Turns out Boehners lawsuit to Obama is accidentally all about minorities.....

So for those who havnt heard, US Speaker of the House John Boehner is planning on suing President Obama for an abuse of executive orders. Which ones? well thats a  bit of a problem, he actually doesnt know, and its almost kind of sad to read his Op-ed justifying his lawsuit, because it becomes clear he actually has no idea.

From Boehner's op-ed:

Every member of Congress swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So did President Barack Obama.

But too often over the past five years, the President has circumvented the American people and their elected representatives through executive action, changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from enforcing statutes he is sworn to uphold -- at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.

Ok todays first interference of fact: Obama has issued 182 executive orders. Thats less than any president two term president since Grover Cleveland.  Which is clearly unconstitutional. He needs to issue them faster like Reagan (381) Nixon (346)  and W. (291).......

That's why, later this month, we will bring legislation to the House floor that would authorize the House of Representatives to file suit in an effort to compel President Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.

Because hey, we want people arrested for singing Happy Birthday. That motherfucker is copywrited and signing it without paying is illegal.

We also want you arrested for using a Pseudonym on the internet (means I'm going to jail)

Oh and guess what, if you keep your cellphone, but change plans Go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200

Also if your a internet troll........GO TO PRISON.
|
see those are all federal laws the imperial president isnt enforcing. But since we believe the President should be forced to enforce ALL laws......your all going to jail. 

The President's response: "So sue me."
Yea, because he didnt think you would be stupid enough to do it. His mistake for underestimating your stupidity, you will sure show him when you get laughed out of court for the reasons I mentioned above.

What's disappointing is the President's flippant dismissal of the Constitution we are both sworn to defend. It is utterly beneath the dignity of the office. I know the President is frustrated. I'm frustrated. The American people are frustrated, too.

After years of slow economic growth and high unemployment under President Obama, they are still asking, 'where are the jobs?' The House has passed more than 40 jobs bills that would help. But Washington Democrats, led by the President, just ignore them.
So funny story I went and looked up your "40 bills" and I actually found them, on a website former majority Eric Cantor designed

Some of the highlights: a "Review of Federal Regulations". Not sure how rereading regulations creates jobs....

"Energy Tax Prevention Act" despite the title, if you look the bill up, it redefines the word "Greenhouse gas". Again I'm not entirely sure how changing the meaning of a word creates a job

"Disapproval of FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations" To be fair, I suppose allowing internet providers to charge for access to some internet sites and not allow any access to others that wont pay them would create jobs for those who had to design the filter programs.


"REINS Act"  this is my personal favorite. You see REINS stands for "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny" and the point of the act is to stop the president from making any changes to government regulations without congress direct approval  even if its in response to a law just passed by congress.

In otherwords even if we accept the rather odd conservative belief that changing regulations changes jobs, this bill makes that harder to do, so would be an job killer.

Actually no I take that back, this is my favorite:  H.R. 2087 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia

Oh by the way, the parcel of land in question is 32 acres. Lots of jobs you can create on 32 acres of land. For those bad at mental imaging, the Lincoln Memorial is 107 acres.

So yea, lots and lots and lots of jobs created there.....

Even worse, the President's habit of ignoring the law as written hurts our economy and jobs even more. Washington taxes and regulations always make it harder for private sector employers to meet payrolls, invest in new initiatives and create jobs -- but how can those employers plan, invest and grow when the laws are changing on the President's whim at any moment?

So I believe what Speaker Boehner just said is that taxes and regulations are bad for jobs.....and not having taxes and regulations is worse.

I'm confused.......

I don't take the House legal action against the President lightly. We've passed legislation to address this problem (twice), but Senate Democrats, characteristically, have ignored it.

Yea ok. I'll be honest, I have no idea what Speaker Boehner is talking about, and since he wont give bill names I had to do a google search. So I did one one "House passes bill to enforce laws". And I only came up with ONE bill you passed (the ENFORCE ACT) and it was actually designed to make it easier to sue the president. (granted I admit its possible I just cant find the other)

I mean I guess that is "addressing the problem" that suing the president is hard....and you look like a dumb ass.

In the end, the Constitution makes it clear that the President's job is to faithfully execute the laws. And, in my view, the President has not faithfully executed the laws when it comes to a range of issues, including his health care law, energy regulations, foreign policy and education.

Would you care to give example? I'm guessing not. You see out of your 40+ pieces of legislation from Cantors website, only 1 has actually reached the Presidents desk and not been signed: 

"Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012"  the point of which was to block entry to the US for several Russian officials who may have been responsbile for the death of a Russian lawyer.  

But yea, thats kinda it, and since I'm positive the consistution authorizes the president to not sign a bill, I dont think you really have a case. Unless you wanted to sue the senate because they wouldnt pass the rest....but again Constitution actually says they can do that.

Granted its a little better if we look at Executive orders. Obama has passed all of 1 related to Obamacare with prohibits use of federal money in abortions (I have a hunch you dont really want to fight over this one either)

He's passed all of 2 related to energy regulations, one on gas, one on efficiency standards

On foreign policy, he's passed a whopping 1. It prohibits people disobeying the sanctions against Iran and Syria from entering the US.

Which leaves us with education with 5. One establishing help for native Americans,  1 for the military, 1 for African Americans, and 2 for Latino's, the 2nd of which reauthorizes the first. 

So to sum up, out of all the things you imply are examples, you have 9 executive orders, one of which you agree with (abortion) so you only have 8 that are objectionable. Of those 4 of them deal with minorities and 1 deals with the troops. So picking a fight over them will really really really help your outreach problems....


There must be accountability. We have a system of government outlined in our Constitution with the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Congress has its job to do, and so does the President. When there are conflicts like this -- between the legislative branch and the executive branch -- it is my view that it is our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve, and for the Constitution.

If you look back over American history, there has always been a tension between the inherent powers of the executive branch versus the inherent powers of the legislative branch. This issue is as old as Marbury vs. Madison and as fresh as the unanimous Supreme Court ruling last week that the President overstepped his authority on recess appointments.

Actually I agree completely. Side note, did you know President Obama actually followed through on his campaign promise to close Gitmo? no really he did. Heres the executive order.

now Gitmo of course is still open. You know why? congress overrode the executive order. Turns out you can do that. Thats actually how your institution stands up for itself in this tension between the inherent powers of the two branches of government.

But thats the real problem here, this isnt a fight between two branches of government, its a fight between your party and the power of the government. Which is why you cant do shit to reverse minorities from getting edumicated, the rest of your branch of government wont support you like they did on Gitmo......

Over the last five years, starting -- not coincidentally -- when his political party lost the majority in the House of Representatives, the President has consistently overstepped his authority under the Constitution, and in so doing eroded the power of the legislative branch.

The legislative branch has an obligation to defend the rights and responsibilities of the American people, and America's constitutional balance of powers -- before it is too late.

Yea um, your math sucks Bro. you see 5 years ago would have been 2009. The GOP took the house in 2011, that would be about 3 and 1/2 years.  Side note by the way, reducing the time frame to 2011 would reduce the number of executive orders you find objectionable from 9 down to 7. The one you happen to agree with would be excluded (abortion) as would the 1st of the 2 latino education orders.

Which still gives you a problem because 4 out of the 7 orders your objecting too are about educating vets and minorities......thats not a fight you can actually win as far as public opinion and the last election really should have taught you that.

Worst part is, I dont think you actually intended to fight over those issues. You want to fight over the changes in immigration law and the delay in the healthcare mandate. 

Here's the problem.......turns out NONE of those were done by executive order.

Which is going to make your lawsuit just a little bit awkward.

Because yea, you either pick a fight over educating minorities and the military, or you get laughed the fuck out of court when you cant actually find the executive orders to prove your claims and as a result likely encourage the president to issue MORE executive orders since no one will take you seriously anymore.

This also probibly explains why president Obama is more willing to talk about and bring up this lawsuit than you are. He doesnt want you to just walk away and hope no one notices.....hes trying to force you to humiliate yourself......just saying.

But I will hand you and your party one thing, Mr. Speaker you are BY FAR the best I have EVER seen at ensuring that no matter the issue, you unnecessarily embarrass yourselves in ways 10 seconds of research could have prevented and ensure the other side always wins and you lose. (even when the other side wins by agreeing with you as they did on the ryan budget, and you guys took the heat, obamacare, and you guys took the heat, the fiscal cliff, and you guys took the heat ect)