Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
search
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!
W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000
YOUR BALANCE
he "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 71
| visibility 619

he "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"


Nov 20, 2014, 9:20 AM

how is executive amnesty taking care "that the laws" requiring deportation are "faithfully executed"

this is a strong case for impeachment.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Interesting.


Nov 20, 2014, 9:31 AM

What sort of "executive amnesty" is Barry offering, and what's the case for impeachment?

A quick googling around did not provide an answer.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


By his executive order he is codifying the violation of the


Nov 20, 2014, 9:44 AM

law...as passed by Congress. What if he drew up an executive order to drop all prosecutions for possession of pot? Why not?

Or...how about a Republican becoming President and dropping jail time for federal tax evasion regarding a tax he doesn't agree with? Again, passed by Congress.

Hummm......this is bad no matter your persuasion.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Has this executive order been signed?


Nov 20, 2014, 9:52 AM

It would be nice to see what it says.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


To answer your questions...


Nov 20, 2014, 9:58 AM [ in reply to By his executive order he is codifying the violation of the ]

I don't know how the legality of an executive order is tested. A brief scan around the internet is failing to produce answers.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


it can be tested in Court and/or by the Congress itself***


Nov 20, 2014, 10:24 AM



badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


What I meant was, what does the law say?


Nov 20, 2014, 10:28 AM

Have executive orders ever been invalidated? You seem pretty sure this one is unconstitutional or illegal somehow.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


pre-new deal court packing courts certainly did***


Nov 20, 2014, 10:35 AM



badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


that is to say they overturned FDR's executive orders


Nov 20, 2014, 10:37 AM

our imperial president fixed them though!

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Which brings us back to the question...


Nov 20, 2014, 10:40 AM

What's the standard for overturning an executive order, and/or when is an executive order grounds for impeachment?

I'm looking for actual legal authority here, if you have any. I assume you weren't just blowing smoke up our collective a$$e$ when you said "this is a strong case for impeachment."

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


Overturning an executive order.


Nov 20, 2014, 12:02 PM

Not sure there's a standard per se, but...

Congress may attempt to overturn an executive order by passing legislation that opposes the order. However, the President can veto that bill, and Congress would then need to override that veto to pass the bill. Also, the Supreme Court can declare an executive order to be unconstitutional.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Yeah, but who would have standing to sue to the SC?***


Nov 20, 2014, 1:01 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good question.***


Nov 20, 2014, 1:58 PM



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


Congress would have standing


Nov 20, 2014, 2:03 PM

Also, anyone who may have a legal entitlement impacted by the Executive Order.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Much more plausible than impeachment.


Nov 20, 2014, 2:44 PM

Though who will be impacted by this executive order (which no one has yet mentioned the details of) in a way that gives them Art III standing?

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


That's what I was wondering***


Nov 20, 2014, 3:26 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

maybe some institution that has to provide benefits to


Nov 20, 2014, 5:48 PM [ in reply to Much more plausible than impeachment. ]

citizens but not illegals?

Maybe a hospital?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


there are dozens of pre and early new deal cases


Nov 20, 2014, 2:04 PM [ in reply to Which brings us back to the question... ]

I'd start there

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Vague reference to unknown cases not very persuasive.


Nov 20, 2014, 2:20 PM

So... this is probably going to be just another impeach-the-prez fad that will wear off in a week or so.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


doubt it.


Nov 20, 2014, 2:24 PM

can you point to authority in support???????

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


No, I cannot.


Nov 20, 2014, 2:40 PM

And the only person who seemed sure of impeachability has no authority. That's the point.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


he's ceded to himself power he doesnt have


Nov 20, 2014, 2:42 PM

if thats not impeachable, I don't know what is.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Interfering with a burglary investigation.


Nov 20, 2014, 2:45 PM

Lying under oath.

Those are.

Signing a law later determined to be unconstitutional? As Murc said, lots of members of Congress will be in trouble if that's all it takes.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


I strongly disagree


Nov 20, 2014, 3:05 PM

impeachment isnt just for "criminal" actions. violation of the oath of office by intentionally and purposefully exceeding your LIMITED power is impeachable.

and what law has he signed? he is violating the Constitution by explicitly refusing to enforce the law.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Is signing an executive order a refusal to enforce the law?


Nov 20, 2014, 3:38 PM

This claim will need slightly more defense.

Who is allowed to decide whether to enforce a law? If a cop pulls you over and lets you go with a warning, is he breaking the law? If the immigration law is not like that, then is there some better analogy, in case law perhaps?

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


did you see my post, re: Marbury?


Nov 20, 2014, 5:33 PM

The Supreme Court clearly distinguished between ministerial and political functions.

Enforcement of criminal laws is not optional.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: did you see my post, re: Marbury?


Nov 20, 2014, 5:59 PM

Yes, I did see that post. I hope, for the sake of your hypothetical plaintiff, that there's something slightly more recent than Marbury to hang his or her hat on.

You mentioned that there are "dozens" of early and pre-New Deal cases that are relevant. I received a Tmail from an astute reader who wanted to know how many early and pre-New Deal presidents were impeached in those cases.

Enforcement of criminal laws is option under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion. But here's some debate on that point:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/allowing-some-illegal-immigrants-to-stay-abuses-prosecutorial-discretion

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


Here's one take:


Nov 20, 2014, 12:53 PM [ in reply to What I meant was, what does the law say? ]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/07/why-not-even-congress-can-sue-the-administration-over-unconstitutional-executive-actions/#!

And on impeachment:

"If the president’s actions are so bad, why not just impeach him? Presidential impeachment has occurred only three times. Reconstruction President Andrew Johnson narrowly escaped conviction after the House impeached him for firing the Secretary of War in contravention of the Tenure of Office Act. Richard Nixon resigned after being impeached for obstructing an investigation into the Watergate break-in, and using the IRS and other executive agencies to target political opponents. Bill Clinton was impeached for abusing the judicial process and executive power to cover up his extramarital relationships. The Democrat-controlled Senate acquitted him.

The one thing all three attempts at presidential impeachment share is this: An assertion that the president was failing to faithfully execute the laws. Each situation involved — to a greater or lesser degree — a president intent on ignoring or manipulating the law for his own political or personal advantage.

Has President Obama committed similarly serious acts? Some Americans believe his unilateral changes to various laws and use of the IRS to target tea party and conservative groups are just as serious as Clinton’s, Nixon’s, or Johnson’s transgressions. But even assuming this is true and the House passed articles of impeachment, would two-thirds of Harry Reid’s Senate convict the first African-American president? The question seems to answer itself."

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Informative. I liked the race-baiting ending!***


Nov 20, 2014, 2:02 PM



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


Is that incorrect?


Nov 20, 2014, 3:17 PM

I do think it would look much worse for Republicans to impeach the first African- American president who's done something like this than it would be to impeach a white president for doing the same thing. Just mentioning race is hardly race baiting.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Just par for the course. You look at Obama cross-eyed and


Nov 20, 2014, 3:38 PM

somewhere, someone, somehow will see that as rassist.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg2006_nit_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We're friends. You laugh, I laugh. You cry, I cry. You jump off a bridge, I get in my boat and save your retarded a$$.


Yes, it sure is!


Nov 20, 2014, 3:42 PM [ in reply to Is that incorrect? ]

So far, the Daily Caller and zettner have both claimed that you can't criticize Barry without being called racist.

Saying that Barry gets away with sh!t because he's black is a really really really GREAT example of race-baiting. It's the kind of example someone might just invent if asked what "race baiting" means. And here's the Daily Caller and zettner actually doing it!

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


Obama is half black. Is that rassist?***


Nov 20, 2014, 3:44 PM



badge-donor-10yr.jpg2006_nit_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We're friends. You laugh, I laugh. You cry, I cry. You jump off a bridge, I get in my boat and save your retarded a$$.


Totally.


Nov 20, 2014, 3:44 PM

No.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


No, I don't think so


Nov 20, 2014, 5:24 PM [ in reply to Yes, it sure is! ]

I think it's a realistic appraisal of what some people would be claiming if Republicans were to try to impeach the first black president. That doesn't mean that's what everybody thinks, it just means that quite a few people do.

The Daily Caller piece didn't say Obama was getting away with stuff because he's black, it said that Republicans would be unwise to use such a drastic defense of legislative prerogative because, in part, he's black. That isn't race baiting (ie. verbal attacks against a race, or groundless assertions of racism).

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

How about it's just stupid?


Nov 20, 2014, 8:47 PM

Based on the history of Obama's opponents saying things like, "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" or calling him "emperor" or shutting down government and blaming it on Obama (and threatening to do so again), or suing him, or...is it really so far fetched to believe they would try to impeach him? Saying they won't "go that far" simply because he's black seems to ignore the history of Obama's opponents in the 6 years he's been president. It's a stupid statement.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Whoa there, Daily Caller!


Nov 20, 2014, 2:06 PM [ in reply to Here's one take: ]

"Richard Nixon resigned after being impeached for..."

Nixon was never impeached.

"Bill Clinton was impeached for abusing the judicial process and executive power to cover up his extramarital relationships. The Democrat-controlled Senate acquitted him."

Republicans controlled the senate in 1999.

Are they lying or just stupid?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


That's what the logicians call an "inclusive or."***


Nov 20, 2014, 2:21 PM



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


The judiciary committee recommended impeachment...


Nov 20, 2014, 3:25 PM [ in reply to Whoa there, Daily Caller! ]

of Nixon. What she probably should've wrote is that Democrats controlled whether or not Clinton would be removed from office, and thus the Senate acquitted him.

I don't think either of those errors really takes away from what was a pretty interesting point.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is way worse than lying about a blowjob IMO***


Nov 20, 2014, 6:30 PM [ in reply to Here's one take: ]



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Ah, so you've moved on dot org.***


Nov 20, 2014, 7:44 PM



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


go back to the beginning, read Marbury


Nov 20, 2014, 10:34 AM [ in reply to Interesting. ]

in addition to "judicial review" the opinion discusses the difference between political actions in which the executive may exercise discretion and purely ministerial functions where he is legally obligated to do that which Congress has required.

enforcement of the immigration laws is not discretionary. he is in violation of the laws which he is legally obligated to carry out. Unlike poor Marbury, the Court would have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Similarly, I think willful disregard of the executive function is an impeachable offense.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Ronnie did it for his San Joaquin farmer buddies. Does that


Nov 23, 2014, 6:34 AM

count?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


What about signing statements?


Nov 20, 2014, 9:32 AM

President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I think they might offer insight


Nov 20, 2014, 10:22 AM

into why the President signed and may have PR value but should carry no force of law. If the President acts on a signing statement as if it had the force of law, that would be per se unconstitutional to the extent that it is not within the law passed by both houses.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-conservativealex.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


There is no case whatsoever for impeachment.


Nov 20, 2014, 9:35 AM

He has not yet done anything, and no one yet knows what he will do.

If Congress would quit sitting around beating their pud and address the issue, instead of running from the tough decisions we would not be in this situation. This is a bi-polar, I mean bipartisan, problem.

I am in favor of executive action if it makes the pubs not run scared from Tea Party types, and finally address a difficult and protracted problem.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

why not just follow the law?***


Nov 20, 2014, 10:05 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If she's a hollerer, she'll be a screamer.
If she's a screamer, she'll get you arrested.


Seems easiest.


Nov 20, 2014, 10:30 AM

There are already existing laws in place.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Those laws are so mean though


Nov 20, 2014, 11:23 AM

We truly are a country run by idiots. Why you wouldn't want to secure your own borders before doing anything else is totally insane.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-lakebum1-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'd say there is if he does what he says he will


Nov 20, 2014, 12:07 PM [ in reply to There is no case whatsoever for impeachment. ]

Unfortunately, we're so unserious about this kind of thing that any attempt at impeachment would just be seen as partisanship run amock.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Can you explain the grounds for impeachment?


Nov 20, 2014, 12:14 PM

I saw some congressman suggested that Obama would be guilty of violating a federal law (he couldn't remember exactly which one) which makes it a felony to assist someone illegally crossing the border. Is that the main thrust of it or is there another justification for impeachment?

Without specifics it's kinda hard to see it as anything other than partisanship run amock.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


it's a violation of his constitutional authority


Nov 20, 2014, 12:20 PM

Obama doesn't have the authority to make such an order, and he's encroaching on the authority of Congress. That said, I think it's a waste of time to talk about, because it's not going to happen. More than likely, Democrats want people to think Republicans want to impeach Obama over this because they believe it makes Republicans look more partisan.


What Republicans ought to do is pass a budget without funding for CIS. ** [I'm adding this in, since I think it would work better this way] They should then pass a separate funding bill for CIS without the amnesty. Then, if Obama objected, it would make him look responsible for holding funding of the government ransom in order to get his way on immigration.


Message was edited by: camcgee®


Message was edited by: camcgee®
2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Is doing something unconstitutional an impeachable offense?


Nov 20, 2014, 12:37 PM

Like if Congress passes a law that is later struck down as unconstitutional, can we impeach all the members of Congress who voted for it?

And hly ### at this:

"What Republicans ought to do is pass a budget without funding for CIS. Then, if Obama objected, it would make him look responsible for holding funding of the government ransom in order to get his way on immigration."

This is why people hate politics, politicians, and Congress.

Wait, here's what they should do: The Republicans should pass a bill that adds unicorns to the endangered species list and then tack on a provision that re-establishes slavery and then when Obama vetoes the bill they can be like, "Yo Obama totally hates unicorns!" BOOM GOP FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Congress has to do stuff like that to assert its power


Nov 20, 2014, 12:50 PM

Especially in cases like this where the president is choosing to ignore the law because of his policy preferences.

Breaching his constitutional authority as president would be illegal, and therefore could be grounds for impeachment. That's the check that Congress has on the president. The check on Congressional passage of unconstitutional laws is that they're stricken by the court. The difference is that the president's powers are enumerated in the constitution and by congress through authority delegated by the laws it passes. So when the president decides not to follow those laws, he's usupring authority in a way that a legislator wouldn't be, since the legislator has authority to legislate and not to execute the laws.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

NO!!!!! to impeachment.


Nov 20, 2014, 3:36 PM [ in reply to There is no case whatsoever for impeachment. ]

Look who is sitting in the wings.

Yep, Biden. YIKES!!!!!!!

badge-donor-10yr.jpg2006_nit_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We're friends. You laugh, I laugh. You cry, I cry. You jump off a bridge, I get in my boat and save your retarded a$$.


NOT impeaching the President seems to have worked well.***


Nov 20, 2014, 3:47 PM [ in reply to There is no case whatsoever for impeachment. ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Quote from Boehner's office...


Nov 20, 2014, 9:52 AM

“If ‘Emperor Obama’ ignores the American people and announces an amnesty plan that he himself has said over and over again exceeds his Constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for Congressional action on this issue – and many others.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/president-obama-is-going-to-sign-an-executive-order-on-immigration-cue-massive-political-explosion/

I don't know about impeachment, but I think Obama is making one last statement to the country: "I can't do this job. It's too hard...people don't do what I want them to." He got a complete beat down in the election. He himself said that his policies were on the ballot. The statement from America was deafening. And he's about to flip Congress the bird. He doesn't want to do the job. We just had to limit the damage for two years and hope for a better leader in 2016.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Sounds like Boehner's using it as an out to avoid


Nov 20, 2014, 10:36 AM

having to try to pass difficult legislation. Thanks Obama!

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Lol. Awesome. ******


Nov 20, 2014, 10:38 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


"Emperor Obama" is the best part of that quote.***


Nov 20, 2014, 10:41 AM [ in reply to Quote from Boehner's office... ]



2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
- Jonathan Swift


A member of Congress actually called the President


Nov 20, 2014, 11:20 AM [ in reply to Quote from Boehner's office... ]

"Emperor Obama"? In a public statement? Ridiculous.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

He's referring back to a speech Obama made that stated


Nov 20, 2014, 11:26 AM

he wasn't an "emperor" in February of 2013:

"This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency," said Obama. "The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes, or specifically, a spokesman for Boehner said it, which


Nov 20, 2014, 11:31 AM [ in reply to A member of Congress actually called the President ]

in my book is the same thing. Not the most professional thing I've ever heard and if it came out of a White House spokesman's mouth the lack of professionalism would have registered with me, no doubt.

I guess being told by the Executive branch that they are going to start making laws because they are tired of the way the Judicial branch does it rubbed him the wrong way.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


I think it's just grandstanding...


Nov 20, 2014, 1:01 PM

All these people do is grandstand.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Oh deer lowered. Legislative Branch...not Judicial. Lol.


Nov 20, 2014, 1:02 PM [ in reply to Yes, or specifically, a spokesman for Boehner said it, which ]

I swear I'm a citizen.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Would definitely set a really bad precedent


Nov 20, 2014, 12:09 PM [ in reply to Quote from Boehner's office... ]

What's the next president going to do? Just ignore a tax law because he doesn't like what Congress passed? What if a Republican decided he was going to stop enforcing the individual mandate?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sounds like a recipe for Caudillismo***


Nov 20, 2014, 12:15 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm more confused than ever on this topic. ARTICLE:


Nov 20, 2014, 4:00 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/20/365467914/so-just-what-is-an-executive-action-anyway

Definition of Executive Order:
http://legacy.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/executiveorder.htm

"An executive order is a presidential directive with the force of law. It does not need congressional approval.

The Supreme Court has upheld executive orders as valid either under the general constitutional grant of executive powers to the President or if authority for it was expressly granted to the President by the Congress.

Congress can repeal or modify an executive order by passing a new law; however it must be signed by the President or his veto overridden."

Definition of Executive Action is tougher:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/10/28/8528035-just-what-is-an-executive-action?lite

"It just means something the executive branch does. The use of any of a number of tools in the executive branch’s toolbox," said one administration official.

"Executive actions can include "regulation, enforcement, statements of policy...and numerous other things," the official continued.

So, basically, it's anything the President does that doesn't modify a law. Multiple officials have said this is a continuation of changes President Obama has called for in various departments throughout his presidency. "

So to the President and dems it's him finally acknowledging the broken nature of our government to get things done and doing it himself? Or to the Pubs it's him continuing to play "emperor" and destruction of the constitution.

I'm willing to let this play out as it's possible this is just a way to get Congress to actually get something done on this issue. On the flip side, I have no doubts come next year the pubs will be making a strong push to impeach Obama on something, anything. It's just what they do.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What I resent in this debate is the idea that not passing


Nov 20, 2014, 4:18 PM

immigration reform is "the system, broken." We have laws now. Why do we HAVE to protect 5 million people here illegally (that's an honest question, by the way...I'm sure someone can explain it to me)? Did all those new Republicans that humiliated Obama's party a couple weeks ago run on a platform of amnesty for people here illegally? Because the citizens of the United States voted them in in droves. Why does the President feel entitled to "get things done" when really he just wants to create his own laws, regardless of the will of the people?

And regardless of the validity of Executive Orders, the Legislative Branch, which has become more and more Republican with every day that Obama is in office, has declared to the President that they do not want his vision of immigration reform to be the law of the land. THEY are (supposedly) the voice of the people. How arrogant can the man get?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Most say deporting 11million illegals would be impossible


Nov 20, 2014, 4:43 PM

so then the question becomes, what to do? Amnesty is one solution. Not sure about others.

On the issue of the system being broken, I think it's more general of an idea than speaking to this specific issue. That's not to say that this issue isn't indicative of the brokenness of our Government to get anything done, it is.

As for this past election, you're right that most didn't see the republicans winning as much as they did, but most did have them winning. The seats up for election and the political apathy by voters (remember, worst voter turnout in 70 years) were conducive to a Republican win. Things are supposedly switched in this regard in 2016. We'll see.

No one ran on a platform this election. The only platform was "Ebola and ISIS" + hate government. Fear and anger. Anger and fear. That's the mandate the pubs have in winning. None other.

And remember, Obama (with more people voting) was also reelected so he's working under the assumption he too is the (supposed) voice of the people.

Again though, let's see how this plays out.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Why did we have to do anything?


Nov 21, 2014, 9:33 AM

11 million illegals (???) in this country. So? Our options weren't either to grant immunity or immediately deport millions of people.

The fact that Republicans were already expected to win doesn't diminish the message. Entire organizations and millions of dollars are invested in knowing which way an election is going before it happens. It doesn't diminish the statement made by the election. And I love how people are diminishing the low turnout as some "other" problem that led to a Republican win. Democrats stayed home because they also aren't excited by their leadership anymore. Bad Democrat leadership caused a low turnout...low turnout isn't what caused a Republican victory.

Republicans have a clear mandate that the people don't believe in Obama or his policies. That is what they ran against. That's what makes his boldness so amazing.

Again I say, this President is done. He has done his best to unravel centuries of balance of power. It's him against the world...he has belittled Congress and the Supreme Court, and neither will be anxious to accommodate his legal actions. Congress will now shift to unraveling this latest effort. If they succeed, he'll probably sulk, point fingers and go golfing for a few months before trying to proclaim a new law. In the meantime, he'll get no support from anyone on either side of the aisle.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


I don't understand your first question?


Nov 21, 2014, 2:33 PM

Could you help me out? What is the point you're making on immigration?

As for the election:
I have no doubt the pubs will see it as a mandate to continue to not govern and to stop all attempts at doing so ("limited or no government" for all). Low voter turnout IS a problem in and of itself, wouldn't you agree? I think everyone is upset at leadership in Congress, but circumstances allowed for vulnerable dems to be ousted. But, I don't fault the pubs and their fans to excited about the results. Dems would feel the same way.

I'd hope that the pubs ran on a platform of ideas, but they didn't and that worked for them. But if they choose to continue not to govern in these next 2 years, then I'd assume the American people will take notice in 2016. We'll see.

I agree that traditionally, Obama is a lame duck for these next 2 years. I disagree with everything else you mentioned in your last paragraph.

As for the legality of what Obama is doing with immigration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/20/obama-immigration-and-the-rule-of-law/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/on-immigration-obama-may-be-cynical-but-hes-not-breaking-the-law/article/2551807

From that 2nd article: "Margaret Stock, a Republican immigration lawyer and a Federalist Society member, notes that such accusations don’t appreciate that all this is fully authorized by those laws. "The Immigration and Nationality Act and other laws are chock-full of huge grants of statutory authority to the president,” she explains, a point also emphasized by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in its 2013 brief. “Congress gave the president all these powers, and now they are upset because he wants to use them. Other presidents have used the same authority in the past without an outcry.”

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 71
| visibility 619
📰 E-Mail News Alerts

TigerBoard POTD

Meeting my mother for the first time

by Clemsonohiotiger®

Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic