According to Article II, Section 4, "The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The procedure for Impeachment and trial are laid out under Congressional powers under Article I. So, in the event the President, acting in any fashion that may arise to the level of Treason or High Crimes and Misdemeanors, may be subject to impeachment and trial in the Congress.
With this in mind, the GOP-led House has voted strictly along party lines to sue the President not for Treason or high Crimes or Misdemeanors, but for alleged "abuses of Executive Authority" tied to his extensive use of Executive Orders. So the issue is quite narrow. Has the President's use of Executive Orders exceeded his authority enabling the House of Representatives without involvement of the Senate, to litigate against the President of the United States for using Executive action(s)? Has the House the ability to unilaterally sue the President for such actions seeking a ruling of a Court of Law that such actions are, well, not legal? But does not being "legal" mean not being "Constitutional?" And for what purpose? (See: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/house-republicans-lawsuit-law-firm-111150.html?hp=l16).
And this raises the issue of Justiciability. Can the House without the Senate litigate against a President for using previously acceptable Executive action because his action is conducted without their approval? But what authority does any President have under Article II of the Constitution? Since President Washington's term, the Executive has issued Orders to carry out the powers "vested" in him under Article II, even if Congress has not acted. Executive Orders have therefore through our history, been used by every president (except Harrison - because he died shortly after his inauguration), and under the theory of "Custom and Usage" have become traditional powers of the president. Ironically, under the theories of Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers, Executive Orders may be ruled "Unconstitutional" by the United States Supreme Court if it can be shown that the action violates the Executives powers. But at no time has the High Court ever entertained a lawsuit involving one chamber of Congress, voting along strictly political party lines to sue a sitting president. Why? Because of that stubborn issue of "Justiciability."
IF a legal remedy is available under the Constitution to the House without suing the sitting president, then remedies outside of Court are available. And IF the demand to sue the sitting president is from solely one political party and is not considered enough to gain an impeachment and conviction/removal, then the issue would be considered "politically motivated" and not "justiciable." And here we are with the GOP-led house initiating legal proceedings against the President for alleged "abuses" of Executive authority. And for what?
According to the GOP suit, for issuing Executive Orders postponing the ACA mandates on businesses (which the GOP-led House also supported, but did nothing to legislate into law). Hmm... the GOP-led house opposes the mandates on businesses under the ACA and instead of legislating their delay, they ignore it and then watch the President issue Executive Action delaying it and they want to sue for this action? Why would they want to do this if the delay is exactly what they wanted in the first place? So they can further delegitimize Obama as president - plain and simple. Knowing they could not use their available legal remedies of impeachment, conviction and removal, they choose a purely cynical stunt to sue the president in court. And this one-sided purely partisan action could not possibly be considered "politically motivated?" Justiciability is a tough word to say, but not so tough to apply to the GOP lawsuit.
With Obama's presidency winding down into "lame duck" status after the upcoming Mid-term elections, why would anyone really think the GOP lawsuit should actually be given "justiciable" status in the Courts? And this from the political party that hypocritically rails against "frivolous lawsuits!" Stop wasting the taxpayers' money. And please stop spending all of your waking hours attacking the administration while political fundraising and seeking election gains while real work demands action in the House of Representatives (and has since 2010). A wise man once wrote a cautionary note that actions of one political party may lead to the reactions of another, none of which is healthy to our great nation (and a slam of shame on both existing parties that rule Washington) by saying; "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." That man? None other than George Washington himself. Stop the games in Washington and start working. Stop creating reasons for revenge and start uniting. Stop vacationing and politicking and instead engage in the work of the People. So having the People suing members of Congress for not doing their jobs would be rejected by the Courts for lacking "justiciability!" Why, because We The People already have available remedies to force them to do their jobs --- they're called ELECTIONS. I can only hope every eligible American exercises their right to vote in order to send a strong message to the politicians in Washington! Have a great week!