This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) for an explanation. Similarly, John Boehner is immune from a lawsuit springing out of his conduct as a legislator.
For performing the duties of the Presidency? I'm going to sue him for putting his signature on money.
Solid, well thought out analysis here. Did you matriculate at Harvard or Princeton? No, don't tell me. It's Brown, isn't it?
A lot of this depends on the context of the suit (i.e. if Boehner is simply seeking injunctive relief). I'm not sure Obama would be the appropriate party to sue (as opposed to the Secretary of Labor or something). Boehner can't sue over Obama using executive orders too much. He can seek injunctive relief declaring specific executive orders to be unlawful.
I wasn't aware that this particular action was brewing, so I could be very wrong on the details. I guess I assumed that any kind of lawsuit would involve the bolded part.
Well, a day isn't very long. If a person lives into their 60s, a day represents just about 0.004% of their life. I think the days usually fly by!
Yes, any other president would have been impeached long ago. Its kinda hard when you have the media in your back pocket like obama has.
Oh yeah, lots of examples through out history of presidents getting impeached for less.
Actually, that's where he keeps his gum. It's in a Trapper Keeper where he keeps the media.
I can't remember the last time the opposite party didn't sue the president or call for his impeachment.
Issuing an executive order that has not been held as unconstitutional yet but may be at some point in the future does not qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Yes, exactly. Doesn't that continue under Obama, or did he issue his own?
Which raises the question why is the President setting the rules ad hoc (only once discovered by virtue of leaks btw) and not Congress or the Constitution? The 4th Amendment doesn't allow such seizures, period, and the 3rd Amendment says the government can't intrude our privacy. The 1st Amendment says we have a right to free speech. That should all be enough.
You have a habit of sounding like an idiot when you talk about the Constitution. Which is to be expected, because you rely on press reports from ideologues to tell you what it means. Just for starters, the 3rd Amendment prohibits one very specific thing. Which is the government requiring private citizens to quarter troops. It most certainly does not say anything like "the government can't intrude our privacy.."
All that will happen is before too long a Republican will get elected president and many of the people in this thread will just switch their side of the argument.
Amen to that.
