House suing Obama?

The filibuster, the tool by which Senate Republicans early in the Obama Administration were able to keep presidential appointees from being voted on, was not created until 30 years after our nation's founding, and was not used until 61 years after our nation's founding.

When she testified before the Senate in 2010, Sarah A. Binder, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Brookings Instutution and a scholar on the filibuster, stated as follows:

"We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate."

With regard to the filibuster and how it was used early in the Obama Administration to frustrate our President's ability to fill vacancies, PJ got it exactly right.

(Prediction: jatki will point out that the chart compares Obama's five years with Bush's eight and scream "Fraud!" Then Boilerman will add something incisive like "You go girl!" Then DonDiego will point out that the chart is five months old (jatki again: "Fraud!"), and proceed to write a 500 word tome that no one actually completes. Let's see if I'm right.)

The House suing the President and the Supreme Court ruling Presidential appointments made while Congress is not on recess are invalid are two distinct issues addressing Presidential abuse of power.

DonDiego respectfully suggests the question of the filibuster is not at the heart of the proposed lawsuit which is, in fact, the topic of this thread.
Perhaps pjstroh or Chilcoot can initiate a thread about violating the Constitution by making appointments when the Congress is not on recess, . . . although the unanimous Supreme Court decision apparently renders the issue settled.

Item i. House sues The Obama

"House Speaker John Boehner confirmed Wednesday that he intends to sue President Barack Obama in the long-running dispute between the administration and congressional Republicans over the scope of the administration's executive authority to enforce laws.
'I am,' Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters when asked if he was going to initiate a lawsuit. 'The Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws.'”
Ref: Detroit Free Press

DonDiego opines this has nothing to do with the filibuster but rather much to do with with arbitrary violation the Laws passed by Congress by, f'rinstance, delaying the date for implementation of mandatory insurance provisions of Obamacare for businesses employing over 50 persons, a date specified by Congress within the Law.


Item ii. The filibuster.

But if one wants to discuss the filibuster, . . . with respect to staffing Executive positions, . . . OK.
DonDiego also sees no citation attributable to the Founding Fathers opposing the filibuster by pjstroh or Chilcoot.

One [e.g.pjstroh, Chilcoot, and Sarah A. Binder Ph.D] can argue that the Founders did not intend the Senate to have the power of the filibuster to limit Presidential power. But such argument is based upon what one thinks the Founders thought, not on what they wrote into Law.

And what did they write?
"The Standing Rules of the Senate are the Parliamentary procedures adopted by the United States Senate that govern its procedure. The Senate's power to establish rules derives from Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution: 'Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings . . .'"
Ref: wikipedia

Why poor old DonDiego thinks the Founding Fathers also did not intend the preposterous Regulatory State foisted upon the US population, . . . nor the ever-expanding Welfare State, . . . and especially not the unprecedented data collection of US citizens communications by, f'rinstance, the NSA, . . . but here they are anyway, notwithstanding what the Founders might've thought.

obama/holder have lost 13 cases since 2012 by a 9-0 vote

PJ writes that America's founders didn't envision such obstructionism.

You ask for a citation supporting PJ's assertion.

I give you a citation indicating that the founders didn't contemplate filibusters, perhaps the single most important obstruction tool that the GOP has been using.

Blah DonDiego blah DonDiego blah.

Implementation of federal laws has been delayed by presidential administrations at least fifteen times in the last fifteen years - without Congressional approval.

DonDiego, why is this instance so special?

Happy days!!The house is finally going to do something???

The Constitution. (But DonDiego hasn't said it is special.)

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

John Paul Stevens in Clinton v. City of New York, :"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it.

As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress "would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice."

Ref: Wall Street Journal

Those that don't understand that limitless power is never good in the long run haven't been paying attention.

This is video of an argument between Neil Cavuto and Michelle Bachmann sums things up pretty well. If you can't tell, I think Cavuto is absolutely correct.

Fox Video