Skip to main content

Whereas John Boehner is the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Whereas the majority party in the House, the Republican Party, with its duly elected leadership controls all legislative and committee activity,
Whereas that leadership has systematically, purposefully and cynically prevented legislative action on:

The national budget
Immigration reform
Gun control
Unemployment insurance
Equal pay
Climate control
Infrastructure repair and retention
Marriage equality
Equal protection under the law

while pushing committee hearings on faux scandals, expending valuable resources.

In that this inaction has caused the People both economic and emotional hardship, We the People find that John Boehner and the House leadership have failed to fulfill their Constitutional Obligations for which we hold them libel for damages.

Dear supporter,

This is only a draft. I am not an attorney, only an angry American. We need help to make this suit a reality so that we can have an impact on what is happening in D.C. If you are an attorney, please offer your assistance, pro bono, to write and file this suit properly. If you are just an angry American like me, tell me that you are willing to be a part of this class-action suit. Numbers count and the more persons we can attach to the suit, the more impact it will have. Write me back in the comments, and recommend this piece so that more people will see it. Join me to make the Republicans pay and help America work again.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You can't sue the government (6+ / 0-)

    Imagine a constitutional amendment that allowed individual citizens to sue their government.

    Everyone would be for it, mostly people with money would pursue it; the energy companies, hobby lobbies, groups who wanted no government regulation, no taxes, no services, people who thought this was founded to be a Christian nation and thought religious freedom was for Christians only.

    "If you had no laws you would have no crimes" they would say. Then they would start making up rules to keep other groups from having their way about anything.

    That's enough talking for me today.

    "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

    by rktect on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:21:04 AM PDT

    •  People sue the government all the time. (5+ / 0-)

      Individual Members of Congress are immune from civil suits that stem from performance (or in this case lack of performance) of their jobs, but government as an institution is sue-able.
      That said, I don't know if this will fly, but I'd sign on for the halibut.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 04:37:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This has no standing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, emelyn

        This is not a legitimate "Article III case or controversy"

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 04:40:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But would it come under Article III at all? (0+ / 0-)

          Neither the US nor a state is a named party in the suit - doesn't Article III deal exclusively with the US and states?

          Please note that lamps in the MAGIC LAMP EMPORIUM are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

          by Mopshell on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:07:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  can you cite the relevant casse law (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA")

        Historically, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," you were not permitted to sue the king. Sovereign immunity has carried over to modern times in the form of a general rule that you cannot sue the government -- unless the government says you can. Fortunately, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") allows certain kinds of lawsuits against federal employees who are acting within the scope of their employment.

        ... this broad-sounding mandate is subject to a lot of fine print.

        "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

        by rktect on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:06:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's a couple links (0+ / 0-)

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:11:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Speech and Debate Clause (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, emelyn

            FTCA has no applicability here at all.  Zero.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:19:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't so much that you can't sue the government (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            you can.

            The issue is can you sue the government successfully...

            Of your links the very first case on the first link is a case where the United States government was sued and the case was dismissed because of sovereign immunity.

            Most suits not involving negligence, or a tort for the illegal activity of an individual, or individuals, such as with Bivens,
            or a bankruptcy in which a State is involved just get dismissed.

            Some get argued all the way up to the Supreme Court and then get dismissed; imagine the legal costs for those actions.

            "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

            by rktect on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:26:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Sovereign immunity in the United States i (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sovereign immunity in the United States is the legal privilege by which the American federal, state, and tribal governments cannot be sued. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. Foreign governments enjoy immunity from suit, as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
        State sovereign immunity

        In Hans v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, the court explained that

            we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention." States may consent to suit, and therefore waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing a case from state court to federal court. See Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia.

        (Citations omitted). In Alden v. Maine, the Court explained that while it has

            sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity[,]" [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.

        Writing for the court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers."

        However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of pre-ratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Chatham County (emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County, and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power.'" Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

        There is also tribal sovereign immunity

        "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

        by rktect on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:18:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  CwV - you noted it yourself (0+ / 0-)

        The Speaker, and all other members of Congress, have broad immunity from civil actions while performing, or not performing, their official duties. This proposed lawsuit, while understanding the frustration, has no standing.

        The remedy is to beat John Boehner and put a Democrat in his House seat.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:53:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You can only sue the government to the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        extent that the government gives you permission to sue it.  

    •  100 Million Whitewaters Per Year nt (0+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:07:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are penalties for abuse of process (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If your lawsuit is "frivolous" because "you can't sue the government" and gets dismissed you may end up having to pay the costs of the person you sued.

        "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

        by rktect on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:30:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Only if Lionel Hutz is the lead attorney. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:43:55 AM PDT

  •  You should delete this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, misslegalbeagle, emelyn

    The courts have made clear this is an invalid claim.

    In Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife the Court threw out the case on standing specifically citing

    "a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy."
    Let's not advocate impossibilities.  

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:08:53 AM PDT

  •  They have things called elections. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, emelyn

    They have things called elections.

  •  This might well have v bad consequences... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    From what I'm reading, members of Congress are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits for their votes and official actions. Trying to bring a suit against them would actually cause a world of trouble for all those involved and the penalties would be costly. Let's not put ourselves on the wrong side of the law - let us allow the House Republicans to do that instead.

    I suggest we all wait and see where they take this. Boehner said he would bring a proposal to the floor next month. A lot can happen between now and then.

    Please note that lamps in the MAGIC LAMP EMPORIUM are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

    by Mopshell on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:42:44 AM PDT

  •  I don't see this as sueing the Government (0+ / 0-)

    I see it as a chance to make a statement about the way our government is owned by the Corporation. The first 3 words in the Constitution are "We The People" and not We the Corporations. so the wording any suit must reflect that.    

  •  A Copy of this has been sent to (0+ / 0-)

    John Boehner and Mitch McConnell:

    Don't Make Us Do This:

    Rule 23. Class Actions

    The People of the United States v. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Darrel Issa, the House and Senate Republicans, etal

    Harm to plaintiffs:

    Waste of our tax dollars on endless obstruction, multiple frivolous committee investigations, shutting down the government, frivolous legislation attempting to repeal standing law -- to whit, 50+ attempts to repeal ACA and women's right to abortions, failure to enact laws regarding jobs, minimum wage, infrastructure repairs etc., resulting in economic harm to the People.

    We certainly have "standing," and if I read Rule 23 correctly, it wouldn't take very many of us to bring the suit.

    There's also petitions at [mine]

    and at
    "We the People"

    This lawsuit is no more frivolous than Boehner's, and if enough of us sign, maybe they'll listen.

    It couldn't hurt.

    “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

    by midgebaker on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:18:07 AM PDT

  •  There would be no standing to sue. Sorry. Plus ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Musial, emelyn

    There would be no standing to sue. Sorry. Plus the "political question" doctrune would bar you.

    Voting is your answer

    •  They're keeping the political question doctrine a (0+ / 0-)

      secret. If too many people find out about it, a backlash could result, that and the doubtful case rule. It should be a test question at the polls to establish voter competence, that political questions are for the electorate and the elected branches, not for the courts.

      But the Roberts Court specializes in political questions, so people think that's how the system works, and that you would need an amendment to restore Congress's legislative authority. Republican former Justice Stevens is up to 6 proposed amendments and counting. FDR had a different idea, legislate don't amend, and kick the Court as a political football. Lincoln had a similar approach against the disgraced Taney.

      Under Art. 3. sec. 2 cl. 2 it's Congress's duty to police the separation of powers boundary. Having essentially abandoned the political question doctrine, the Court trespasses on Congressional powers in almost every major decision, in ongoing violation of Art. 4 Sec. 4, the guarantee of a republican form of government. FDR corrected the imbalance of powers, as he promised in his 3-9-37 fireside chat. Dems should swear an oath to defend the Constitution as FDR did, through legislative revolution that the corrupt reactionary Court can not prevent without losing its legitimacy.

  •  Thank you to all who participated in this conve... (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you to all who participated in this conversation. I will take your comments under consideration and consider my next move carefully .

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site