Republicans Propose New Bill That Would Sue Obama For Being President


In their quest to stop President Obama from doing anything, House Republicans are trying to pass a new bill that would give them the authority to sue Obama for being president.

According to The Hill:

House Republicans are again taking aim at the Obama administration for its failure to enforce laws passed by Congress.

Republicans serving on two key committees have introduced legislation that would allow the House or Senate to authorize a lawsuit against the Obama administration.

The ENFORCE the Laws Act is the latest GOP response to complaints that President Obama is willfully ignoring or altering federal law. As examples, Republicans have cited the several delays to ObamaCare provisions, and Obama’s 2011 decision to delay deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants who have not committed a crime.

This is the second time that Republicans have tried this stunt. The STOP Act went nowhere, so House Republicans want the power to sue President Obama for doing his job. Their claim is that the head of the executive branch of our government does not have the authority to make decisions in implementing the law.

It’s time for a basic civics lesson for Republicans. The legislative branch passes laws. The executive branch implements laws. What House Republicans are suggesting is that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to implement any law without their consent. Courts have ruled for decades that the executive branch has discretionary powers when it comes to implementing the law. The legal standard is that the law has to be implemented in a timely fashion. President Obama has not refused to implement any laws.

Republicans claim that Obama is engaging in constitutional overreach, but this piece of legislation in the House suggests that it is the Republicans who are trying to tilt the balance of constitutional powers. They are trying to take power away from the executive branch, and render President Obama politically paralyzed.

Obama has promised a year of action. The idea that the president might use his powers to accomplish anything has sent Republicans fleeing to the courts, where they are literally trying to sue Barack Obama for being president.

71 Replies to “Republicans Propose New Bill That Would Sue Obama For Being President”

  1. Didn’t you could be sued for doing your job. If that’s the case, then why wasn’t I sued for doing a good job cleaning and doing office work?

    Oh, that’s right. I did do a good job and I didn’t screw the pooch. Kind like what this President is doing. He’s doing a good job dealing with these Anti-American scum (Yep. I said it: Republicans are Anti-Americans) and he hasn’t screwed the pooch (despite the claims from the peanut gallery).

    There’s no way in hell or heaven or anywhere else this passes. Period.

  2. How about Americans sue Republicans for billions of dollars wasted on shutdown and futile repeal of ‘Obamacare’? This midterm election, Democrats need to go out in force and vote for Democratic and Independent candidates to vote out the Republicans, show them that their behavior and attitude is absolute unacceptable.

  3. That is going to be thrown out as political question/not justiciable. Congress has one Constitutionally recognized mode of removing a President: impeachment and Senate trial. In pursuit of Congressional action, they also have subpoena powers for discovery and witnesses. That is the limit of what the courts will recognize.

  4. Sigh! Face/Palm…These CHILDREN remind me of a spoiled brat that was invited to a birthday party for a friend of mine when I was 8 years old. He realized that the party wasn’t for him and that he couldn’t control the event and that he wasn’t the focus of attention. So little Timmy created a fuss and went so far as to push the cake off the table, turn the ice cream cooler over and break over half of Becky’s presents before they were opened. I found out later in life in high school that he and his entire family were staunch Conservatives and this behavior was entirely because of their sense of entitlement.

  5. I amend: if he were refusing to implement a law at all, such as by impounding funds, which Nixon did, a writ of mandamus might lie, and if a President refused to leave office at the end of his lawful term, a writ of ouster. Those circumstances are not this one.

  6. How about this?

    President Obama signs an executive order outlawing the Tea Party and The Republican Party and incarcerates all members for a term of 5 years for crimes against the American people. Then they can complain.

  7. Yup, I’m all for taking the obstructionists to court and get our money back. Can we start with Issa and Cruz please?

  8. Man, Obama has literally flipped these republican inside out!!!! Once again, these idiots bet the house on destroying the Obama Presidency and they lost big time. Folks they have nothing!!!! I mean nothing !!! So where do they go from here? Pushing lawsuits!!! Laughable. Repeal the ACA for the 50th time!!! forget about it!!! So I guess now Obama isn’t tough enough because he wears Mommy Jean’s. The President and the Obama Administration have been great on every single crisis thrust upon them from day one, but you would never know it if you listen to the Media. They have feed the public with lies, distortions and down right hatred because this man lives in the White House, and it’s not just the right wingers or Fox news. I have certainly learned a lot about the American psyche over the last 5 years and it is just disgusting, that we have Americans who are supporting a communist dictator, over a sitting US President that just always seems to have the winning hand.

  9. I truly believe that it should be us-THE PEOPLE-suing the GOP for all of OUR MONEY that they are wasting on their PURE PETULANCE–they are behaving in a purely SELFISH-ANTI AMERICAN manner and need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law–AND DEFINITELY REMOVED FROM OFFICE as soon as possible GET OUT AND VOTE every chance you can to get rid of this blight on our country

  10. Since I haven’t heard of impeachment except in hurried and excitable soundbites from the wing nuts in the House, usually off the House floor, I assume the wing nuts don’t have nothin’.

  11. Must be!!! I can understand how willfully ignorant folks can get elected to office, but what a shame that they also hire willfully ignorant staffers. There really should be some sort of test……

    This President is helping this country.
    If you believe these Republicans are doing their job, I’d appreciate you citing what they have done to help this country succeed at ANYTHING – and please provide fact. When you criticize a sitting president, provide facts, not hearsay – you don’t bother backing up your critique with anything but a nasty remark just because you can. You ARE, therefore speaking the same language as your Republican Tea party – the same language against this country that terrorists use. OH and don’t try pulling rank on me sonny….I don’t care if you are a veteran or not. If you suffered injury in service to my country, God bless you. However, if you’re an up and coming “Rush Limbaugh” mouthpiece, then learn how to FIRST read, and SECOND, comprehend. You’ve skipped over logic completely. My ancestors have lived, fought and some died on this soil since 1630 Virginia and I despise your type of language- Think Ame…

  13. You know the saying a wounded animal is the MOST dangerous when it’s wounded. The way these Teathugs are behaving lately ONLY GOES to show their desperation to win at any cost.

    VOTE these sad Representatives out of office, by WE THE PEOPLE.

  14. So according to some, because President Obama changed a DATE on the ACA, he should be removed from office. Did EVERY change to Medicare go through Congress? What about all the small changes to Social Security. Congress is doing NOTHING. Understand? NOTHING. They won’t even give veterans their due. Why in the world would any intelligent person expect Congress to do ANYTHING to improve the ACA? The only people making a big deal out of this are RWNJs and far-left wacksos. Yeah I said. The far-left has met up with with RWNJs to the point that you can’t tell them apart.

    Geez. GWB lied us into a war and was guilty of causing 10’s of thousands of deaths and nobody tried to remove him from office. How many Executive Orders did he enact? How many did Clinton enact? Suddenly EO’s are unlawful? Well, I admit my civility goes out the window with these nutjobs and simply say STFU.

  15. The president hasn’t just changed a date or two. His administration has created new laws where they do not exist on the books. (Just one example: If you run a business with 50-99 employees, you need to attest on your IRS forms that you didn’t drop employment down just to get in compliance with the ACA mandate waiver.)

    He has said that some laws he just won’t enforce.

    He’s moved deadlines — not just by days, but by years.

    He’s granted special exemptions to certain groups, but kept them in place for others.

    The constitution requires that the president “take Care that the laws be FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.”

    This is not a right or left issue. I voted for the president. But I do not want a president to be able to make up new laws, or modify ones passed by congress.

  16. If he had a bipartisan congress instead of a bunch of obstructionist he might not have to feel he has to do it alone. Something has to be done. The hill refuses to do anything. It’s like letting the car drive itself. Whomever votes for these bastards in the midterm elections will make them no better then the assholes on the hill.

  17. Could you link to that law you state he made?

    Lets not forget, the ACA is law but the president can implement it as he needs to do. Its part of ““take Care that the laws be FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.”


    “Officials said that any business claiming they are eligible for the new one-year delay because they have fewer than 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it had not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption.”

    This is NOWHERE in the statute passed by Congress.

  19. It was reported in many places, including CNBC:

    “Officials said that any business claiming they are eligible for the new one-year delay because they have fewer than 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it had not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption.”

    This requirement is NOWHERE in the statute passed by Congress!

  20. For crying out loud. Another waste of taxpayer money. These guys just don’t get it, the nation does not want their brand of government. I am amazed that so many still follow these clowns, probably due to their private propaganda outlet,FOX NEWS.

    The soft enforcement has been part of the American system since day one. Lincoln was a big fan of soft enforcement. What is so sad is they the God’s Own Party fails to understand the Constitution that they say they want to rule by.

  21. The President has great latitude when it comes to implementation of a law. There have been several Supreme Court rulings on this. No, I will not quote them or point to a particular ruling. People remember much better when they do their own research.

  22. I accept your apology, Katie. I thought that looked odd when I saw your post below mine and I thought ‘Oh boy, I have screwed up big time’.

    I know you mean well. I feel the same way… what have Republicans done to help the people in need? Nothing. They keep boasting about killing Obamacare when they have nothing to replace it with. They boast about suing the President for doing his job when he’s *gasp* doing his job. They want to keep the giant tax breaks for the rich and powerful that fuel their Anti-American actions while screwing the poor so hard that we’re going to start bleeding real soon if no one stops it. They want to go to war anytime issues flair up in the world while we have a President who would rather use diplomacy to solve the problem.

    To me, the problem is the Republicans and their partner in crime, the Tea Party. The solution is simple: Vote them out in 2014!

  23. I know some adults that act like that now. They feel disadvantaged by the lack of attention and complain about not being heard. They go into public and expect the public to walk around them and move out of line when they want to check out of the grocery store. They expect people to move their shopping carts out of their way and find it rude when the people won’t move. But when they do it to another person, it’s completely human nature. They don’t see their way as rude or insensitive: only when it’s done to them is it rude or selfish. No regard for the people around them: the sun revolves around the earth syndrome. When the time comes they need true help, they demand it from Government or the general public. But for them to contribute to help others is just providing welfare to lazy, worthless people who don’t want to work. Why do people feel entitled to things but disregard society as a whole? Horse with blinders on…

  24. Why was this important aspect of the ACA left out by Congress? So they could watch all the smaller businesses eliminate jobs to get the exemption and then claim erroneously that the ACA is a job killer. The job killers are in Congress and in the boardrooms of their corporate patrons. This provision keeps people at work…but that is not in the interest of the do-nothing Congress.

  25. I think that is an excellent idea, Jeff. THAT way, at least when they are screaming “TYRANT” at the top of their lungs they wouldn’t be lying through their teeth.

  26. I second that tbone64,I also agree with Roni from a comment above…
    What gets me going even more is the fact.. these men get paid 174.000 per year, with benefits, very good retirement and medical and they do NOTHING. Forgot, they also say they will be only working 113 days this year. Do Nothing but try to stop a duly elected President from doing his job. There is not a word low enough dirty enough, to describe these men.

  27. I call B.S. on your vote for this President…Franklinson. You sound too much like the a true rethug to be considered a liberal. There I said a very bad word….

  28. The president does NOT have the latitude to make up new laws.

    The president must “take Care that the laws be FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.”

  29. Completely incorrect.

    It’s a new law that must be passed by Congress. “Owners of businesses with 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption.”

    Tell me — where in the ACA is this allowed? Where in law does the executive branch have the authority to create such a new requirement?

    And then, tell me this — would you be comfortable with a Republican president delaying the ACA or some other law that you may care about, by years?

    If not, what is the governing principle at work by which one is ok and the other is not?

  30. If you care, I strongly support the president on several social matters, like gay rights, gun control, abortion rights, and environmental law.

    I am an independent voter who has voted a roughly equal amount of times for (D) presidents and (R) presidents. I did indeed vote for him, not once, but twice. But, like Jeffrey Toobin, have been awestruck at the constant delays, modifications and changes to settled law in his “rollout” of the ACA.

    I think as independents, liberals, or conservatives, we need to ask ourselves if we want a president (any imaginary president) to be able to ignore laws on the books, selectively enforce laws on the books, delay enforcements of laws on the books by YEARS, or even make up new provisions that were NEVER contemplated in the statute.

  31. You are a idiot. The business exemption is for 50 or less employees. Now provide a link to your claim and I will apologize

  32. djchefron,

    If you read my post(s), I am specifically talking about the NEW requirement that owners of businesses with 50-99 employees MUST CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY that they didn’t reduce their workforce just to claim the exemption.

    Businesses under 50 employees are exempt from the law — of course. I never challenged that or even mentioned it.

    This new “under penalty of perjury” certification requirement APPEARS NOWHERE in the statute. It is nowhere in the ACA. It is not something a president can make up wholecloth.

    Would you want a Republican president to require under penalty of perjury that an abortion is being done solely due to certain reasons, for instance? Surely Congress should be involved in new laws and requirements like this. And sure enough — Article I, Section I of our Constitution rightly DEMANDS it.

  33. Sue President Obama for being President?? These guys are such horses’ a!@#$!! Was anyone really surprised to read this? If you were, you haven’t been paying any serious attention to their behavior since “the people” elected and then re-elected this President. Even things they liked and wanted to see happen before 2008, they no longer like it or want it if they find out President Obama likes and wants it now.

  34. I agree. They should be sued for their constant insults and antagonism towards American citizens…women, minorities, poor people, elderly, gays. Just who do they think they are?

  35. So what part of the fact that they either have to get Obama to sign the law, or they have to get 75% of both houses to overide his veto has not occured to them? This is no different from the house voting for the 50th time to destroy Obamacare (ACA) with the same result. This is pure show business and has nothing to do with reality.

  36. You know, I’m already getting tired of this whining.

    I’ll bet you sat all the way through Bush’s presidency and didn’t say one word when he famously issued any one of his well over 200 ‘signing statements’ which changed laws EVEN AS HE SIGNED THEM INTO LAW!

    He declared, as he signed them, which parts he: wouldn’t follow; would ignore; would rewrite sections of; sometimes would rewrite complete sections of; even do the exact OPPOSITE OF; etc.

    In short, if you are going to complain about President Obama, you have nothing to complain about in comparison.

  37. Actually, every Executive is able to create and use rules to implement laws. Rules are also part of Executive power. They have the force and effect of laws but are not laws themselves.

    As long as the rules don’t violate the law, the Executive is within its authority. Courts can decide rules and regulations are in violation of a law, and a legislatuere can change a law to end a rule, but otherwise, an executive is well within their authority to do such things,

    College civics 101, Jeff.

  38. They ran for Congress, yet they want to shrink the Gov. until they can drown it in the bathtub?
    OK..IF they succeed…they will be unemployed & up the preverbal creek without a paddle. (all their Gov. Benefits & Washington Perks).
    Soundz Fair Enuff’ ta’ me. But what’s the point?
    When or, IF, a Republican is ever elected President again they may regret their actions. If they have their way the Executive Branch would be degraded to a place to deposit A FigureHead that would have been selected by some unknown “corporate persons” . Oh, right.That IS their plan!
    The Repubs in the House & some in the Senate, sure don’t work for us or cooperate with the President WE ELECTED TWICE. If they won’t work with him, then I hope he can finish his job alone, and unmolested by anti-government types. If you recall… Bush, the Decider, had two terms to wreck havoc on us. Turn about is fair play kids. Let’s see if Obama can screw things up better than Bush did. I doubt he could, even if he tr…

  39. I don’t have to imagine anything. Bush/Patriot Act. Bush/Iraq War. The details don’t matter when we no longer have a “working” Congress. They never mattered when we had a president that exceeded his authority and started a war that wasn’t declared by Congress.(btw, he wasn’t the only one.) What exactly is the difference? I must be stupid or uninformed. All branches of the Gov. try to take more power & control when they can. The executive branch has gained powers over time, no matter what party was in the White House. If Obama has too much power then all the previous presidents, including Bush, have made that possible. We were called unpatriotic when we even questioned what Bush did after 9/11. I think our President has plenty of lawyers to advise him. The comparison to Nixon is a stretch and a low blow. When the Obama tapes are released I’ll be dead. Thank goodness. I’ve heard enough about this president to last me into eternity. The ACA was called a bill after it was a law. Det…

  40. Poor, poor small, little GOP Congressmen, is the big bully pushing you around, and ignoring your petulant little pleas to get your way?……I was once an enforcement officer for the Kentucky Labor Department and worked with my Federal counterparts in the early 70’s. The Feds were understaffed and falling behind in case loads, I was a 24 year old fresh out of college naïve young idealist. I asked them why there were so few of them where the work was so great……..””Window Dressing” was their reply. You see, the Nixon administration does not support the laws we enforce, so they underfund us, and cut staff, that way they have it on the books, but the reality is that the laws do not get enforced effectively” Huge lesson to a young idealist…..Another case in point, GWB administration chose to ignore the EPA so much that the state of Massachusetts with others sued GWB administration for failing to enforce the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v EPA Poor Congress they inherit their past…

  41. THANK YOU SHARON. people forget quickly the acts done by a rethug Pres. and prefer to focus on imagined acts done by the sitting Pres. If ever acts by a Pres. should have been questioned and questioned again it was under the shrub Presidency. If ever there was a Pres. that thought the Constitution was nothing, It was shrub. He even stated so with this quote. “the Constitution is nothing but a G.D. piece of paper”

  42. LOL, too rich!

    the implementation is up to the president. Who is NOT making new laws, but changing dates.

    Go away, you are using someone elses arguement who is making a fool of you

  43. “To contend that the obligation imposed on the president to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the Constitution, and is entirely inadmissible.”

    — U.S. Supreme Court, 1838

  44. A president can certainly choose not to enforce a law if he/she believes it’s unconstitutional.

    This of course is not what is asserted here. The president clearly doesn’t think the ACA is unconstitutional, nor does he think that parts of it are unconstitutional — he hasn’t alleged as such in his suspension of its enforcement.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the “take Care” and “faithfully execute” clauses of the Constitution require TIMELY action. Tell me — is it timely to delay something by more than two years, with no certain end date?

  45. Ok I see it was a decision against Andrew Jackson. Now I know you may think he was a great president but you know he started genocide against Native Americans but that doesn’t count because they are not like you. furthermore That Kendall should not have to order the Post Office Department to pay certain funds to a firm that did business with them, even though a federal court had ordered him to, if he himself, in his official capacity, did not believe the funds should be awarded.

    Read more: Kendall v. United States – Significance, A Carriage And A Pair Of Horses, The President Fails To Intervene, The Separation Of Powers – JRank Articles
    So what’s your point?

  46. My ancestors have been here just as long, as if that makes any difference. Obama is the worst President in history and is treasonous for willfully violating the Constitution. He is bleeding working families dry with increased taxes, skyrocketing healthcare costs while leaving them with a dismal future of not being able to afford college or succeed in much of anything since he wants everyone to be in Poverty where he can control them. Why people are blind to see they are becoming slaves to a corrupt President is the most shocking thing, but then Hitler accomplished it and tried to take over the world before people finally took their blinders off.

    I can only guess you are living off Government funds that I pay my taxes for and getting subsidized health care that I have to pay for because I sure as heck can’t save for college now since I have to work two 29 hr/week jobs just to get by.

    If the Supreme Court overturns Obama’s guilty verdicts in June, there needs to be a rebellion…

  47. And what does this quote have to do with anything? The president has not refused to enforce any law. The He is merely delaying the execution of the law so that it may be properly applied.

  48. Here is the reason it was delayed. Laws can be passed that are not immediately enforceable. this is why presidents have leeway in implementing them. The following was taken from the text in this report.>We’ve gotten a lot of requests to give some more time to some small businesses that would otherwise be subject to this, and we’re responding to that by addressing these businesses,” a senior Treasury official told reporters when asked the rationale for the delay.
    Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, said, “The administration should receive a gold medal for recognizing the enormous complexities of the Affordable Care Act, and it’s agility and flexibility in working with retailers and others in crafting these much-needed and common sense reforms and revisions.”

  49. this is simply another way to ramp up hatred of our first black president

    conservatives still smarting from the end of slavery and segregation

    Try this one – Coulter at CPAC – re immigration reform – we need death squads (look it up re google, cant post linke on this site)

    The crazies are out in forth. As a catholic deacon at our community college said recently – the hatred lies just beneath the surface re both French and British in Canada and Southern white old men re african americans

  50. fox news

    go look at the website

    the wrap dot usual. Faux denying what is evident Roger Ailes is a racist

    more info google Fox news roger ailes racist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.