I haven’t seen the Congressional suit against the POTUS/Obama but I’m under the impression that Congress (the Republican side) would be suing POTUS/Obama for overstepping his Presidential authority. It’s claimed that Obama has done more that his job allows him to do.
The job of duly elected representatives in Congress is to represent their constituents. Which is sort of the same thing as getting re-elected. If their constituents are unhappy with their elected reps, they can always un-elect the bass turds.
What about the part where the entire idea of Congress suing the President is absurd? We can laugh about that part, right? Because the only alternative I see is to weep at the idiocy.
That’s certainly pre·sump·tu·ous of you. I have not given you permission to speak for me. I believe people should always speak for themselves (except when they lack confidence or need to draw courage from a non-existent mob).
I don’t know what, if anything, the suit will actually say. Or if it will even be filed. It hasn’t been published yet and the Obama WH may yet trade something to prevent the suit from being filed. Good government is still based on compromise.
And I don’t trust the lame stream media, or the blogosphere, to accurately report on what may or may not be listed in the suit. I’ll wait for the actual document to be made public.
My favorite would be if the court said “Well, given that the current membership has voted 50 times to repeal ACA, you don’t have standing to sue that it’s not being implemented fast enough. You’re already getting at least part of what you wanted and based on your suit there’s no judicial remedy available, so fuck off.”
Congress may have grounds to sue a President under circumstances where the reverse is not justified.
I’m not sure that the Republican lawsuit will cite this, but the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 generally requires that a President spend the funds allocated by Congress. The President can request that Congress cancel an appropriation, but Congress is not obligated to act on such request (and does not do so the majority of the time).
Suppose a hypothetical President disagrees with immigration law and tells the Justice Department to focus enforcement only on those with criminal records or multiple deportations and to ignore all other immigration violations. That is ok under Presidential discretion so long as the President is not refusing to spend other funds that Congress allocated for enforcement.
But if he refuses to spend other funds allocated for enforcement then he is in violation and the funds must be released.
So Congress could counter a President who didn’t want to deport non-felon illegal immigrants by appropriating money specifically for that purpose, correct?
Might could be. Might could be not. Might could be the Supreme Court would say, “This is none of our business; this is politics.” Might could be the Supreme Court would say, “We’ve got a Democratic president who has deported more illegal aliens than his Republican predecessor: we don’t get it; what’s the complaint?”
But SCOTUS precedent says the President can’t not spend money appropriated. So if money is earmarked for INS to deport non-violent illegals, then that money has to be spent for that purpose.
No, I was asking about a hypothetical. IF Congress appropriated money specifically for removal of non-criminal aliens, that money would have to be spent. They haven’t done so yet.
They’re not the same thing at all. It’s really unfortunate that this reasoning has taken hold in the voting public, because the only people who benefit from it are cynical members of Congress.
Yeah, but it’s pretty easy to spend money on a purpose without getting much accomplished, right? There’s training, equipment, supplies, infrastructure…ad nauseum.
While that might technically work out as legal, it would surely be flouting the direct will of Congress. And of course Congress could make the spending even more specific and direct the INS to do specific things. On domestic policy Congress can pretty easily leave a President with no flexibility if they want to.
Maybe the difference is too subtle for me to grasp. The position of U.S. Senator and U.S. Congressman was created to provide representation for specific, and overlapping, segments of voters. Every voter is represented by two Senators and one Congressman. If the voters aren’t happy, the elected reps get voted out.
True, but they do everything they can to manipulate the election system to make it hard for them to be booted out of office. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has upheld the means by which they can be defeated more easily, which of course they consider a crisis.