Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
keithisco

House Republicans to vote ...

28 posts in this topic

Yet another ridiculous stunt by the Republicans:

The US House of Representatives is set to pass legislation authorising it to sue President Barack Obama for what Republican leaders describe as his overreach of authority.

The resolution is expected to pass the Republican-controlled chamber in a party line vote on Wednesday.

Its sponsors say Mr Obama exceeded his powers when he delayed an insurance deadline in his healthcare law.

The president's aides say the prospective suit is a political stunt.

Source (BBC): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28565772

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would be rididculous to let someone to exceed his power and do nothing about.

i'm 200% sure you would welcome the move if party were switched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

would be rididculous to let someone to exceed his power and do nothing about.

i'm 200% sure you would welcome the move if party were switched

Firstly: you cannot be 200% sure - you can only ever be 100% sure.

Secondly: You had the "Patriot Act" forced on you by someone of another colour (politically)

Thirdly: George W Bush AND Ronald Reagan issued considerably more Executive Orders than Mr Obama

Fourthly: Why do you suppose that USA Influence is waning? Could it be that one ridiculous Rep announcement after another is undermining your Chief ? Are you actually helping to ensure Global influence when the world views you with contempt for undermining your duly elected President?

It all comes down to whether or not you actually have ANY respect for a democratic process. Why should other nations accept your vision of democracy when you, yourself, do not?

Edited by keithisco
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all comes down to whether or not you actually have ANY respect for a democratic process. Why should other nations accept your vision of democracy when you, yourself, do not?

And that statement is exactly what the Republicans would say if asked why they were doing this.

BTW, the Patriot Act was an actual piece of legislation that was voted on and approved by Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a law suit...is...well...ridiculous in my opinion.

It IS a stunt. Too cowardly to go for an impeachment cause his bed buddies in the senate will not pass it...Mr. Crooked land deals Harry Reid needs to be put out to pasture...along with McCain and McConnel...these D-bags are just milking their constituents and accomplishing nothing.

A lawsuit will accomplish nothing for the people and this is just grandstanding by the Repubs to try and tell the people "we got your back"...really? If you actually had the people's back, you'd take real steps to remove the cancer...not sue it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the boot was on the other foot, every member of the GOP and Tea Party would be up on their hind legs screaming about "traitors" and "time of war" and "respect the office, even if you don't respect the man".

And you know what? It's going to be worse in a few years after the protest vote ousts the Democrats and puts a Republican in the Oval Office, because all the Democrats will be "well you did X, Y and Z to us, it's time to .... to you!"

I fully expect a government shut down within the first term of the next Republican President unless the GOP controls both House and Senate. And one that lasts longer then a few days.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wasting your money and time to sue the president. So stupid. Look at this, from 2011, but I'm sure the salaries haven't changed that much.

Top 10 Paid Congressional Staff of Senators in 2011

Senator Congressional Salary

Barbara Boxer (D-Cali) $4,412,720

Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali) $4,125,359

Bill Nelson (D-FL) $3,454,635

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) $3,420,696

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) $3,406,655

John Cornyn (R-TX) $3,342,783

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) $3,321,631

Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Penn) $3,256,045

Carl Levin (D-MI) $3,212,530

Bob Menendez (D-NJ) $3,116,650

10 Least Paid Congressional Staff Salaries of Senators in 2011

Senator Congressional Staff Salary

Dean Heller (R-Nev) $625,167

Kelly A. Ayotte (R-New Hamp) $1,334,769

John Hoeven (R-ND) $1,354,548

Ron Johnson (R-Wis) $1,427,919

Rand Paul (R-Kent) $1,454,975

Richard Shelby (R-AL) $1,610,938

John Boozman (R-Ark) $1,637,735

Mike Lee (R-Utah) $1,693,693

Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) $1,703,678

Dan Coats (R-IN) $1,744,992

Also look at their working schedule calendars.

http://majorityleader.gov/Calendar/113thCongressSecondSession.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/h1132.html

Feel bad for them yet? Boy do they work hard. By the way, they have the entire next month (August) off for "recess." They only "work" 113 days a year at an average pay of $174,000. I'm bad at math, so correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what I've found. 174,000\113=$1,500 per day per senator. 433 senators times 1,500=$649,500 per day wasted on this bill, or any other ridiculous, time wasting, never will pass bills. All for political gain. All to "sue" Obama. For what, more money? Still wish I could work as hard as I did in elementary school.

These people are the ones making your laws, don't forget that.

Edited by andy4
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another political act designed to look like they are actually doing something, earning their paycheck, when in fact they are doing nothing at all. Go to the US Senate web site if you want to see how much our representatives are paid. The figures introduced earlier, are, I think, earnings/income other than Senate salaries. While none of them are rich from their Senate salaries, they are perhaps paid more than they're worth, especially in the House.

Edited by Beany
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, they have no standing to sue. None of them are affected by the ACA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao, they do not have to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More republican party tricks. Congress is a joke.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasting your money and time to sue the president. So stupid. Look at this, from 2011, but I'm sure the salaries haven't changed that much.

Top 10 Paid Congressional Staff of Senators in 2011

Senator Congressional Salary

Barbara Boxer (D-Cali) $4,412,720

Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali) $4,125,359

Bill Nelson (D-FL) $3,454,635

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) $3,420,696

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) $3,406,655

John Cornyn (R-TX) $3,342,783

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) $3,321,631

Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Penn) $3,256,045

Carl Levin (D-MI) $3,212,530

Bob Menendez (D-NJ) $3,116,650

10 Least Paid Congressional Staff Salaries of Senators in 2011

Senator Congressional Staff Salary

Dean Heller (R-Nev) $625,167

Kelly A. Ayotte (R-New Hamp) $1,334,769

John Hoeven (R-ND) $1,354,548

Ron Johnson (R-Wis) $1,427,919

Rand Paul (R-Kent) $1,454,975

Richard Shelby (R-AL) $1,610,938

John Boozman (R-Ark) $1,637,735

Mike Lee (R-Utah) $1,693,693

Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) $1,703,678

Dan Coats (R-IN) $1,744,992

Also look at their working schedule calendars.

http://majorityleade...condSession.pdf

http://thomas.loc.go...e/ds/h1132.html

Feel bad for them yet? Boy do they work hard. By the way, they have the entire next month (August) off for "recess." They only "work" 113 days a year at an average pay of $174,000. I'm bad at math, so correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what I've found. 174,000\113=$1,500 per day per senator. 433 senators times 1,500=$649,500 per day wasted on this bill, or any other ridiculous, time wasting, never will pass bills. All for political gain. All to "sue" Obama. For what, more money? Still wish I could work as hard as I did in elementary school.

These people are the ones making your laws, don't forget that.

Those salaries are all way too damn high. Why aren't We the People suing the entire Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those salaries are all way too damn high. Why aren't We the People suing the entire Congress?

Because American Idol is on...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see democracy in action, trouble is the US govt hasn't been a democracy for decades.

And please, no pointless, red-herring interjections of "We're a Republic". The process by which the US govt functions is supposed to be democratic, but democracy is a system of conscience - and Party politics does not allow for conscience. It is no surprise the President has to issue executive orders to actually get things done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those salaries are all way too damn high. Why aren't We the People suing the entire Congress?

As mentioned, it could and probably is also including total net worth and not just their pay as senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's good to see democracy in action, trouble is the US govt hasn't been a democracy for decades.

It not only hasn't been a democracy for decades, it hasn't been a democracy, ever.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. (Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1)

The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Never was a democracy, still isn't.

But if we're not that, and we're not a democracy either, then what are we? What label avoids this "red herring"?

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ~ James Madison

Doesn't sound like the Father of the Constitution was in love with democracy and that's why he and others worked so hard to differentiate this country from it. So the real red herring is the "democracy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional Republic, that is what wiki says, but in reality, it is oligarchy, just look at what happens, not what is written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional Republic, that is what wiki says, but in reality, it is oligarchy, just look at what happens, not what is written.

If you don't take the Constitution and pound someone with it, that's your own fault, not your Oligarchs. Stop letting your Oligarchs get away with unconstitutional nonsense overseas that slaps the face of everything we're supposed to stand for as Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It not only hasn't been a democracy for decades, it hasn't been a democracy, ever.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. (Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1)

The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Never was a democracy, still isn't.

But if we're not that, and we're not a democracy either, then what are we? What label avoids this "red herring"?

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ~ James Madison

Doesn't sound like the Father of the Constitution was in love with democracy and that's why he and others worked so hard to differentiate this country from it. So the real red herring is the "democracy".

Wrong again, democracy is the rule by the people, a Republic is just a form determining how the rule is exercised, being by representative.

Why does everybody insist on mixing apples with pears? The US of A is a Democratic Republic. Iran is a Theocratic Republic. North Korea is a Dictatorial Republic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you don't take the Constitution and pound someone with it, that's your own fault, not your Oligarchs. Stop letting your Oligarchs get away with unconstitutional nonsense overseas that slaps the face of everything we're supposed to stand for as Americans.

dude, really, sometimes i think you either higher than the moon, or live on a different planet. moeny rule the world, this world at least, oligarchs are the ones that have most of it, and have all the power. no one is in a position to let them do something or not, come on, man. don't you have even little sense of reality???

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again, democracy is the rule by the people, a Republic is just a form determining how the rule is exercised, being by representative.

Why does everybody insist on mixing apples with pears? The US of A is a Democratic Republic. Iran is a Theocratic Republic. North Korea is a Dictatorial Republic.

Wrong "again"? You don't think we have a Constitution?

You're getting your words and definitions all twisted up. Let me help you.

A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Constitutional Republics aren't mutually exclusive to Representation or democracy, you can't have one without it. Nice try trying to deny the existence of the Constitution though. That was pretty slick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lmao, they do not have to be.

in order to sue, yes they do.

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

  1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
  2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
  3. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29 Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong "again"? You don't think we have a Constitution?

Would that be the Constitution that is constantly being ignored or just avoided by the government?

Lets see, off the tp of my head how many journalists are being threatened with gaol for not reveling sources?

How many gun laws are there?

Laws about how and where people can practice their religions?

"Free Speech Zones"?

But yes, your Constitution protects you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If those clowns are so offended by Obama's actions, and really see it as criminal or unconstitutional, why on earth don't they just impeach him?

This is all political theater and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that be the Constitution that is constantly being ignored or just avoided by the government?

Lets see, off the tp of my head how many journalists are being threatened with gaol for not reveling sources?

How many gun laws are there?

Laws about how and where people can practice their religions?

"Free Speech Zones"?

But yes, your Constitution protects you.

The list of things Americans are forbidden to do is pretty short on balance. We're your tourists. We've got all the money in the world.

The Constitution doesn't exactly protect us from laws. It's more the opposite, it throws them on us. It authorizes Congress to create them, Executives to administer them, and the High Court to interpret them. If the presumption you're making is that the laws are unconstitutional, then I have no idea what you're referring to specifically and will need you to cite some examples. Laws about how and where for religion, I'm not sure what you're referring to at all....didn't you ever hear of the "Ground Zero Mosque"? You're right, there seems to be a lot of Constitutional ignorance and made-up powers our government assigns itself, but there's a lot of adherence to the Constitution too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.