House suing Obama?

I like Neil Cavuto a lot, but he was apparently wrong. The Supreme Court sided, at least to a limited extent, with Bachmann.

Yes you have.

"“Your actions speak so loudly, I can not hear what you are saying.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Constitution article 2, section 3

"the president possesses wide discretion in deciding how and even when to enforce laws."

wikipedia got it wrong. To make this accurate the sentence should end with "... Except when Don Diego disagrees."

OK, . . . poor old DonDiego did a little research, . . . and forkushV is correct: the President's actions regarding implementation of Laws are, in fact, unprecedented.

And it's not the number of such Executive Orders that matter; it's the content.

__ In July 2012, the Obama Administration issued a bureaucratic edict proposing to overturn the work requirements that formed the core of the 1996 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) law. This action clearly violated the intent and letter of the law.
__Through 2012 the Obama administration freed schools in more than half the nation from central provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law, relieving States from the goal of making all students proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. [DonDiego suspects this goal will not be met.]
__In June 2012 The Obama announced his administration would stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements. This is a direct violation of immigration law; when questioned the Obama replied: "It is the right thing to do."
__In August 2013 , Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department will no longer pursue mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, noting the nation is "coldly efficient in jailing criminals," but that it "cannot prosecute or incarcerate" its way to becoming safer. Congress mandated minimum sentences for a reason.
__As DonDiego noted earlier The Obama delayed the Obamacare mandate for companies with over 50 workers one year until 2016. The Law passed by Congress specifies 2015.
__Fearing that some Companies with slightly over 50 employees might use the extra year to downsize to escape the mandate altogether the President invented a brand new Law never even contemplated by Congress - Employers must certify they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. Doing so would trigger criminal perjury charges; so The Obama created a new crime, that of adopting a business practice he opposes. [This part, . . . inventing a Law and defining an employers action as perjury by a President really is special.

Indeed, The Obama is "special".

"Courts, understandably fearful of being inundated by lawsuits from small factions of disgruntled legislators, have been wary of granting legislative standing. However, David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University have studied the case law and believe that standing can be obtained conditional on four things:
__That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorizes a lawsuit.
__That the lawsuit concern the president’s “benevolent” suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff.
__That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law.
__And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress’s power.

DonDiego trusts that House Speaker Boener (R-OH) is successful in bringing this suit against The Obama.

Thanks to George Will for the documentation of some of The Obama's indiscretions as enumerated above.

Is DonDiego implying that Obama is enforcing laws that do not exist and ignoring laws that do exist?

If you're saying that you researched the administrative actions of previous administrations to make that claim, I don't believe you.

If you didn't research the administrative actions of previous administrations to make that claim, you simply don't understand what "unprecedented" means.

So which is it?

LMAO !


Sure signs that the RichThuglican Party is coming apart at the seams ! We got Faux News.....the prime cheerleader for the criminal organization known as the GOP.......ripping into one of their teabagger darlings (albeit it....one of their most clueless loved ones).

Perhaps Faux is seeing their tumbling ratings (tumbling downward....that is), and figures it better move a little bit more towards the center before the usual Fred T. reverse mortgate/ buy gold bullion advertisers pull the plug on them.

It's tons of fun watching the demise of the once powerful (but still corrupt) Republican Party !

How dare we disagree with Don Diego.

He's a sheep......we should be a sheep ! Please.....all follow the flock towards the cliff !

Can someone explain what this post means?

i. The link is erroneous.

ii. marcisdave quoted the post (including the erroneous link, without comment) in a later post - never a good sign.

So, . . . where does the "wide discretion" stuff come from?

Link Fixed.

Constitution article 2, section 3