Lawsuit: Publicity stunt
Regarding the column “Why the House should sue Obama” : I have to disagree with the authors' contention. A lawsuit against the White House is little more than a publicity stunt. The House has the levers it needs to counter any usurpation of powers on the part of the White House. What lawmakers lack is courage.
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution gives the House the power of the checkbook. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Instead, like the political cowards they are, they want the courts to fight their battles for them.
Don't like the behavior of a government agency? Defund its enforcement budget. I doubt many Americans would bemoan such an action taken against the IRS.
The Framers gave the power of the purse to the House for a reason. Those powers are not just “useful political options,” as the column's authors state. They are the best, and most formidable, checks and balances that Congress has.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.