law in direct violation of the law?

Or are you attempting to change the subject because I have proven my point that Obama did break the law?

parts of ACA that were delayed were roll outs ... pay attention, the LAW was in effect, roll out parts of the law on the books were delayed ..

get it?

keep trying anyway.

Illegally delayed.

Get it?

Keep trying anyway.

a CIVIL suit is not criminal charges being tried in a court ..

keep trying though ..

 

[R.D.]

As you posted, Obama broke the law. The law didn't give him the authority to move deadlines. In fact, those deadlines were written in legal stone by the use of the words "Shall" and "Must". It takes another bill, passed by both Houses of the Congress and Signed into law by the President changing those words and giving him the authority to unilaterally make changes before he could legally do it.

Of course that was not the only time he broke the law.. but it is a fine example.

As I said, Congress could fix the problem of the employer mandate any time they choose. Easily.

But the Republican Party has instead decided it is more important to sue Obama than fix the problem. They are putting party before country.

Fix what problem? The fact that the law is unpopular and da man tweeked it?

 

[g5000]

In 1997, the Republican Congress passed a balanced budget. They achieved this by means of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Medicare reimbursement rates were to be curtailed in future years.

But every year since then, every Congress has passed a "doc fix" to null and void the SGR.

You don't hear Republicans whining about the 1997 Congress passing a law without knowing what was in it when the doc fix rolls around. You don't see them refusing to pass a bill fixing the SGR every year.

They just do it. They pass a bill voiding the SGR.


This is how we know the employer mandate deadline not being fixed is strictly for political reasons. The House could fix it any time they choose, for the good of the country. But it is more important to them to create a constitutional crisis for political ends.

Theater for the rubes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think this statement from the Obama Administration is just a preemptive strike.

No evidence - just a gut feeling.

it's hopeful thinking at the WH, imo.

So what does the W.H. gain?

 

[Siete]

In 1997, the Republican Congress passed a balanced budget. They achieved this by means of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Medicare reimbursement rates were to be curtailed in future years.

But every year since then, every Congress has passed a "doc fix" to null and void the SGR.

You don't hear Republicans whining about the 1997 Congress passing a law without knowing what was in it when the doc fix rolls around. You don't see them refusing to pass a bill fixing the SGR every year.

They just do it. They pass a bill voiding the SGR.


This is how we know the employer mandate deadline not being fixed is strictly for political reasons. The House could fix it any time they choose, for the good of the country. But it is more important to them to create a constitutional crisis for political ends.

Theater for the rubes.

Obama signs 'doc-fix' bill | Modern Healthcare

 

[bendog]

I think this statement from the Obama Administration is just a preemptive strike.

No evidence - just a gut feeling.

it's hopeful thinking at the WH, imo.

So what does the W.H. gain?

Better poll numbers. Many people, like me, who would never vote to elect Obama don't like impeachment. No one approved of Slick's sexual escapade, but his poll numbers went higher than his erection after impeachment.