Boehner's Lawsuit Could Finish The Lawless Administration
Democrats have widely dismissed House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) announcement that he plans to file a lawsuit against President Barack Obama for misuse of executive orders. But many Americans believe that Boehner may have a real case against the President, especially after the Supreme Court delivered a ruling Thursday against Obama Administration efforts to expand executive power.
The Supreme Court's nine Justices ruled that the three so-called recess appointments the President made to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, as Congress conducted pro forma sessions every three days to avoid going into recess, were unConstitutional.
The ruling serves as a point of vindication for members of the GOP who have claimed that Obama's unilateral actions in defiance of Congress in making the appointment and with regard to various other matters illustrate the Administration's utter disregard for the Constitution.
"Today, the Supreme Court invalidated President Obama's unlawful abuse of the President's recess appointments power. President Obama ignored the plain text of the Constitution and attempted to make unilateral recess appointments - circumventing the checks and balances of confirmation - when the Senate was not, in fact, in recess," Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said after the ruling was handed down. "Today, a unanimous Court rightly rejected that presidential abuse of power."
Cruz added, "This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama Administration's calls for greater federal executive power."
In April 2013, when the tally of unanimous Supreme Court rulings against the Administration sat at nine, Cruz issued a report detailing what the Nation would look like had Obama gotten his way in court.
"If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to electronically track all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictate who churches choose as ministers, displace state laws based on the president's whims, bring debilitating lawsuits against individuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy a person's private property without just compensation," he wrote at the time.
For the time being, the Senate has rendered moot the recess appointment issue at the center of the Thursday ruling because of a rule change that allows for nominee confirmations with a majority vote. However, the decision serves as a censure of Obama's view of Presidential power; and that is paramount.
The ruling also gives Boehner's forthcoming lawsuit traction that his Congressional critics on the left hadn't anticipated.
"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," the House Speaker said, announcing his intentions on Wednesday. "When there are conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it's. our responsibility to stand up for this institution."
In a memo sent to fellow Republicans, Boehner said that he will challenge the "king-like authority" Obama has exerted by issuing executive orders to enact policies affecting healthcare, energy, education, foreign policy and other matters of national importance. Boehner didn't provide a list of specific executive orders that he plans to challenge, but told lawmakers that he plans to bring legislation on the matter to the floor in July once the Rules Committee has reviewed the plan.
The House Speaker said that the main point of the lawsuit is protecting the balance of government powers, as set forth in the Constitution.
"What we've seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch," Boehner said. "On behalf of the institution and the Constitution, standing up and fighting for this is the best long-term interest of the Congress."
The House General Counsel and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a group of lawmakers that includes whips from both parties and majority and minority leaders, would ultimately bring the suit against the Obama Administration if Boehner's plan moves forward.
Democrats have responded to Boehner's plan with familiar groans, accusing the GOP of baseless criticism of the Administration and insinuating that the lawsuit is the precursor to a fruitless impeachment endeavor.
"In this case it seems that Republicans have shifted their opposition into a higher gear. Frankly, I didn't know it was a gear that even existed," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. "They are considering a taxpayer funded lawsuit against the president of the United States for doing his job. [It's] the kind of step that I think most Americans wouldn't support."
But George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, a noted Obama supporter on many issues, isn't so sure that the Obama Administration is immune to damning outcomes that could result from the suit.
"I think there is a case against the President for exceeding his authority," Turley told a baffled MSNBC pundit Wednesday. "I happen to agree with the President on many of his priorities and policies, but as I testified in Congress I think he has crossed the Constitutional line."
While the professor said that it is difficult to sue a sitting U.S. President, it isn't impossible. And Obama certainly hasn't done himself any favors in avoiding the potential legal challenge.
"[W]hen the President went to Congress and said that he was going to go it alone, it obviously raises a concern," Turley noted. "Because there's no license for going it alone in our system."
Impeaching Obama: Imagine That!
Imagine, if you will, the President of the United States - having already established an arrogant disregard for not only the laws of the land, but his own oath of office - engaged in political subterfuge so craven that it literally boggled the mind of the people he purports to represent. In our fun little hypothetical, let's say he not only attempted to deploy the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against his own constituents, but either directly participated in or willingly ignored illegal conduct by his own accomplices as they attempted to hide their malfeasance from the American people. Let's further imagine that this hypothetical Commander in Chief had been repeatedly caught blatantly lying to the people about other nefarious activities that he and his Administration had undertaken and that, when pressed for answers by duly sworn representatives of the people, this President both refused to cooperate with investigators and attempted - or allowed his subordinates to attempt - to destroy vital evidence of the crimes in question. I wonder what end result might be produced by such scandalously duplicitous behavior?
Wait; what's that you say? Such a disgraceful episode has already occurred? So how did our duly sworn representatives respond to such executive depravity? (Author's aside: Generally, quoting enormous blocks of text is frowned upon, mostly because some people - and I won't mention any names here [*cough* Vice President Joe Biden *cough*] - lack compunction. However, sometimes it's unavoidable. The following certainly qualifies.)
-Ben Crystal
Wait; what's that you say? Such a disgraceful episode has already occurred? So how did our duly sworn representatives respond to such executive depravity? (Author's aside: Generally, quoting enormous blocks of text is frowned upon, mostly because some people - and I won't mention any names here [*cough* Vice President Joe Biden *cough*] - lack compunction. However, sometimes it's unavoidable. The following certainly qualifies.)
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:Does any of that sound familiar? If you've escaped the indoctrination of government-run "schools" and teachers' union thugs, you might recognize the heavy parts of the articles of impeachment prepared by Congress - with full support of the Democratic members - against President Richard Nixon in 1974. Other than some really unfortunate style choices, what was the major difference between then and now? Nixon was a Republican. Imagine that.
. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings..
. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States.
(I)n violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
"This conduct has included one or more of the following:
. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
. He misused. executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
-Ben Crystal
South Dakota GOP Asks House Rep To Start Obama Impeachment Proceedings
The South Dakota Republican Party voted by a narrow margin over the weekend to ask its single delegate to the House of Representatives, Republican Congresswoman Kristi Noem, to initiate articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama.
By a 191-176 vote, the State party approved a resolution which "calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States," according to the Sioux Falls-based Argus Leader, because the President has "violated his oath of office in numerous ways."
The gesture marks the latest instance of impeachment saber-rattling, continuing a conservative trope that has endured throughout Obama's first 5.5 years in office.
South Dakota's GOP leaders evidently realize the measure's impact is, likely, merely symbolic. But their remarks indicate the resolution represents an important demarcation of the party's collective belief that Obama has flouted the Constitution, brought enduring shame to the institutions of public service at the Federal level, and subverted the intended balance of power between the three branches of government.
According to the Argus Leader, Allen Unruh, the measure's sponsor, believes the South Dakota GOP will "send a symbolic message that liberty shall be the law of the land" by formally requesting impeachment proceedings.
"If anyone in this room cannot see the horrendous, traitorous scandals run by the Obama administration, I will pray for you," Larry Klipp, another of the resolution's supporters, told the party.
But Noem - who has been plenty critical of Obama - isn't likely to forge ahead with the impeachment idea.
"The Congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the President accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the Administration's actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange," a Noem staffer told the newspaper following the impeachment vote.
By a 191-176 vote, the State party approved a resolution which "calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States," according to the Sioux Falls-based Argus Leader, because the President has "violated his oath of office in numerous ways."
The gesture marks the latest instance of impeachment saber-rattling, continuing a conservative trope that has endured throughout Obama's first 5.5 years in office.
South Dakota's GOP leaders evidently realize the measure's impact is, likely, merely symbolic. But their remarks indicate the resolution represents an important demarcation of the party's collective belief that Obama has flouted the Constitution, brought enduring shame to the institutions of public service at the Federal level, and subverted the intended balance of power between the three branches of government.
According to the Argus Leader, Allen Unruh, the measure's sponsor, believes the South Dakota GOP will "send a symbolic message that liberty shall be the law of the land" by formally requesting impeachment proceedings.
"If anyone in this room cannot see the horrendous, traitorous scandals run by the Obama administration, I will pray for you," Larry Klipp, another of the resolution's supporters, told the party.
But Noem - who has been plenty critical of Obama - isn't likely to forge ahead with the impeachment idea.
"The Congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the President accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the Administration's actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange," a Noem staffer told the newspaper following the impeachment vote.
Culture Shift: Obama Administration Rolls Out 'Unlawful Migration'
In an evident attempt to resow the rocky cultural landscape defined by impassioned views of both sides of the Nation's unfolding illegal immigration crisis, the Administration of President Barack Obama is clarifying its position on the issue by attempting to change the language it uses to describe the act of illegally entering and living in the United States.
The Weekly Standard made note of the Administration's attempt at subtly changing the narrative of the illegal immigration debate on Friday, observing that Obama unveiled the new terminology in a phone conversation with Mexican president Peña Nieto on June 19.
A summary of that conversation, provided by the White House, includes Obama's use of the new phrase:
Shift or Appeasement? - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the occupant of the Oval Office's executive appointments made during "pro-forma" sessions of the Senate. The Court said: "The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill existing vacancy during any recess-intra-session or inter-session-of sufficient length...A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the President's recess-appointment power." The "president" made some appointments during "pro-forma" sessions of the Senate, while technically the Senate was in session. Not one Supreme Court Justice supported the "president."
The decision was significant because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid collaborated with the "president" to make the Senate appear as if it were in recess so the appointments, which the "president" knew would not be confirmed, would stand. The Senate, however, is technically in session when it is in pro-forma and is not in recess, although it is not conducting business. According to the Supremes, this manipulation of the law is unconstitutional. By narrowing the use of recess appointments, the Supremes actually made it a useful tool for future presidents to use in the future. Nonetheless, it exposes the corrupt manipulation of the law and conspiracy to do so by the Majority Leader of the Senate.
In another attempt to limit tyrannical power of a rogue president, House Speaker John Boehner is going to introduce legislation allowing the House to sue the president regarding overreaching executive orders. Boehner pandered to the re-elect crowd saying, "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. And when there's conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch it's, in my view, our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve." How about standing up for the people? The Constitution makes clear that Congress already has authority to handle abuse of power.
Led by Arizona Republican Jeff Flake and California socialist Democrat Dianne Feinstein, more than 36 senators sent a letter to the "president" demanding he "personally make clear" that illegals will not get special treatment. Additionally, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee told the National Review that the "president's" Supreme Court defeat is only the "tip of the iceberg." Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said this is the 12th unanimous defeat of the "president" in the the Supreme Court since 2012 on increased executive power issues (translated dictatorial). Does this represent a shift back to Constitutional authority or is it election year appeasement to keep Americans in a soft tyranny concentration camp? Jesus said in Matthew 24:4, "Take heed that no man deceives you." Appeasement is tricky. Shift is painful to politicians.
Sending a message to Washington - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The Weekly Standard made note of the Administration's attempt at subtly changing the narrative of the illegal immigration debate on Friday, observing that Obama unveiled the new terminology in a phone conversation with Mexican president Peña Nieto on June 19.
A summary of that conversation, provided by the White House, includes Obama's use of the new phrase:
This afternoon President Obama spoke by phone with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to discuss a regional strategy to address the influx of unaccompanied children coming from Central America, through Mexico, to the U.S.-Mexico border. The President noted that Vice President Biden will attend a regional meeting in Guatemala on Friday, June 20, to discuss the urgent humanitarian issue, and welcomed the opportunity to work in close cooperation with Mexico to develop concrete proposals to address the root causes of unlawful migration from Central America. He also discussed the United States and Mexico's shared responsibility for promoting security in both countries and in the region.The Obama Administration has used "unlawful migration" at least once before, although - as The Weekly Standard points out - the context was very different. In 2009, the White House used the term in a joint statement between the U.S. and China concerning the two countries' collaboration on criminal investigations into financial and drug crimes, as well as into - wait for it - "combating unlawful migration."
Shift or Appeasement? - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the occupant of the Oval Office's executive appointments made during "pro-forma" sessions of the Senate. The Court said: "The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill existing vacancy during any recess-intra-session or inter-session-of sufficient length...A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the President's recess-appointment power." The "president" made some appointments during "pro-forma" sessions of the Senate, while technically the Senate was in session. Not one Supreme Court Justice supported the "president."
The decision was significant because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid collaborated with the "president" to make the Senate appear as if it were in recess so the appointments, which the "president" knew would not be confirmed, would stand. The Senate, however, is technically in session when it is in pro-forma and is not in recess, although it is not conducting business. According to the Supremes, this manipulation of the law is unconstitutional. By narrowing the use of recess appointments, the Supremes actually made it a useful tool for future presidents to use in the future. Nonetheless, it exposes the corrupt manipulation of the law and conspiracy to do so by the Majority Leader of the Senate.
In another attempt to limit tyrannical power of a rogue president, House Speaker John Boehner is going to introduce legislation allowing the House to sue the president regarding overreaching executive orders. Boehner pandered to the re-elect crowd saying, "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. And when there's conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch it's, in my view, our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve." How about standing up for the people? The Constitution makes clear that Congress already has authority to handle abuse of power.
Led by Arizona Republican Jeff Flake and California socialist Democrat Dianne Feinstein, more than 36 senators sent a letter to the "president" demanding he "personally make clear" that illegals will not get special treatment. Additionally, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee told the National Review that the "president's" Supreme Court defeat is only the "tip of the iceberg." Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said this is the 12th unanimous defeat of the "president" in the the Supreme Court since 2012 on increased executive power issues (translated dictatorial). Does this represent a shift back to Constitutional authority or is it election year appeasement to keep Americans in a soft tyranny concentration camp? Jesus said in Matthew 24:4, "Take heed that no man deceives you." Appeasement is tricky. Shift is painful to politicians.
Sending a message to Washington - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
Primary runoff night in Mississippi was a lot closer than Republican Senator Thad Cochran had hoped. He won by a little more than 6,800 votes, defeating TEA Party upstart Chris McDaniel. Cochran has been a conservative for most of his four decades in Washington, but somewhere along the journey became part of the "establishment." So much so that McDaniel may challenge the results of the race because of possible Democratic voters who voted in the previous Democratic primary and allegedly voted again in the Republican run-off, saving Cochran from an unplanned retirement. There are several things wrong with this picture, but there is a silver lining in the cloud.
First and foremost, Cochran should have the decency and honor to not make a career out of the Senate. Some 40 years in elected office is not good for any person. They become part of the "club" even if they try not to. The Founding Fathers never intended political office to be a bread and butter career for the elect. But few people exhibit the honor to public service demonstrated by George Washington when he left office after two terms. He resisted the temptation of power and did the right thing. Not in Cochran's case. The 76 year old Senator ran one of the most unseemly campaigns in recent memory to stay in power, including the appearance of vote tampering which will likely be investigated.
Breitbart points out another wrong: "Running on a populist anti-Washington message-including opposition to amnesty, bailouts and the status quo in the nation's capital-McDaniel narrowly beat Cochran in the primary, forcing the runoff...the establishment poured millions of dollars in to back Cochran...Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign manager Stuart Stevens, the Chamber of Commerce, Facebook founding president Sean Parker, Karl Rove's American Crossroads, former Rep. Steven LaTourette's group and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) poured support into Mississippi to back Cochran." It's obvious that people far from Mississippi influenced the outcome.
If anything, the McDaniel campaign exposed a lot about what is wrong with our nation and the system of corruption that keeps it in control. Many would say, "Well, that's just politics." Yes, it is. I know it well. But it doesn't make it right. The more people see how these scoundrels operate, the more they will get fed up with it. Again, Cochran is not a bad man. Hopefully, he will look at this campaign as one where he needs to get back to his roots and quit playing the game of thrones, so to speak. Hats off to McDaniel for exposing to the light many issues that Washington needs to address. For Cochran, we will see if he learns from the scare. As Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, "You shall know them by their fruits."
The Babylonic invasion of America - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
While the occupant of the Oval Office and his minions are trying to guide the national discussion on illegal immigration toward the heartstrings of orphan children, the deliberate invasion of the United States is being allowed. Along with children, come terrorists (as confirmed by Texas Governor Rick Perry), gang members, drug cartel operatives and a host of other malevolent human beings that wish to see America pilfered. Governments are formed to protect the people--for security purposes. In forming government, people give up a small amount of rights for the protection that government provides. Our national security is at risk by a "president" who is undermining our nation as if he is also an enemy.
The preamble to the US Constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The foremost reason for government to be formed and rights to be given up to it, is the security and general welfare of the citizens who consent to being governed by the government. By allowing this illegal invasion, and in actuality encouraging it, the "president" and his administration is in direct violation of the Constitution.
Each day the news is full of stories where thousands of illegals are crossing our borders. The government is knowingly and purposely refusing to enforce border security. The president, whose policies encouraged this invasion, now calls it a humanitarian crisis. Attorney General Eric Holder is moving to have tax-funded attorneys represent the some 230,000 minors expected to have crossed illegally into the US by next year. The lawyers, according to Holder, would assist these children in filing claims for legal status. He said, "We're taking a historic step to strengthen our justice system and protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society." This is amnesty without consent of the citizenry.
In the end of days, Babylon is destroyed by the Lord's judgment. Jeremiah 51:2 says the Lord will "send unto Babylon fanners, that shall fan her, and shall empty her land: for in the day of trouble they shall be against her round about." Verse 14 says, "Surely I will fill you with men, as with locusts; and they shall lift u a shout against you." America looks a lot like Babylon of the scriptures. While we are not drunken on the blood of the saints, we have turned a heard heart away from the Lord. We have elected leadership that is anti-God and anti-American. The first locust that came as a consequence of our behavior is the one in the White House. He has brought many with him to fan our country, and many more are coming. The righteous must demand an end to this as our very freedom and individual security is threatened by it.
While the occupant of the Oval Office and his minions are trying to guide the national discussion on illegal immigration toward the heartstrings of orphan children, the deliberate invasion of the United States is being allowed. Along with children, come terrorists (as confirmed by Texas Governor Rick Perry), gang members, drug cartel operatives and a host of other malevolent human beings that wish to see America pilfered. Governments are formed to protect the people--for security purposes. In forming government, people give up a small amount of rights for the protection that government provides. Our national security is at risk by a "president" who is undermining our nation as if he is also an enemy.
The preamble to the US Constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The foremost reason for government to be formed and rights to be given up to it, is the security and general welfare of the citizens who consent to being governed by the government. By allowing this illegal invasion, and in actuality encouraging it, the "president" and his administration is in direct violation of the Constitution.
Each day the news is full of stories where thousands of illegals are crossing our borders. The government is knowingly and purposely refusing to enforce border security. The president, whose policies encouraged this invasion, now calls it a humanitarian crisis. Attorney General Eric Holder is moving to have tax-funded attorneys represent the some 230,000 minors expected to have crossed illegally into the US by next year. The lawyers, according to Holder, would assist these children in filing claims for legal status. He said, "We're taking a historic step to strengthen our justice system and protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society." This is amnesty without consent of the citizenry.
In the end of days, Babylon is destroyed by the Lord's judgment. Jeremiah 51:2 says the Lord will "send unto Babylon fanners, that shall fan her, and shall empty her land: for in the day of trouble they shall be against her round about." Verse 14 says, "Surely I will fill you with men, as with locusts; and they shall lift u a shout against you." America looks a lot like Babylon of the scriptures. While we are not drunken on the blood of the saints, we have turned a heard heart away from the Lord. We have elected leadership that is anti-God and anti-American. The first locust that came as a consequence of our behavior is the one in the White House. He has brought many with him to fan our country, and many more are coming. The righteous must demand an end to this as our very freedom and individual security is threatened by it.
PLEASE VISIT MY OTHER WEBSITES:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.