• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans weigh government shutdown to stop Obama on immigration

You're right, it doesn't work that way - the POTUS does not enact, congress does that.

Obama is not a conservative though, and the legeslation the conservatives want to enact has little chance surviving a veto unless the bills are within reason.
 
The fact that it was discussed didn't make it any less idiotic, just as the way the issuance of citizenship or green cards doesn't become any less idiotic to speculate about because people (including you) are discussing it.

It's strains ALL credibility in my mind to believe that someone would make it through all the vetting systems, both internal and by opponents, that a person running for the highest office in the land actually isn't legally qualified for it. It doesn't strain credibility in my mind for this administration to potentially over reach on something, considering there's been instances where it can be argued by pointing at legitimate scholarly legal opinions (the prisoner release) to actual SCOTUS cases (overturning action done by executive branch actors). I get that you may find them on par, but I do see a slight difference...enough to warrant at least a minor discussion, if done with a full acknowledgement that we simply don't know yet and that it's more likely than not to go a different direction.

I looked back at the posts, and you're right. I misunderstood your comments. My bad.

Thanks. And let me be frank...I have zero issue with you taking a stance that it shouldn't even be discussed. I've said in other threads that I think discussing, and more specifically getting upset about, what to do about his Executive Actions on this matter is kind of irrelevant because we just frankly DON'T KNOW. Until it actually happens, or at least until he publicly announces what he plans, it's all just guesses and rumors right now.

Now, unlike you, I don't see a problem DISCUSSING the rumors...I just don't see a reason to get upset or angry or worried about it because we just don't know. But I fully understand and think it's reasonable for someone to feel like even discussing it isn't even needed.

I've got no issue with you feeling like it's not worthy of discussion....I had more of an issue with you seemingly acting like my discussion of it was a suggestion or implication it was likely, or that it's being done for some reason to push speculation that it will happen. It's not, I'm simply discussing the topic (government shutdown) and relating it to the rumors out there currently (and everything currently is unsubstantiated rumor).

And it's not "likely something less than that" It's pretty much guaranteed because, as you have pointed out, granting permanent residency or citizenship are powers POTUS does not possess.

Well, see...here you and I disagree. The President has shown a willingness to walk the line of acceptable and not acceptable, generally betting that he'll stay just close enough to "acceptable" that no significant action can be taken against him. My stance...not just on this President but in general...is that anyone that walks the line repeatedly has a legitimate chance of stepping over it at times. While I don't think it's likely he'd do something extremely blatantly unconstituional, I wouldn't be SHOCKED by something that's got some grey in it...such as green cards. While I personally would very much view that as a step in the naturalization process and outside of the Executives scope, I can absolutely step back and play devil's advocate and see a way of arguing that it isn't *technically* naturalization and thus is within that scope.

So me and you simply disagree on how much of a "guarantee" it is. You seem to be in the camp that would think its like a 1% shot, if not 0%. I'd probably put it closer to a 10% that he does something that a legitimate argument could be made falls in line with the role of naturalization in some fashion. Likely? Absolutely not. Aliens from Mars? Not quite.
 
How many of those 24 months did Democrats have 60 votes?
Keeping in mind Al Franken and Ted Kennedy.
And the unprecedented number of McConnell filibusters in that 2009 term alone, not to mention the 2011 and 2013 terms .

Not sure I agree with this. Multitasking isn't a skill only those of us in the private sector need to rely on in order to do our jobs. Not all 200+ Democratic Congresspersons and 60 Democratic Senators spent all day every day writing the content of the ACA.
 
Obama is not a conservative though, and the legeslation the conservatives want to enact has little chance surviving a veto unless the bills are within reason.

Two things. One: the dems do not want to watch Obama veto bill after bill for the next two years. This will prove to the public the so-called do nothing congress wasn't because of the repubs. It will damage them greatly in the next elections and they know it. Two: The repubs don't have the senate majority enough to just ram a bunch of stuff through without compromise. The bills that reach the president's desk will have to be signed off on by at least some dems. That's the way the system was supposed to work, but Harry Reid had a different idea.
 
Obama is not a conservative though, and the legeslation the conservatives want to enact has little chance surviving a veto unless the bills are within reason.

There is already legislation enacted for immigration. Neither Congress nor the president can override the other to make new laws or change old ones. The President must respect the law that is currently on the books. Not what law he or Congress might "want" to enact.
 
How many of those 24 months did Democrats have 60 votes?
Keeping in mind Al Franken and Ted Kennedy.
And the unprecedented number of McConnell filibusters in that 2009 term alone, not to mention the 2011 and 2013 terms .

Until Scott Brown was elected, but that isn't relevant to what I said either, Nimby.
 
I'll respond to your long and moderate response to me earlier later--after practice.
Washington, IL is celebrating its one year revival today after the tornadoes.
My forever thanks to you for coming to my state and helping our communities in need.
It's in Article One, where the Congress is given sole power to legislate and appropriate.
The next time you speak with your Congressman, please ask him what the House is actually doing on legislation for IR.
How about SMALL meeting between Boehner and Biden to get something down on paper to throw the President and his Latino constituency a bone?
Yes I've left myself open for attack from others with that last comment but you're not like that.

And the wind chill factor up here right now is brutal .
 
Two things. One: the dems do not want to watch Obama veto bill after bill for the next two years. This will prove to the public the so-called do nothing congress wasn't because of the repubs. It will damage them greatly in the next elections and they know it. Two: The repubs don't have the senate majority enough to just ram a bunch of stuff through without compromise. The bills that reach the president's desk will have to be signed off on by at least some dems. That's the way the system was supposed to work, but Harry Reid had a different idea.

How can you comprimise on somthing like the Ryan budget?
 
GOPs haven't even learned to compromise with each other in the House.
But their messaging war is second to none when turning that one around on Dems.
And Dems only have themselves to blame for that .
How can you compromise on something like the Ryan budget?
 
There is already legislation enacted for immigration. Neither Congress nor the president can override the other to make new laws or change old ones. The President must respect the law that is currently on the books. Not what law he or Congress might "want" to enact.

Please tell us about this legislation .
 
sorry that's not correct....article 1 grants congress general powers, their are no powers authorizing foreign aid.

Congress is given the power to legislate and appropriate in Article One. There is no restriction against it in the original text, nor in any Amendment. Therefore Congress retains the power to legislate and appropriate for what is not prohibited - additionally, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the sole power to regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations.
 
How can you comprimise on somthing like the Ryan budget?

Silly question. The house passes a spending bill (all spending bills must originate in the house). Then it goes to the senate for consideration, where normally it is debated, compromises are worked out and it either passes to be given to the POTUS to sign or veto, or not. The "normally", broke down when that jackhole Reid decided that no republican bull would reach the senate floor.
 
It's strains ALL credibility in my mind to believe that someone would make it through all the vetting systems, both internal and by opponents, that a person running for the highest office in the land actually isn't legally qualified for it. It doesn't strain credibility in my mind for this administration to potentially over reach on something, considering there's been instances where it can be argued by pointing at legitimate scholarly legal opinions (the prisoner release) to actual SCOTUS cases (overturning action done by executive branch actors). I get that you may find them on par, but I do see a slight difference...enough to warrant at least a minor discussion, if done with a full acknowledgement that we simply don't know yet and that it's more likely than not to go a different direction.

Regardless of your minds' contents, it does stretch credibility to suggest that a president might enact a policy he's never advocated for or given any reason to think that he's even merely contemplated it.

Thanks. And let me be frank...I have zero issue with you taking a stance that it shouldn't even be discussed. I've said in other threads that I think discussing, and more specifically getting upset about, what to do about his Executive Actions on this matter is kind of irrelevant because we just frankly DON'T KNOW. Until it actually happens, or at least until he publicly announces what he plans, it's all just guesses and rumors right now.

Now, unlike you, I don't see a problem DISCUSSING the rumors...I just don't see a reason to get upset or angry or worried about it because we just don't know. But I fully understand and think it's reasonable for someone to feel like even discussing it isn't even needed.

I've got no issue with you feeling like it's not worthy of discussion....I had more of an issue with you seemingly acting like my discussion of it was a suggestion or implication it was likely, or that it's being done for some reason to push speculation that it will happen. It's not, I'm simply discussing the topic (government shutdown) and relating it to the rumors out there currently (and everything currently is unsubstantiated rumor).

I don't have a problem with silly rumors being discussed. If I did, I would have left DP long ago. I just think *you* are a bit too smart and more reasonable to engage in such low-brow rumor-mongering.

Well, see...here you and I disagree. The President has shown a willingness to walk the line of acceptable and not acceptable, generally betting that he'll stay just close enough to "acceptable" that no significant action can be taken against him. My stance...not just on this President but in general...is that anyone that walks the line repeatedly has a legitimate chance of stepping over it at times. While I don't think it's likely he'd do something extremely blatantly unconstituional, I wouldn't be SHOCKED by something that's got some grey in it...such as green cards. While I personally would very much view that as a step in the naturalization process and outside of the Executives scope, I can absolutely step back and play devil's advocate and see a way of arguing that it isn't *technically* naturalization and thus is within that scope.

So me and you simply disagree on how much of a "guarantee" it is. You seem to be in the camp that would think its like a 1% shot, if not 0%. I'd probably put it closer to a 10% that he does something that a legitimate argument could be made falls in line with the role of naturalization in some fashion. Likely? Absolutely not. Aliens from Mars? Not quite.

Every president has "pushed the envelope" as far as executive power goes. However, with regards to the issuance of green cards or citizenship, there is no credible evidence that such a thing will happen. There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that it is even being contemplated, never mind being actively planned for implementation.

The whole "who knows what he will do" is nothing more than an intellectually bankrupt cover for hackish speculation.
 
There is already legislation enacted for immigration. Neither Congress nor the president can override the other to make new laws or change old ones. The President must respect the law that is currently on the books. Not what law he or Congress might "want" to enact.

Not really. To enforce legislation requires more than merely writing a law; it must include adequate funding for the executive to do so. Obama, like Bush, cannot secure the border using 20K border patrol agents or catch and deport 20 million illegals scattered about the entire US interior using 5K ICE agents. Reality requires at least giving the executive adequate means to enforce the law not merely saying git-r-done.
 
I read what you said tres borrachos--it was very clear--and since you continue to call me out by name first.
Obama should have solved every problem he inherited in the short time he had 60 Senators according to the propaganda of you people.
And frankly, the Dems continue to lose this messaging war to the public .
I never posted the word "votes", Nimby. You need to reread my posts in this thread starting with my first one.
 
GOPs haven't even learned to compromise with each other in the House.
But their messaging war is second to none when turning that one around on Dems.
And Dems only have themselves to blame for that .

You're quite wrong as the republican house has managed to pass a multitude of bills, the dem senate will not hear them.
 
I read what you said tres borrachos--it was very clear--and since you continue to call me out by name first.
Obama should have solved every problem he inherited in the short time he had 60 Senators according to the propaganda of you people.
And frankly, the Dems continue to lose this messaging war to the public .

Again, you know better than this. 60 senators is not sufficient in this context, the dems would have needed the house majority too. Remember all spending bills must originate in the house.
 
Can you point me to an immigration bill the House has even allowed onto its floor.
Besides all the repeal but don't replace nonsense you keep yammering about.
I can Hardly wait to see how many of these worthless House bills McConnell actually brings up . :lamo

You're quite wrong as the republican house has managed to pass a multitude of bills, the dem senate will not hear them.
 
And you would know better than this since the House has refused to touch immigration reform since it has been in power .
Again, you know better than this. 60 senators is not sufficient in this context, the dems would have needed the house majority too. Remember all spending bills must originate in the house.
 
Congress is given the power to legislate and appropriate in Article One. There is no restriction against it in the original text, nor in any Amendment. Therefore Congress retains the power to legislate and appropriate for what is not prohibited - additionally, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the sole power to regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations.

congress is granted authority for delegated powers, there is no power to give foreign aid...

money collected must be used to pay the debts of the government for its delegated powers.

commerce, what does the buying and selling of goods have to do with foreign aid?
 
Back
Top Bottom