• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rand Paul is Suing the President

ONW

ONW

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
19,177
Reaction score
658
(CNN) - Sen. Rand Paul will sue President Barack Obama and top officials in the National Security Agency over surveillance.

Paul's political action committee, RandPAC, announced plans by the Kentucky senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate to file a class-action challenge on Wednesday.

The suit also will name National Intelligence Director James Clapper, outgoing NSA Director Keith Alexander, and FBI Director James Comey.

Ken Cuccinelli, a former Republican attorney general in Virginia who lost the state’s gubernatorial election last fall, will serve as lead counsel.

Matt Kibbe, president of the tea party-aligned group FreedomWorks, also joined the lawsuit, saying any American with a phone should be invested in his case.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-sue-obama-administration-over-nsa/?hpt=hp_t3

Oh for fuck sake. Can you sue the President, personally? Can CPAC's make anonymous contributions to support a legal case?
 
I think the federal government has immunity, but pretty sure individuals can be sued acting within their official capacity.
 
This is pretty ridiculous. Even for Rand Paul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Republicans are desperate to impeach Obama. They haven't found anything so this is all they've got.
 
Anytime you can get a guy who couldn't beat Terry fucking McAuliffe in an election to lead an effort, you gotta do it
 
the particular tactic (and esp. involvement of Crazy Cooch) seems misguided, but I have no complaints about somebody doing something to hold the administration responsible for the excesses of the NSA. Congress apparently is too pussified to do anything about it inside the normal oversight and legislation process, so I guess it's up to the courts.
 
Deacon923 said:
the particular tactic (and esp. involvement of Crazy Cooch) seems misguided, but I have no complaints about somebody doing something to hold the administration responsible for the excesses of the NSA. Congress apparently is too pussified to do anything about it inside the normal oversight and legislation process, so I guess it's up to the courts.
Click to expand...

You know the Congress knows just how much dirt the NSA has on its members.
 
I would just like to point out that this is a good thing, irrespective of who is doing it (or their motives). I just think that Paul has the balls to go with his convictions as opposed to what is politically expedient.

The other thing that needs to be reigned in is the unconstitutional power grab by this president.

Jonathan Turley has some good points on that topic as well and I don't think he wants to impeach Obama.




Jonathan Turley: The left’s indifference to Obama’s executive power grabs is beginning to border on a cult of personality
POSTED AT 11:21 AM ON FEBRUARY 13, 2014 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

“Beginning”?

There’s nothing here that you haven’t heard before if you watched him testify before Congress in December but it’s still worth watching for two reasons. One is his tone, which has grown darker and more apocalyptic since then. More than once here he warns that Obama’s “enablers” are destined to rue the fact that they remained silent “during this period.” Precedents are being set that will be built on by future presidents of both parties; for all the complaining about executive overreach by Democrats circa 2006 and Republicans today, the cold realities of power are what they are. I’m tempted to say that it was O’s latest unlawful delay to ObamaCare’s employer mandate that soured Turley’s mood, but I don’t think that’s it. I think it was the State of the Union, where Obama embraced bypassing Congress as formal policy. Look out for the phrase “borders on authoritarianism.”

The other reason to watch is his debunking near the end of the “power of the purse” strategy to check Obama. Mike Lee told the Weekly Standard two days ago that that’s the way he thinks Congress should rein in the president: They’re not going to roll the political dice on impeachment and they can’t sue for lack of standing, but they can go ahead and cut off Obama’s money in areas where he’s exceeded his constitutional boundaries — in theory. The problem with that approach, says Turley, is that O’s not above unilaterally moving money around that’s been appropriated for other purposes. Congress can’t use the “power of the purse” if it doesn’t meaningfully enjoy that power either. So let me repeat a recommendation I made once before: The GOP should introduce a constitutional amendment broadening the legal parameters of standing so that citizens can sue the president for violating separation of powers. The precise language of that amendment would require hard thought; draft it too loosely and the executive branch will be sued for every move it makes, whether clearly constitutional or not. But the status quo, where Congress is effectively powerless to stop the president from making the rules up as he goes along, can’t go on. If you can’t get the votes for the amendment in Congress now, that’s okay — these things take time, and it’ll be useful at least to have Democrats on record as opposing limits on executive power. But get the ball rolling.
 
Why sue instead of impeach if he's acting outside the bounds of the constitution?
 
When I heard he was suing the president I figured it would be over the constant changes being made by the executive branch to the PPACA.

Then I did a little reading and found out the executive branch has a TON of leeway when it comes to tax law.
 
PhDeac said:
Republicans are desperate to impeach Obama. They haven't found anything so this is all they've got.
Click to expand...

your pathological support of him is more interesting. I would suspect that RJ had hacked your account, except that RJ couldn't figure out how to log on to anything or google anything, or know what the "cloud" is could hack anything.
 
So again, why not impeach him?
 
No. You seem to think he should. Why sue instead of impeach? It's a simple question. Just answer it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top