• 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

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.

When your only tool is a hammer then you must address all problems as if they were nails. ;)

The only real powers that congress critters have over the POTUS is to control funding, override vetoes or to impeach. The repubicants lack the votes to do anything but to pass bills in the Senate and even that may require a demorat vote or two.
 
: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......

Will you still be laughing when the Treasury goes bankrupt?
 
So Obama acted illegally? I'll wait for the lawsuits.

The lawsuits are difficult when the Attorney General is the President's toady (or possibly the other way around.)

Past Presidents, including Reagan, have used the executive order judiciously and almost always with the unofficial consent of Congress. The President can in a very limited way use executive order to correct an unintended oversight or limited unintended consequence of a piece of legislation. You will note that there was no public concern, no outcries of foul, little negative press in Reagan's immigration EO. He did not announce that he would ignore and refuse to enforce existing law. He didn't wholesale rewrite existing law.

Obama is acting as a would be dictator apparently with full intent to embarrass and punish the Republicans. In the process he is setting a precedent that could forever alter the letter and law of the Constitution and the separation of powers. And I don't know if there is anybody in Washington or the private sector with the cojones to stop him.
 
This is basically Obama flipping off the Constitution. He HATES the Constitution, as most liberals do.

And if he gets away with this, he will have successfully destroyed the Constitution. It will be worthless.

This is virtually an act of aggression to take down the American system. That's what it is at its core.

And if he's successful, there are troubling times ahead.
 
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.

So no specific part of the constitution? Okay. I'll wait.

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 Obama doesn't have the power to change domestic policy through EOs?

Executive orders: What they are and how they work.

Presidents have used that language, along with their constitutional powers as commander and chief over the nation's military, to issue executive orders—whether it be to change domestic policy or go to war. And they are legally binding—the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld all but two legal challenges to them (see more on that below).

Most executive orders stem from a president's desire to bypass Congress. The legislative body is not required to approve any executive order, nor can it overturn an order. The best it can do if it doesn't like an executive order is to pass a law to cut funding for the order's implementation. But even then, the president can veto such a defunding law.

It seems that's exactly what the EO is being used for, and Congress is threatening to do exactly what it can threaten. None of that makes Obama's EO illegal. As I said, I'll wait for the lawsuits.
 
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.

Green cards are regulated by law. The president has no authority to fast track green cards. He can't issue social security numbers. He doesn't have the aurhority to make someone a citizen.
 
Congress laying out how laws are to be enforced IS unconstitutional.

That is incorrect. For example, Congress dictates that A) we shall have a tax law and that B) it shall be enforced by the IRS who shall C) be staffed in such and such a manner. It is where enforcement of the law is not laid out that the Executive is to decide.

Because - and, this is important - the Executive signed that law into effect.

Once again, if Congress feels that Obama is being to selective in enforcing the laws, then they should impeach him.

:shrug: they have the right to, and they would be right to. That is what Obama wants, however, and you know that as well as I - because he perceives (rightly) that there is no way Democrats in the Senate would vote for his impeachment, meaning that Republican's wouldn't be able to get the votes necessary to convict and that it would be a massive political victory for Democrats.


Think about that, however, for a second. Do you really want a Presidential system where his power is limited to "I can do anything I like so long as I can be sure that a supermajority of the Senate doesn't impeach me for it"?



This is the Immigration equivalent of (for example) a Republican President instituting a Flat Tax by simply declaring that the IRS shall no longer collect taxes above a flat 15% of income, or reforming Entitlements in a similar fashion, or instituting a national Right to Work law. All four of those items are illegal for POTUS to take without the Legislature. But if you really want to set the precedent....
 
The lawsuits are difficult when the Attorney General is the President's toady (or possibly the other way around.)

Past Presidents, including Reagan, have used the executive order judiciously and almost always with the unofficial consent of Congress. The President can in a very limited way use executive order to correct an unintended oversight or limited unintended consequence of a piece of legislation. You will note that there was no public concern, no outcries of foul, little negative press in Reagan's immigration EO. He did not announce that he would ignore and refuse to enforce existing law. He didn't wholesale rewrite existing law.

Obama is acting as a would be dictator apparently with full intent to embarrass and punish the Republicans. In the process he is setting a precedent that could forever alter the letter and law of the Constitution and the separation of powers. And I don't know if there is anybody in Washington or the private sector with the cojones to stop him.

EOs don't rewrite laws. Please stop the hyperbole. There's enough of it.
 
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?

Only Congress has the right to decide what America's immigration polices will be, not the President.

If Obama wanted to write our laws he should have stayed in the Senate.

Congress writes our laws. The President took an oath of office to enforce those laws.

Obama failed to uphold the oath of office and has refused to enforce the laws that our on the books that he doesn't like. Same with that racist Eric Holder.
 
EOs don't rewrite laws.

This one does. That's why it's unconstitutional. It's why the PRESIDENT HIMSELF said it would be unconstitutional.


That's not just crazy ole cpwill pointing that out. It's the New York Times, the Washington Post, and FactCheck.Org saying it.


From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is poised to ignore stark warnings that executive action on immigration would amount to “violating our laws” and would be “very difficult to defend legally.”

Those warnings came not from Republican lawmakers but from Mr. Obama himself.

For years, he has waved aside the demands of Latino activists and Democratic allies who begged him to act on his own, and he insisted publicly that a decision to shield millions of immigrants from deportation without an act of Congress would amount to nothing less than the dictates of a king, not a president...

From the Washington Post:

...Question: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar through Univision.com told us — I’m reading — “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”...

Obama: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President....

From Factcheck.Org

...President Barack Obama tried to rewrite history by claiming that his position had not changed regarding legal authority for executive orders on immigration that he is now considering....


Maria Elena Salinas of Univision: Now I know that you have reduced, this is another concern on Twitter, the number of deportations of non-criminals. However, in 2012 more than 184,000 non-criminals were deported. In the spirit of your push for immigration reform, would you consider a moratorium on deportations of non-criminals? Remember, these are your words: “This is not about policy. It’s about people.”

Obama: Well, I think it is important to remind everybody that, as I said I think previously, and I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law...



Obama: Halting Deportations "Not an Option" would be "Ignoring the Law"

...PRESIDENT OBAMA: Here's the problem that I have, Jose, and I've said this consistently, my job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said 'here is the law' when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do.

What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. We're not going to have them operate under a cloud, under a shadow. But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option...


You guys want me to go on with this?
 
Last edited:
Yup. Given that it will be unreformed entitlements that cause it to become so.

It's only funny because we told them so. Still, I'll laugh if it happens.
 
So no specific part of the constitution? Okay. I'll wait.



So Obama doesn't have the power to change domestic policy through EOs?

Executive orders: What they are and how they work.



It seems that's exactly what the EO is being used for, and Congress is threatening to do exactly what it can threaten. None of that makes Obama's EO illegal. As I said, I'll wait for the lawsuits.

For the last time, then I'm not going to waste anymore time tryong to educate you: the president can't change the law, via executive action.
 
This one does. That's why it's unconstitutional. It's why the PRESIDENT HIMSELF said it would be unconstitutional.

Got a link with a direct quote?
 
When your only tool is a hammer then you must address all problems as if they were nails. ;)

The only real powers that congress critters have over the POTUS is to control funding, override vetoes or to impeach. The repubicants lack the votes to do anything but to pass bills in the Senate and even that may require a demorat vote or two.

So, they're forced to do their job if they don't like what the president is doing? The humanity. Maybe that was Obama's goal all along. If I was him, the second step would be to get to write a bill - veto it if it doesn't include any Democrat demands and when it comes back as a bipartisan bill, sign it into law.
 
So no specific part of the constitution? Okay. I'll wait.



So Obama doesn't have the power to change domestic policy through EOs?

Executive orders: What they are and how they work.



It seems that's exactly what the EO is being used for, and Congress is threatening to do exactly what it can threaten. None of that makes Obama's EO illegal. As I said, I'll wait for the lawsuits.

For the last time, then I'm not going to waste anymore time tryong to educate you: the president can't change the law, via executive action.
 
For the last time, then I'm not going to waste anymore time tryong to educate you: the president can't change the law, via executive action.

Are you telling us policy changes are not within the scope of what EOs can change?
 
This one does. That's why it's unconstitutional. It's why the PRESIDENT HIMSELF said it would be unconstitutional.

Obama: This is how a democracy works.

Fix: This is how a dictatorship works.

Get it right Obama. At least admit that one man writing law and ignoring the will of the people is NOT democracy. You dick.
 
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?

Maybe you should ask Obama himself what is illegal about it....

"Consider his self-incriminating statements on immigration and executive powers. A year ago, when asked if he had the authority to end deportations of illegal aliens he said, “Actually, I don’t.” Three years earlier, when pressed as to why he could not act on his own on immigration he said, “The notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.”

Well, now the president says it is true -- he can alter the laws unilaterally. Why the metamorphosis? What changed? The law and the Constitution are still the same. Which leaves Obama. When it comes to the truth, inconvenient or otherwise, he is a chameleon like no other politician. He never hesitates to contradict himself, conjuring a new breadth of hypocrisy."

Three things that are illegal about Obama's immigration plan | Fox News
 
So, they're forced to do their job if they don't like what the president is doing? The humanity. Maybe that was Obama's goal all along. If I was him, the second step would be to get to write a bill - veto it if it doesn't include any Democrat demands and when it comes back as a bipartisan bill, sign it into law.

It's their job, not the president's job.
 
Maybe you should ask Obama himself what is illegal about it....

"Consider his self-incriminating statements on immigration and executive powers. A year ago, when asked if he had the authority to end deportations of illegal aliens he said, “Actually, I don’t.” Three years earlier, when pressed as to why he could not act on his own on immigration he said, “The notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.”

Well, now the president says it is true -- he can alter the laws unilaterally. Why the metamorphosis? What changed? The law and the Constitution are still the same. Which leaves Obama. When it comes to the truth, inconvenient or otherwise, he is a chameleon like no other politician. He never hesitates to contradict himself, conjuring a new breadth of hypocrisy."

Three things that are illegal about Obama's immigration plan | Fox News

Has the EO stopped deportations? It hasn't. :shrug:
 
Even better: you show us where he DOES have the power to change the law, via executive order.

He's not changing the law. As far as I can tell he's acting completely within his statutory authority or powers granted to him Constitutionally as head of
the executive branch.
 
He's not changing the law. As far as I can tell he's acting completely within statutory authority he already has or granted to him Constitutionally as head of
the executive branch.

Of course he's changing the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom