Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.

"President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President. However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents," Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.

"This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies."

The "legal action against the President" would be, according to an aide for Rep. Rice, "for ignoring Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution." Article II, Section 3 of the Constitutio

Quote: truthkeeper wrote in post #2

---

He gets an A for effort.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #3

---

Quote: truthkeeper wrote in post #2

---

He gets an A for effort.

---

I disagree.

There is a provision in The United States Constitution for Congress to deal with Obama's lawlessness.

And it isn't filing a law suit.

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #3

---

Quote: truthkeeper wrote in post #2

---

He gets an A for effort.

---

I disagree.

There is a provision in The United States Constitution for Congress to deal with Obama's lawlessness.

And it isn't filing a law suit.

---

Is that impeachment?

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #3

---

Quote: truthkeeper wrote in post #2

---

He gets an A for effort.

---

I disagree.

There is a provision in The United States Constitution for Congress to deal with Obama's lawlessness.

And it isn't filing a law suit.

---

Is that impeachment?

---

Yep, and I noticed the names of some Tea Party affiliated Congressmen on on the resolution.

Doesn't that seems strange, given that Tea Party members are usually experts on the Constitution?

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #6

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #3

---

Quote: truthkeeper wrote in post #2

---

He gets an A for effort.

---

I disagree.

There is a provision in The United States Constitution for Congress to deal with Obama's lawlessness.

And it isn't filing a law suit.

---

Is that impeachment?

---

Yep, and I noticed the names of some Tea Party affiliated Congressmen on on the resolution.

Doesn't that seems strange, given that Tea Party members are usually experts on the Constitution?

---

Ok..I had to look it up. The 1982 Supreme Court decision Nixon v. Fitzgerald gave the president broad immunity against civil lawsuits for job-related actions. It's fluff

That the house judiciary committee wont go there speaks volumes I can easily understand people hating all politicians

---

Many on that list are Tea Party Caucus members.

It's almost always the Tea Perty is growing and needs to take down the GOP, but when they make a misstep the Tea Part is not a nationally governed party, just individuals in a grassroots movement.

Can't have it both ways. As is already happening they too are splintering. The conservatives simply don't know you to be team members anymore.

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #9

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #8

---

I thought Tea Party patriots didn't play politcal games.

---

There is no national body that governs the Tea Party. There isn't even one definition that covers what the Tea Party is or isn't. I don't know how many of these signers declared themselves as members of the Tea Party. Do you?

Isn't it a broad brush to paint someone with? I don't know how you define it compared to how I define it. What is considered Tea Party orthodoxy and what is not?

When you say the words "Tea Party" I imagine that you spit it out with acrimony and derision.

If it is as hopeless and fruitless as you claim it be, why does it attract your attention so much? Can't you ignore it?

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #12

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #10

---

Many on that list are Tea Party Caucus members.

It's almost always the Tea Perty is growing and needs to take down the GOP, but when they make a misstep the Tea Part is not a nationally governed party, just individuals in a grassroots movement.

Can't have it both ways. As is already happening they too are splintering. The conservatives simply don't know you to be team members anymore.

---

But I don't see this as just a Tea Party war....



It's a publicity stunt, I understand that. But it was posted and we're discussing it so it WORKED.

---