What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

Jim11

Jim11

Footballguy
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?

 
Jim11 said:
kevzilla said:
Reagan and Poppy Bush did the same thing. I suspect no one manned the barricades.
Click to expand...
Read the article...it's not the same.
Click to expand...
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which provided a general amnesty to almost three million illegal immigrants. ... In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...
If true, Jim has a point.

What immigration law or directive is Obama acting pursuant to?

Open question, I don't know.

 
Rich Conway said:
George Jefferson Airplane said:
So a lawyer, a priest, and an anteater walk into a bar...
Click to expand...
Go on...
Click to expand...
An anteater walks into a bar and says that he'd like a drink. "Okay," says the bartender. "How about a beer?" "Noooooooooo," replies the anteater. "Then how about a gin and tonic?" "Noooooooooo." "A martini?" "Noooooooooo." Finally, the bartender gets fed up and says, "Hey, listen buddy, if you don't mind me asking - why the long no's?"

 
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.

 
This reminds me of the ACA, where if you don't like an election result, you just tweak process and hope for the other side's acquiescence in a different branch of government. Shouldn't be anything but par for the course with our current president.

 
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
George Jefferson Airplane said:
rockaction said:
This reminds me of the ACA, where if you don't like an election result, you just tweak process and hope for the other side's acquiescence in a different branch of government. Shouldn't be anything but par for the course with our current president.
Click to expand...
Wat? :confused:
Click to expand...
If the result of an election (like Scott Brown providing the filibuster vote in the ACA debate, or this year's R takeover of the Senate) doesn't suit your needs, you use a questionable process to get your agenda passed.

 
rockaction said:
George Jefferson Airplane said:
rockaction said:
This reminds me of the ACA, where if you don't like an election result, you just tweak process and hope for the other side's acquiescence in a different branch of government. Shouldn't be anything but par for the course with our current president.
Click to expand...
Wat? :confused:
Click to expand...
If the result of an election (like Scott Brown providing the filibuster vote in the ACA debate, or this year's R takeover of the Senate) doesn't suit your needs, you use a questionable process to get your agenda passed.
Click to expand...
I remember when the Daily Signal's sports section used to have a headline for Women's Sports/Soccer.

 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
rockaction said:
George Jefferson Airplane said:
rockaction said:
This reminds me of the ACA, where if you don't like an election result, you just tweak process and hope for the other side's acquiescence in a different branch of government. Shouldn't be anything but par for the course with our current president.
Click to expand...
Wat? :confused:
Click to expand...
If the result of an election (like Scott Brown providing the filibuster vote in the ACA debate, or this year's R takeover of the Senate) doesn't suit your needs, you use a questionable process to get your agenda passed.
Click to expand...
I remember when the Daily Signal's sports section used to have a headline for Women's Sports/Soccer.
Click to expand...
Yeahhhhhhh, I know. It's a shame to see such a great paper fall into the hands of such serious people.

 
Obama then vs Obama now.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/obamas-own-words-refute-his-stand-on-immigration-authority

“Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

 
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).
Click to expand...
When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?

 
Jim11 said:
Obama then vs Obama now.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/obamas-own-words-refute-his-stand-on-immigration-authority

“Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”
Click to expand...
Gotta love ya, Jimmay... just as this place is starting to get dull, you come along and light a fire under everyone's ###. :thumbup:

 
Jim11 said:
Obama then vs Obama now.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitutional-limits-of-presidential-action-on-immigration-12/obamas-own-words-refute-his-stand-on-immigration-authority

“Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”
Click to expand...
In a column for Town Hall on Tuesday, actor Chuck Norris warned that failing to observe Christian holidays was a “slippery slope” in public schools, and “we have to stop it before it is too late.”

“We haven’t even hit Thanksgiving, and already the war on Christmas is underway,” he wrote. “[D]oes religious neutering accommodate diversity or merely endorse secular progressivism and political correctness as America’s new religion? Choices are the very actions our Bill of Rights was created to protect. In the end, however, rather than affirm Americans’ freedom of religion, society has spawned their freedom from religion.”

Norris argued that a country where schools did not observe Christian holidays was “not the America our Founding Fathers created for us.”

“That’s not education but pipeline progressivism pumping out another indoctrination camp,” he insisted.

Pointing to President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 Christmas address, Norris concluded by suggesting that President Barack Obama should be doing more to encourage school systems to observe religion.

On Wednesday, Fox & Friends host Elizabeth Hasselbeck said that she got goose bumps after her network played a portion of Reagan’s speech.

“Chuck Norris’ point was, remember the time when American presidents weren’t afraid to talk about traditional values as Ronald Reagan did back in 1981,” co-host Steve Doocy opined.

“In such an honorable way,” Hasselbeck added. “Treasure to even listen to that.”

“Makes you warm,” Doocy agreed.
Click to expand...
 
squistion said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).
Click to expand...
When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?
Click to expand...
I am going to try to ask a serious question in the hope I learn something:

- what law is Obama implementing here by executive action?

Not sarcasm etc. A serious question. Thanks.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).
Click to expand...
When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?
Click to expand...
I am going to try to ask a serious question in the hope I learn something:

- what law is Obama implementing here by executive action?

Not sarcasm etc. A serious question. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone knows yet. Which is why I asked the question above about whether he is actually making law or just allocating enforcement resources.

But until we hear his actual plan, we don't know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis said:
Rich Conway said:
George Jefferson Airplane said:
So a lawyer, a priest, and an anteater walk into a bar...
Click to expand...
Go on...
Click to expand...
An anteater walks into a bar and says that he'd like a drink. "Okay," says the bartender. "How about a beer?" "Noooooooooo," replies the anteater. "Then how about a gin and tonic?" "Noooooooooo." "A martini?" "Noooooooooo." Finally, the bartender gets fed up and says, "Hey, listen buddy, if you don't mind me asking - why the long no's?"
Click to expand...
As a UCI graduate, I am not amused .
 
whoknew said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).
Click to expand...
When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?
Click to expand...
I am going to try to ask a serious question in the hope I learn something:

- what law is Obama implementing here by executive action?

Not sarcasm etc. A serious question. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone knows yet. Which is why I asked the question above about whether he is actually making law or just allocating enforcement resources.

But until we hear his actual plan, we don't know.
Click to expand...
I figure there's enough checks and balances in place that if the 0 tries to do something truly objectionable, the politicos in Washington will be raising hell. If it's just guys like Jim011, I can roll with it for schtick, but lets face it... the 0 won the election, and that carries certain privileges... I can roll with that for now.

 
By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion constitutionally nullify a federal statute? No. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion effectively rewrite a federal statute? No.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them — particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/andrew-napolitano-obamas-immigration-action-may-be/#ixzz3JYi3QfV4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).
Click to expand...
When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?
Click to expand...
I am going to try to ask a serious question in the hope I learn something:

- what law is Obama implementing here by executive action?

Not sarcasm etc. A serious question. Thanks.
Click to expand...
This could ultimately be settled in the Supreme Court, unless the GOP rolls over.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/andrew-napolitano-obamas-immigration-action-may-be/

By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion constitutionally nullify a federal statute? No. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion effectively rewrite a federal statute? No.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them — particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.



 
Jim11 said:
By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion constitutionally nullify a federal statute? No. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion effectively rewrite a federal statute? No.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them — particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/andrew-napolitano-obamas-immigration-action-may-be/#ixzz3JYi3QfV4

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).
Click to expand...
When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?
Click to expand...
I am going to try to ask a serious question in the hope I learn something:

- what law is Obama implementing here by executive action?

Not sarcasm etc. A serious question. Thanks.
Click to expand...
This could ultimately be settled in the Supreme Court, unless the GOP rolls over.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/andrew-napolitano-obamas-immigration-action-may-be/

By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion constitutionally nullify a federal statute? No. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion effectively rewrite a federal statute? No.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them — particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.
Click to expand...
Mr. Obama does not purport to read and interpret the current immigration law...
Click to expand...
Gonna wait to hear from the side in favor of this. But usually the law they are referring to is in the EO.

 
Obama is not breaking the law and certainly not violating the Constitution. As many have pointed out there is legal precedence.

That being said, let me repeat what I wrote before: as much as I am in favor of the results of Obama's actions, his decision to do it alone troubles me greatly.

 
Maybe if dip####s like McConnell hadnt spent the last 6 years doing nothing but obstruct everything and actually did their jobs we wouldnt be at this point.

 
squistion said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
whoknew said:
Jim11 said:
GOP should defund this. Congress makes laws, not the POTUS.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
Click to expand...
Is he making law? Or just applying enforcement resources as he sees fit?
Click to expand...
The former, according to the article.
Click to expand...
Sure but they don't give any details. All I saw was - "President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than five million illegal immigrants."

How? Seems like some details would be important to know before we determine he is unilaterally violating the constitution.

(And that's without attacking the credibility of the writers).
Click to expand...
When has Captain Cut-N-Paste ever cared about whether he had the facts or details right, or in this case even having any details at all regarding Obama's plan?
Click to expand...
It's actually Copy-N-Paste, but forgive me for providing a link to document my post.

 
NetnautX said:
Maybe if dip####s like McConnell hadnt spent the last 6 years doing nothing but obstruct everything and actually did their jobs we wouldnt be at this point.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't attempt to obstruct this, I'll vote for Hillary in 2016, to send a message, if nothing else. I'd guess that the gains the GOP made in the 2014 mid-terms will be short-lived, if he rolls over.

 
Jim11 said:
NetnautX said:
Maybe if dip####s like McConnell hadnt spent the last 6 years doing nothing but obstruct everything and actually did their jobs we wouldnt be at this point.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't attempt to obstruct this, I'll vote for Hillary in 2016, to send a message, if nothing else. I'd guess that the gains the GOP made in the 2014 mid-terms will be short-lived, if he rolls over.
Click to expand...
:bs:

 
Jim11 said:
NetnautX said:
Maybe if dip####s like McConnell hadnt spent the last 6 years doing nothing but obstruct everything and actually did their jobs we wouldnt be at this point.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't attempt to obstruct this, I'll vote for Hillary in 2016, to send a message, if nothing else. I'd guess that the gains the GOP made in the 2014 mid-terms will be short-lived, if he rolls over.
Click to expand...
no you won't. You'll tell yourself you will, and you might support an independent candidate or a Tea Party revolt in the months to come, but in the end you and all the other conservatives will go along quietly. And McConnell and Boehner know it.
 
timschochet said:
Jim11 said:
NetnautX said:
Maybe if dip####s like McConnell hadnt spent the last 6 years doing nothing but obstruct everything and actually did their jobs we wouldnt be at this point.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't attempt to obstruct this, I'll vote for Hillary in 2016, to send a message, if nothing else. I'd guess that the gains the GOP made in the 2014 mid-terms will be short-lived, if he rolls over.
Click to expand...
no you won't. You'll tell yourself you will, and you might support an independent candidate or a Tea Party revolt in the months to come, but in the end you and all the other conservatives will go along quietly. And McConnell and Boehner know it.
Click to expand...
Do they? They may be surprised.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
778
Joe Summer
J
[icon]
"Anatomy of the Deep State" - Unsettling look at American Poli
Replies
1
Views
792
Slapdash
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top