Sue Obama for being Chief Executive?

The Republicans have gone completely crazy, they are suing Obama for not implementing ACA (Obamacare) fast enoguh – while also trying to have the law repealed 54 times.

Sow which is it?  Do they want it implemented as fast as possible?  Or NOT implemented at all?

Next we have the idea of a lawsuit.  The House of Representatives is charged with IMPEACHING any president who violates the authorities associated with his office.  But how do they get STANDING to sue him?  Were they personally damaged by the speed, or lack there of, of implementation of Obamacare?

Also: If the lawsuit were to somehow pass basic Legal and Constitutional  muster, would there be some form of damages assessed?

We know they cannot remove him from office – that’s Impeachment and the case needs to be made in the Senate – not the civil court.

But let’s say damages were imposed:  Obama is functioning as the President, therefore the employer must pay; that means the Government; that means the House of Representatives must authorize the payment – if they fail to, they they would be in contempt of court for not authorizing payment to themselves.

?????? HUM ??????

Congress is suing itself for damages?

Is that Legally allowed – is it Constitutional? 

AN INTERESTING VIEW ON IMPEACHMENT:

Republican Crazy Talk About the Debt Ceiling Posted: 10/08/2013 4:56 pm

"[Obama] must ignore the debt ceiling and order the Treasury to continue to pay all the nation's bills.
"[Obama] should rely on Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says the "validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned." The debt itself is clearly "authorized by law" because it's the direct result of laws authorizing the U.S. to spend and to tax. The showdown over the debt ceiling is over payment of the debt, not the legality of the debt itself. Arguably, what the Constitution requires trumps any law governing the debt-ceiling.
"If Republicans disagree, let them try to impeach the president."

Matter solved. If the Congress cannot, or refuses to, do its job, Obama simply obeys the Constitution and orders payment of bills prior to them doing into default. The Tea Party can then impeach the President for the High Crime of obedience to the Constitution -- the same Constitution that they insist upon spitting on.

Basically a Constitutional version of "Saint Paul's Joke" -- which will be applied to those who back the Tea party. For those not familiar with scripture: "Saint Paul's Joke" examines the words and doctrine of Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) [Constitution based on Jesus & Peter] rather than the practices commonly followed which are in accordance with the dictates of Augustine of Hippo [Tea Party]; in terms of this discussion, the old testament "Rule of Solomon" applies -- to be liable for the consequences of ones action, one must first be informed they are wrong (misguided, or stupid).

Those who support the Tea Party and pronouncements of Rush Limbaugh [modern Augustine] will be held liable for the aftermath of a default. Curiously, the "Rule of Solomon" does not require anyone save the sinner's ass -- so Obama is not obligated to simply order payment ... he has done his job by warning of the outcome of a default.

SHUTDOWN is ILLEGAL

the issue of the Debt Ceiling was settled in 1868 with the passage of the 14th Amendment ... specifically SECTION 4.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

NOTE: "public debt of the United States, authorized by law" When Congress passes the legislation and the President signs it, the debt becomes valid and there is no limitation imposed by an imaginary "Debt Ceiling".  However, since it is enacted as law, and contradictory to other laws – the legislature is violating the law by authorizing obligations which exceed the debt ceiling – that is, the member of Congress who proposed the debt is violating the law and is a criminal.  We can extend that to all members, including the President, as accomplices after the fact – but the burden of criminal behavior goes to the one introducing the legislation.  It is the obligation of CONGRESS to ensure it conforms to its own laws, and the President to veto if he has cause to believe those laws were violated … a expectation of the debt ceiling being raised shields the President, but not those in Congress who fail to vote on, or oppose, a proforma raising.  When the Republican Party supported the cutting of tax revenue that was a part of the new, and enacted, health Care Law, they were engaged in a willful violation of the Constitution and Law … one which justifies their removal from Congress. 

In theory, all employment associated Legislative Acts creating National parks are a matter of LAW and therefore can be kept open with payments made.  the same would go for the creation of any agency as a mater of legislative action.  The very idea of a shutdown is -- in a Constitutional context -- illegal, unless legislation is enacted to create it.

TED CRUZ

there is a basic truth -- HE WAS BORN IN CANADA AND LIVED THE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF HIS LIFE AS A CANADIAN CITIZEN.  He was not born on American soil in Canada (ie, our military base, or embassy), nor was he born there because the American government stationed his parents there.

Under the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent was a foreign diplomat.  The equivalent Cuban law grants citizenship IF the parent, who is a citizen, is on an official government business.  the American Constitution requires the President and vice-President to be "NATURAL BORN" citizens -- that is, born on American Territory, and, implicitly, within an American State (also implicit, unless on official government business).

Cruz simply does not qualify ... but the TEA PARTY has no regard for the Constitution, or the Nation.
The Constitutional challenge should make it an interesting election … with the basic question: “How can a candidate who willfully violates the Constitution possibly promise, or swear, to enforce it?”

Check the comments at THE BLAZE site… 

GOP Distraction 101

Coburn raises possibility of impeachment at town hall -- Fri, Aug 23, 2013 By Carrie Dann
A Republican lawmaker on Wednesday appeared to suggest that President Barack Obama is “getting perilously close” to meeting the criteria for impeachment.
“I think those are serious things, but we’re in serious times,” said
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn during a town hall in his home state.
“And I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to ‘high
crimes and misdemeanors,’ but I think you’re getting perilously
close.”

OK… Running the nation when the Republicans want to close it, seems, in Republican minds, to approach the definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’

NOTE VIOLATING the constitution by proposing a Canadian citizen – someone like Ted Cruz who was born in, and spent the first for years of his life as a citizen of, Canada.  Would the Republicans really nominate a Canadian to uphold a Constitution which requires the President and vice-President be natural born Americans – but not Canadians, or any other nationality, with an American mother.

OH RIGHT … “Saint Paul’s Joke” in political terms … claim to follow the book, the law, then violate it at every opportunity and attack those who do follow the LAW… You can tell who backs Republicans.

THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE

START BY VIOLATING (and promoting violation of) THE LAW

It is the Republican way of life.

Some Republicans get it!

seems there is an exodus of elected Republicans – sadly, not a mass exodus" … Congressional Republicans who have disavowed the RNC & Party stated:

“the House Republican leadership’s utter disdain for the United States Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, was on full display as they worked overtime to kill the Amash Amendment which would have gone a long way toward constraining the NSA to the boundaries of the Constitution and seriously curbed their ability to conduct mass surveillance of Americans.  Be it known that we cannot and will not support nor defend these actions.

“In the United States Senate, we see Republicans all too willing to pass unconstitutional bills related to subjects such as the Internet Sales Tax and Immigration. Whether through arrogance or ignorance, they fail to understand the simple fact any revenue generating legislation must originate in the House of Representatives.

“Additionally, the Senate Republicans continue to support undeclared wars, meet in secret and supply arms to our “terrorist enemies” who we vowed to destroy after 911, and then tell us they love our troops – so long as it’s our kids and not theirs who have to go fight.

“Lastly, all too many Senate Republicans are more than willing to pass new “feel good” gun control legislation that would do nothing to stop another Sandy Hook massacre, all the while restricting 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens. We cannot support nor defend these actions in good faith.”

Here in Maine they declared: “the Republican Party has lost its way and the donors know it.”

OF COURSE on the national level, those who wish to destroy America are still going strong.  The Republican Party is the Anti-freedom, pro-murder party it has always been.  It was that way when it pushed Prohibition, pushed the Vietnam “WAR” (which was never a Constitutionally legal war – Congress MUST DECLARE a war against a defined enemy, or it is not legal… Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are also illegal Republican ‘wars’, or should we be honest and call them “MURDER FESTIVALS” …)

The anti-Abortion policies are the same murder festival agenda:  No abortion after 22 weeks, even if the fetus has no brain and is therefore legally dead, or will certainly kill the mother (and itself) if there is an attempt to carry it to term.  OH YES! and make sure that this dead fetus and its mother are denied medical coverage … so if she does survive she & her partner need to pay enormous medical bills, and if she dies, her partner will be both grieving and saddled with the enormous cost – a cost which could have been avoided, and saved her life, if the fetus had been terminated.

THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE

It is the Republican Way to Govern.

Denial of Constitutional Protection

New York Times reports that:

The Obama administration’s announcement that it planned to question the Boston Marathon bombing suspect for a period without first reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer.

OK… Good American values at work.  One brother dead, the other to be denied his constitutional rights.  Should we make an exception because it was Boston Marathon that was attacked?

Was this considered for any other terrorist act?

OH RIGHT – we normally take suspected, or accused,  terrorists and lock them away without any trial at all.  So why would we be concerned with honoring the Constitution in this case?

Never mind that Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, is a naturalized American citizen and therefore explicitly protected by the Constitution.  This will allow the government to deny each and every citizen Constitutional protection.

he TIMES article concludes with the words:

“This is the paradox of progressive national security law, which is how do you at once advocate for the ability of the civilian courts without accepting that some of that includes compromises that are problematic from a civil liberties perspective?” he said. “The paradox is just as true for the right, because they are ardent supporters of things like the public-safety exception, but its existence actually undermines the case for military commissions.”