• 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!

Obama acts on immigration, announcing decision to defer deportations of 4 million

apdst said:
Of course he acted illegally. Nothing changes that reality..
Click to expand...

Please prove it. No subjective claims. I'd like to know which laws he broke, and why it is that nobody in congress has yet to come forward and say what he did was illegal. All everyone is thinking about doing is defunding the EO. Nobody wants to bring it to court. Much like when the ACA was being labelled unconstitutional and yet... here we are and there it is.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Please prove it. No subjective claims. I'd like to know which laws he broke, and why it is that nobody in congress has yet to come forward and say what he did was illegal.
Click to expand...

So far, he has made a speech - was that illegal?
 
apdst said:
Of course he acted illegally. Nothing changes that reality..
Click to expand...

How so? Can you be specific? Exactly what is he doing that is either not authorized by law or the powers granted him under the Constitution?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So far, he has made a speech - was that illegal?
Click to expand...

It seems like there is a lot of talk by the Republican base that what Obama is doing is illegal. However, nobody in Congress seems to be ready to go any further than saying they'll defund it. I wonder why? Could it be that maybe they know this isn't as illegal as the base claims it is?
 
Hatuey said:
Please prove it. No subjective claims. I'd like to know which laws he broke, and why it is that nobody in congress has yet to come forward and say what he did was illegal. All everyone is thinking about doing is defunding the EO. Nobody wants to bring it to court. Much like when the ACA was being labelled unconstitutional and yet... here we are and there it is.
Click to expand...

The Constitution of The United States, is the law he broke; unless you can't point out the amendment, article, or section that gives the president to change the law via executive order. No subjective claims, stupid misinterpretations, nor talking points.
 
Gaius46 said:
How so? Can you be specific? Exactly what is he doing that is either not authorized by law or the powers granted him under the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Even better: you show us where he DOES have the power to change the law, via executive order.
 
apdst said:
The Constitution of The United States, is the law he broke; unless you can't point out the amendment, article, or section that gives the president to change the law via executive order. No subjective claims, stupid misinterpretations, nor talking points.
Click to expand...

Apdst, you claimed he broke the law. I asked you which specific law and how. I didn't make a single claim about the legality of what he's doing. So again I ask:

Which laws has he broken?

He broke the US Constitution? LOL. Maybe if you had something other than Wi-fi, you'd be able to state which specific law was broken. By the way, policy changes have been enacted through EO before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the racial integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Click to expand...

Two extreme examples of an executive order are Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 "forbidding the Hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States" and Executive Order 9066, where Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people in a military zone (used to target Japanese Americans and German Americans in certain regions).
Click to expand...

Executive Order 13233, issued by President George W. Bush in 2001, which restricted public access to the papers of former presidents, was criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it "violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC. 2201–07
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Obama acted on his own as the legislative and executive branch violating the Constitution.

Worse, he said if Congress wants to stop him all they have to do is pass a bill.

Well, what if the Congressional Consensus is to deport these people ?

Obama ignores it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. 3 previous Supreme Court decisions say that that those who enforce the laws are free to enforce them as they see fit.
 
Hatuey said:
It seems like there is a lot of talk by the Republican base that what Obama is doing is illegal. However, nobody in Congress seems to be ready to go any further than saying they'll defund it. I wonder why? Could it be that maybe they know this isn't as illegal as the base claims it is?
Click to expand...


Still waiting ?

This post is just one more example.
 
Fenton said:
Obama acted on his own as the legislative and executive branch violating the Constitution.

Worse, he said if Congress wants to stop him all they have to do is pass a bill.

Well, what if the Congressional Consensus is to deport these people ?

Obama ignores it.
Click to expand...

Congress has no say in enforcement of the laws. That would be known as Congressional overreach. If Congress does not like it, then they should impeach Obama, which is the only remedy they have available at this time.
 
 
Fenton said:
Still waiting ?

This post is just one more example.
Click to expand...

Yep, still waiting. How am I justifying what he did by stating that nobody in Congress has yet to show how it is illegal? How is it justifying if I'm saying there is precedent? Personally, I don't care either way. I have barely any skin left in the US. However, I'm not enough of a partisan hack to buy what the base of any party says when the people who are actually in congress are muted in their response. Now, can you tell us where I justified what Obama is doing?
 
Hatuey said:
Apdst, you claimed he broke the law. I asked you which specific law and how. I didn't make a single claim about the legality of what he's doing. So again I ask:

Which laws has he broken?

He broke the US Constitution? LOL. Maybe if you had something other than Wi-fi, you'd be able to state which specific law was broken.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, now we have to explain to you that The Constitution is the law of the land and that violating The Constitution is illegal.

Now, unless you can validate the president's authority to change the law, via executive order, you have no choice but to agree that this executive order is illegal.
 
So basically a president could sign an executive order that says no Americans have to pay taxes, or that heroin is legal for 5-year-olds, or that the legal voting age is 12.

Why bother having a Congress? All we need is our king.
 
Hatuey said:
It seems like there is a lot of talk by the Republican base that what Obama is doing is illegal. However, nobody in Congress seems to be ready to go any further than saying they'll defund it. I wonder why? Could it be that maybe they know this isn't as illegal as the base claims it is?
Click to expand...

What they SHOULD know is that they lack the votes to override a veto and while they may impeach (from the House) they will be unable to convict (remember Clinton?) in the Senate. What Obama wants is to force the republicants to react (the more extremely the better) instead of to keep their cool and pass popular legislation that Obama does not want. As long as Obama keeps the republicants fighting each other and tilting at windmills of his own making then they can do no real harm to his legacy or agenda.

The MSM will spend an hour laser focused on the republicnats "extreme" reaction to Obama and then show Obama making some innocent sounding little speech (with similar out-takes from Bush and Reagan speeches) as the reason for the republicants "rabid and hateful" (racist?) response. Obama may not be much of a leader but he is a very adept politician. ;)
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. 3 previous Supreme Court decisions say that that those who enforce the laws are free to enforce them as they see fit.
Click to expand...

But, they can't change them.
 
APACHERAT said:
Where have you been ?

Cornyn Responds to President Obama Ending Secure Communities Program - BigCountryHomepage.com

Jeff Sessions: Now Is

Bachmann, King head for the border Friday - CNN.com

Lou Barletta: No work authority for undocumented immigrants, pre-empts Obama's executive action | PennLive.com

GOP senator warns of violence after immigration order

Ted Cruz Cites Cicero: 'How Long Is That Madness Of Yours Still to Mock Us?'
Click to expand...

Grandstanding and claims by idiots like Cruz don't change much. Congressional Republicans have made the argument that they're not going to fund it. Well, that's within their power, but none of that makes Obama's EO illegal. Can you tell us what is illegal about it? Or you gonna do like Fenton?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What they SHOULD know is that they lack the votes to override a veto and while they may impeach (from the House) they will be unable to convict (remember Clinton?) in the Senate. What Obama wants is to force the republicants to react (the more extremely the better) instead of to keep their cool and pass popular legislation that Obama does not want. As long as Obama keeps the republicants fighting each other and tilting at windmills of his own making then they can do no real harm to his legacy or agenda.

The MSM will spend an hour laser focused on the republicnats "extreme" reaction to Obama and then show Obama making some innocent sounding little speech (with similar out-takes from Bush and Reagan speeches) as the reason for the republicants "rabid and hateful" (racist?) response. Obama may not be much of a leader but he is a very adept politician. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I know MSM bad, evil Jew conspiracy. From where I see it. What matters to me is the way Republicans at the base are bending over backwards to say that this is illegal. However, the only response Congressional Repubs. have is to defund the EO. How is it possible that an illegal EO is passed and the best response Congress has is to defund it? Seems rather silly.
 
apdst said:
But, they can't change them.
Click to expand...

And that is where the dishonesty comes in to play. Obama is not changing the laws. He is making a decision on how to enforce the laws, which is his right. Congress cannot tell him how to do his job. That is unconstitutional. If they feel that Obama is not performing his duties properly, then they should impeach him. That IS Constitutional.
 
danarhea said:
And that is where the dishonest comes in. Obama is not changing the laws. He is making a decision on how to enforce the laws, which is his right.
Click to expand...

That is false. Enforcement of the law is clearly laid out in the law, which is why Obama himself has said for years that taking the action that he did would be illegal.
 
Hatuey said:
Grandstanding and claims by idiots like Cruz don't change much. Congressional Republicans have made the argument that they're not going to fund it. Well, that's within their power, but none of that makes Obama's EO illegal. Can you tell us what is illegal about it? Or you gonna do like Fenton?
Click to expand...

It violates the Constitution.

If the Constitution is no longer the law, then there no longer is law. What we'd have then is a free-for-all. God help us if that's the case.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, yes, I know MSM bad, evil Jew conspiracy. From where I see it. What matters to me is the way Republicans at the base are bending over backwards to say that this is illegal. However, the only response Congressional Repubs. have is to defund the EO. How is it possible that an illegal EO is passed and the best response Congress has is to defund it? Seems rather silly.
Click to expand...

:shrug: it is fairly obvious that the Administration was hoping that they would be able to spark talk of impeachment, which they (probably correctly) judge would be a political victory for them. Absent Impeachment, Censure and Defunding are the two main Congressional tools.



Obama has gone from the Candidate who ran against Bush's expansions of Executive Power to the President who pushed it far beyond those bounds.


But you know what? It's okay. Because he's setting a precedent. And you know what the next Republican President is likely to think are Issues We Must Solve Now? Tax and Entitlement Reform. :) And ya'll are going to scream and I am going to laugh......
 
cpwill said:
That is false. Enforcement of the law is clearly laid out in the law, which is why Obama himself has said for years that taking the action that he did would be illegal.
Click to expand...

Congress laying out how laws are to be enforced IS unconstitutional. That power belongs to the executive branch. Once again, if Congress feels that Obama is being too selective in enforcing the laws, then they should impeach him.

NOTE: I wonder if you are going to cut off the last part of this post too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom