"The lawsuit could set up a significant test of constitutional checks and balances, with the legislative branch suing the executive branch for ignoring its mandates, and the judiciary branch deciding the outcome."
I thought the only option available to the congress against a president was impeachment.
15 comments:
Better not email that.
You know, you're missing the big story today, which is that the economy cratered in Q1. There actually is some reason to believe it will rebound from that cratering, but (a) that optimism overstates the rebound, most likely, and (b) this is still big news. Especially some of the fun details like the drop in consumer spending.
They could do all sorts of things. Cutting off funds is probably the best thing they could do. What if they cut the White House operating budget, for example? How pleasant do you think that building would be without AC in the summer and heating in the winter?
"I thought the only option available to the congress against a president was impeachment."
And the only option to adapt the Constitution is to amend it. But, we've tossed out the amendment approach for judicial opinion, so might as well have judges weigh in on the President.
I don't know why the founders thought we needed a bunch of stuffy statements and rules. All we really need is a smart collection of super-citizens who can decide wrong and right for us.
It's worth a shot. At least to establish the record.
Operative word is plans.
Unless they follow through, it's just election year hoopla.
But maybe, and this is a long shot, somebody is finally getting the idea the Choom Gang could really kill the goose that lays all the golden eggs.
This was raised by George Will to address whether Congress could have standing to make the Executive Branch follow the law. I guess we will find out.
Let's see if the Supreme Court believes in the Constitution. I have my doubts. But let's give them a chance to provide us a written record.
I thought the only option available to the congress against a president was impeachment.
There's always less dramatic ways of doing things.
I thought the only option available to the congress against a president was impeachment.
Congress lacks the will to impeach and the votes in the Senate to follow through. POTUS has no real need for a Legislative branch, except to rubber stamp his agenda. Litigation will keep DC attorneys at full billing. SCOTUS could render specific opinions on specific violations, but what's really needed is for a majority of people to tire of the King's agenda and to act through Congress to vote in a stronger opposition.
At this point I first assume everything is done for show or attention - including the litigation announcement.
Honestly, Obama doesn't seem to mind Boehner all that much. And I wouldn't be surprised if he'll not be bothered by it, by keeping that political understanding in mind.
He knows what's required of the opposition for them to stay in office.
I think the written record is important because when we start putting people up against the wall it is important to have a paper trail.
For posterity.
"It would be perverse for courts to adhere to a doctrine of congressional standing so strict that it precludes judicial defense of the separation of powers.
George Will
Seems like an unfocused response.
Also, an admission that the votes aren't there for impeachment.
This is a way to keep Obama's abuses before the public. That's more important than if a suit is successful. My facebook progressive friends think Obama is being abused with the worse abuse of any president ever. They don't remember Chimpy McBushitler at all.
Post a Comment