GOP-led House approves lawsuit against Obama

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • adam russell West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:13 p.m.

    If Boehner thought the suit was valid he would file it asap. But I predict he wont ever file it at all. The DC and Virginia lawsuits against subsidies will be appealed to the USSC and Boehner will say that he doesnt want to file his until those 2 are decided. Then, win or lose, we will never hear from the house lawsuit again.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 31, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    All these fund raisers, and vacations ought to be paid back.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    July 31, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    I find it ironic that an actor was a far better president than a lawyer. You would think a lawyer would know how to follow laws, especially the Constitution.

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    July 31, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Interesting. I just listened to Judge Napolitano talk about this issue.

    Suing a President is fruitless. This actually creates a problem as one coequal branch of government suing another coequal branch of government in lower courts has no Constitutional remedy. Napolitano went so far as to say that he thinks a lower court judge will toss the lawsuit, 1) because it is nothing more than a political stunt, and 2) because a lower court judge won't want to get into the middle of a fight between Congress and the President when the constitutionality of the the lawsuit is murky at best.

    If Congress wants to take this fight to the dog, do it the right way- vote on articles of impeachment. But, the Democrats won't do it because not supporting the President regardless of policies or actions will cost votes, and the Republicans won't do it because they know they'd lose an impeachment trial in the Senate and THAT would cost votes. So, in the end, it's all just political posturing.

    Politics in Washington is a game of chicken being played by a bunch of chickens.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 30, 2014 8:52 p.m.

    no legislation can pass if harry won't allow a vote in the senate - the GOP controlled house has passed PLENTY of legislation just see harry sit on it. You really should complain about harry, but we know you won't.

    BO, a constitutional scholar? maybe so, but that does not mean he will follow it, despite his oath of office. There is difference between a scholar and someonw who follows it.

    the problem with impeachment is the dem senate would not to convict BO regardless of what he did. He could shoot somebody on live TV and harry and the senate dems would vote to exonerate.

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    July 30, 2014 8:12 p.m.

    The president is bound to uphold the law. Once the ACA was passed into law Obama is bound to uphold the law as it was written. The president does not have constitutional authority to make changes to laws as he sees fit. If the ACA needs to be tweaked, the proper channel is to go through congress. Obama cannot make exemptions when and as he see fit. He cannot argue "but that was the intent of the law", re: subsidies granted only through state exchanges, especially when it is very clear that the intention was to pressure the states into creating exchanges.

    The sooner the ACA is fully implemented, the sooner it will fail and we can move on to correcting it.

    IMO, there are far greater things that Obama has had his hand in that would call for impeachment, but the republican party does not want to press on those issues because when it is their turn again, they want to do the same.

    Here is an idea, next election everyone vote for any candidate other than a democrat or republican.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    July 30, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    Here, let me fix it for you...
    The intel was from several governments, it was gathered during the Clinton administration as well, we did find WMD in the form of chemical weapons. Good faith belief that it was good intel. Depends on who defines it as torture. This president exponentially increased the debt, and there wasn't a surplus to start with. Debt is Debt, and increasing it doesn't make it go away. You don't try enemy combatants, they are prisoners of war. Katrina was the responsibility of local governments(Mayor Nagin), who just recently got 10 years for corruption in Katrina. The federal folks are there to provide assistance, not be the first line for disaster relief.

    Perhaps a non-biased media would actually report the facts about how New Orleans squandered the resources prior to Katrina, botched the evacuation during, and the corruption after.

  • call_me_ishmael ROY, UT
    July 30, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    They should sue and maybe impeach. When a president starts a war on false pretenses, approves (by executive order) violations of the Geneva Conventions resulting in torture, takes the nation from a financial surplus to astronomic debt, then opens secret prisons around the world without any hope for trial, he deserves to be sued. It is a good thing that his administration handled hurricane Katrina so well, or, that would be added to the list too.

  • prelax Murray, UT
    July 30, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    Both parties have blocked legislation by the other party.

    Obama has overstepped his bounds, giving waivers to every group (including people in US territories) except the U.S. taxpayer, over healthcare.

    He doesn't play well with other people.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 30, 2014 6:17 p.m.

    Like Irony guy, I wonder about the legality of suing the executive branch. If there really is a problem with him repeatedly exceeding his constitutional authority, then maybe an impeachment would be in order. I do remember that the SCOTUS did find against his misuse of recess appointments by a ruling of 9-0! just wondering.

  • bobdc6 park city, UT
    July 30, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    What a waste of time and taxpayer money, no court has jurisdiction. If the Republicans want to once again challenge the law or the implementation of the law, they must again take that challenge to the Supreme Court, otherwise, impeachment is the only choice.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 30, 2014 5:51 p.m.

    Hey Irony Guy -

    " But I would like to hear a constitutional scholar on this point."

    Well then . . . You'd better ask Obama.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    July 30, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    Ah, finally congress will do something productive. Not like immigration, energy, education, poverty, or the economy warrant their attention or concern.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 30, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    They can't pass any legislation for the people, but true to their promise to try and thwart every effort by this president to do his job, they approve this.

    Really is pathetic, last time a democrat was in the white house they spent the entire time trying to impeach him.
    Guess if you can't lead...complain.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 30, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    Innocent constitutional question: Can one half of one branch of gov't sue another fully equal branch of gov't? Where does the Constitution provide for this? How does that work?

    (I know, I know. Leftists will say no, Rightists will say yes. That's no mystery. But I would like to hear a constitutional scholar on this point.)