Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't get it, do you? The matter will not be heard. This is a political issue, not a legal case. Suppose President Obama sued Speaker Boehner to enjoin some congressional action: do you actually think that the federal courts would hear the matter; an action that on it's face violates separation of powers principles? Do you think that the federal courts have the jurisdictional power to tell the President of the United States to do anything?
If you think (even for a moment) that the federal courts will consent to be the whipping post for John Boehner to lash out against the President of the United States, you are delusional - you're out of your mind.
Here is a preview of coming attractions:
‘First, there is nothing in the Constitution stipulating that all wrongs must have remedies, much less that the remedy must lie in federal court. In fact, given the Constitution’s parsimonious grant of judicial authority, just the opposite is true. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[o]ur system of government leaves many crucial decisions to the political processes. The assumption that if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing." Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 227 (1974).’ Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Senator Ron Johnson and Brooke Ericson, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Office of Personal Management, et al., Defendants, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 14-C-009, W. Griesbach, Chief Judge.
So democrat amendements are voted down and liberals get all up in arms whining and wailing, but when Democrats refuse to even debate, much less vote on, anything proposed by Republicans there's nothing but deafening silence. If the left didn't have double standards they'd have none at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Are you referring to the junk bills the House sends the Senate trying to defund ACA every other day that are all DOA?
urbanlife, I want to extend my personal gatitude to you for making Haakon's case.
urbanlife, I want to extend my personal gatitude to you for making Haakon's case.
Well played sir! well played!
So you encourage the House obstructionists to waste taxpayers' money by sending garbage bills with nothing worth debating in them? Maybe they should be addressing real issues such as the immigration issue rather than sending the same failed bills over and over. Much like the definition of insanity. Odd that people who no doubt consider themselves 'fiscal conservatives' support such a consistent waste of money. No wonder the crazies were emboldened to shut down the government at a cost of $24 billion to taxpayers. People such as yourself encourage it and do not even see it as hypocrisy.
You don't get it, do you? The matter will not be heard. This is a political issue, not a legal case. Suppose President Obama sued Speaker Boehner to enjoin some congressional action: do you actually think that the federal courts would hear the matter; an action that on it's face violates separation of powers principles? Do you think that the federal courts have the jurisdictional power to tell the President of the United States to do anything?
They do. Constitutionally the president is required to enforce the laws even if he doesn't agree with them. He can not simply change them. Just like the courts negated his picks to the NLRB.
Quote:
If you think (even for a moment) that the federal courts will consent to be the whipping post for John Boehner to lash out against the President of the United States, you are delusional - you're out of your mind.
The lawsuit is an attempt to get the president to do what the Constitution requires him to do.
The federal courts do not have jurisdiction to tell the President of the United States to do anything; nor does the court have the authority to direct the Congress to do anything - it's called "separation of powers" (viz. the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to order President Madison to issue the commissions). See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Marbury v Madison was the seminal case that defined the boundary between the separation of powers. Under the Constitution, government power is exercised by three separate but coequal branches (viz., the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches); that function under a system of checks and balances; and no branch may intrude upon the powers vested by the Constitution in another branch. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. In this the jurisdiction of the federal courts is narrowly circumscribed.
The lawsuit will not be heard because there is no jurisdiction. For that matter, there is no person that would have standing to sue, and these actions only beg the question that standing exists independent of prudential rules that bar one from asserting the constitutional rights of others not before the court. Under the Constitution, the federal courts are prohibited from giving advisory opinions; there has to be an actual case or controversy involving a real party in interest with a justiciable claim ripe for adjudication, and not just some speculative, generalized interest of all citizens, even though the matter may touch on federal question or diversity jurisdiction. In this, standing is to be determined by the courts as an issue pertinent to subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has the authority to enact law conferring standing directly, subject to separation-of-powers limitations. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). That is not the case with Speaker Boehner’s proposed action. To put it simply: without a party with standing to sue, there is no case. The action will be dismissed and any appeal denied. There will be the end of the matter.
So you encourage the House obstructionists to waste taxpayers' money by sending garbage bills with nothing worth debating in them? Maybe they should be addressing real issues such as the immigration issue rather than sending the same failed bills over and over. Much like the definition of insanity. Odd that people who no doubt consider themselves 'fiscal conservatives' support such a consistent waste of money. No wonder the crazies were emboldened to shut down the government at a cost of $24 billion to taxpayers. People such as yourself encourage it and do not even see it as hypocrisy.
You know for a fact that they are all garbage bills or you are simply taking The democrat Party's word for it? Too bad we may never know as they never will be allowed on the floor for debate. Now an example of a garbage bill is the immigration reform bill. It is laced with pork, but oddly enough does very little to reform the system.
The entire problem is that neither party will make an attempt to work with the other.
No, the court held that the Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess-intra-session or inter-session-of sufficient length. See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al., 573 U.S. ___ (2014). The court did not order the President to make the appointments, or rule that the President could not make them.
You insult me then expect me to read someones Blog as proof of something or the other, try again, as you handle says.................
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
