Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 234

Thread: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    I keep hearing this "basically no difference between the two major parties" nonsense and wonder what the speakers are smoking!

    Likely they're smoking Libertarian or Independent "tobacco".

    If you don't like either party, okay, that's fair enough.

    But to speak as if one is oblivious to the huge reality of the liberal Democrats that so greatly differs from the conservative Republicans in just obvious policy positions and associated behaviors alone ..

    .. Well, I'm just sayin' "NO!" to your toking offer.
    Conservative Republicans are not in charge. Establishment Republicans are. There is little difference between Democrats and Establishment Republicans.

  2. #42
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,343

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    That's what BO was looking to avoid. Btw Avon couldn't leave a message.
    Maybe, but maybe not. If the law interpretation changes, yes. If not, we can probably look for more of the same. "If at first you don't succeed,"...you know the rest.

  3. #43
    Guru
    BWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Good afternoon Lady P.

    The "your guy did it so my guy can do it" argument also amuses/befuddles me.
    It's called precedent. One definition is - something done or said that can be used as an example or rule to be followed in the future.

    If something is wrong and should be stopped, all right thinking people should be on board, regardless of who's leading at any given time. Illegality shouldn't be nuanced by ideology.
    If it's wrong it should be stopped. If it is wrong and, by silence, it was approved of before, why all the hub bub now? That's the question liberals, are asking.
    “We just simply don’t know how to govern” - Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) a member of the House Budget Committee

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,758

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Seems to me, most Americans would like to have the courts rule on the extent of a President's executive authority/ability to ignore law when a President's very oath of office has him declaring to uphold the laws of the republic.

    Personally, I think courts are a good, dispassionate, forum for hashing out these differences.
    I agree in principal, and I don't really think the issue should be partisan. The problem is there is a long line of POTUS exercising authority with very little pushback from Congress. It has always amazed me in a way for Congress to sit and watch their power getting stripped. The whole Unitary Executive argument from the Bush admin was an argument for unlimited authority on the part of the POTUS to direct the executive branch, and so if POTUS decided to not enforce a law with executive branch personnel, he had that right. Obama as far as I can tell has simply assumed that authority with the deadlines of the ACA.

    So I would welcome a lawsuit in theory that tested those boundaries. From what I've read the difficulty is that drawing a clear line is very difficult without trampling on well established executive discretion. Here's one article: Obama Immigration Executive Action: Why It Will Be Legal | New Republic

    Just a few quotes:

    As the Supreme Court declared in United States v. Nixon, “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.”

    In 1800, then congressman and later Chief Justice John Marshall stated, the president may “direct that the criminal be prosecuted no further” because it is “the exercise of an indubitable and constitutional power.”

    In 2013, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit, appointed by George W. Bush, offered a strong defense: “The president may decline to prosecute certain violators of federal law just as the president may pardon certain violators of federal law,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “The president may decline to prosecute or may pardon because of the president’s own constitutional concerns about a law or because of policy objections to the law, among other reasons.”
    So how does one force the POTUS to levy penalties or criminal charges on companies that don't comply with ACA requirements without removing the discretion he has in enforcing thousands of other laws to the fullest extent? It's not an easy thing to do.

  5. #45
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,758

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Its not for the money]
    In comments to The Wall Street Journal last week, Mr. Turley said that Mr. Obama’s pending action is likely illegal given its scope. “Presidents have long claimed a high degree of discretion in the immigration area and courts have generally deferred to such decisions when they relate to priorities in enforcement,” he said. “However, the sheer size of this proposed change magnifies the already great concerns under the separation of powers.”.....snip~

    House Republicans Hire Jonathan Turley to Pursue Obama Lawsuit - Washington Wire - WSJ
    That's the problem from what I've read - all Presidents have exercised immigration discretion, so the question is how do we draw that line. We can only deport about 400,000 per year with current resources, so it's not OK presumably to say, "We will not deport ________ " but is it then OK to just not bring any of them up in front of the deportation panels, and only choose to prosecute people not in that category?

    Another related question is with regard to pot in the states that now allow it. It's still against federal law, so would Turley require the POTUS to enforce pot laws in Colorado? He seems to support the POTUS not cracking down on pot sellers in states where it's legal. See here.

    Point is it's very hard to want the POTUS to have discretion, but only so much and only to do what you want him to enforce, but still retain the discretion to not enforce other stuff, like pot laws.

  6. #46
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    It's called precedent. One definition is - something done or said that can be used as an example or rule to be followed in the future.


    If it's wrong it should be stopped. If it is wrong and, by silence, it was approved of before, why all the hub bub now? That's the question liberals, are asking.
    The more you give lawlessness free rein, the more lawlessness will reign.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #47
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I agree in principal, and I don't really think the issue should be partisan. The problem is there is a long line of POTUS exercising authority with very little pushback from Congress. It has always amazed me in a way for Congress to sit and watch their power getting stripped. The whole Unitary Executive argument from the Bush admin was an argument for unlimited authority on the part of the POTUS to direct the executive branch, and so if POTUS decided to not enforce a law with executive branch personnel, he had that right. Obama as far as I can tell has simply assumed that authority with the deadlines of the ACA.

    So I would welcome a lawsuit in theory that tested those boundaries. From what I've read the difficulty is that drawing a clear line is very difficult without trampling on well established executive discretion. Here's one article: Obama Immigration Executive Action: Why It Will Be Legal | New Republic

    Just a few quotes:



    So how does one force the POTUS to levy penalties or criminal charges on companies that don't comply with ACA requirements without removing the discretion he has in enforcing thousands of other laws to the fullest extent? It's not an easy thing to do.
    Thanks for your comments - one of the most reasoned responses to the OP that I've seen.

    It still amazes me, frankly, that a country that was born out of the tyranny of a monarch so readily gave what seem to me regal powers to a single man/woman who happens to hold the Presidency.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #48
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That's the problem from what I've read - all Presidents have exercised immigration discretion, so the question is how do we draw that line. We can only deport about 400,000 per year with current resources, so it's not OK presumably to say, "We will not deport ________ " but is it then OK to just not bring any of them up in front of the deportation panels, and only choose to prosecute people not in that category?

    Another related question is with regard to pot in the states that now allow it. It's still against federal law, so would Turley require the POTUS to enforce pot laws in Colorado? He seems to support the POTUS not cracking down on pot sellers in states where it's legal. See here.

    Point is it's very hard to want the POTUS to have discretion, but only so much and only to do what you want him to enforce, but still retain the discretion to not enforce other stuff, like pot laws.
    I like your analogy, with the exception that those pot laws are counterbalanced by State legislation that legalizes pot use. There are no such "amnesty" laws established in border States, that I know of, that would be consistent with the approach the President is taking. In fact, I'd say the will of the majority in those States is likely just the opposite.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That's the problem from what I've read - all Presidents have exercised immigration discretion, so the question is how do we draw that line. We can only deport about 400,000 per year with current resources, so it's not OK presumably to say, "We will not deport ________ " but is it then OK to just not bring any of them up in front of the deportation panels, and only choose to prosecute people not in that category?

    Another related question is with regard to pot in the states that now allow it. It's still against federal law, so would Turley require the POTUS to enforce pot laws in Colorado? He seems to support the POTUS not cracking down on pot sellers in states where it's legal. See here.

    Point is it's very hard to want the POTUS to have discretion, but only so much and only to do what you want him to enforce, but still retain the discretion to not enforce other stuff, like pot laws.

    His creation of New Amnesty Program is where he overreaches.....the rest is the expansion of his DACA.



    How is Obama justifying this amnesty?

    The Office of Legal Counsel memo released before Obama's speech cites Obama's Article II Section 3 constitutional duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as the source of his power to grant this amnesty.

    The memo reasons that since there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the country today, and DHS only has the resources to remove 400,000 illegal immigrants every year, Obama must choose which immigrants to deport and which to ignore. This "prosecutorial discretion" power, the memo claims, allows Obama to choose which illegal immigrants get work permits, which illegal immigrants will continue to be ignored, and which illegal immigrants will be deported.

    Under this legal theory, Obama could give all current 11.3 million illegal immigrants work permits and driver's licenses, as long as he kept deporting at least 400,000 illegal border crossers every year.....snip~

  10. #50
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,264

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    His creation of New Amnesty Program is where he overreaches.....the rest is the expansion of his DACA.



    How is Obama justifying this amnesty?

    The Office of Legal Counsel memo released before Obama's speech cites Obama's Article II Section 3 constitutional duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as the source of his power to grant this amnesty.

    The memo reasons that since there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the country today, and DHS only has the resources to remove 400,000 illegal immigrants every year, Obama must choose which immigrants to deport and which to ignore. This "prosecutorial discretion" power, the memo claims, allows Obama to choose which illegal immigrants get work permits, which illegal immigrants will continue to be ignored, and which illegal immigrants will be deported.

    Under this legal theory, Obama could give all current 11.3 million illegal immigrants work permits and driver's licenses, as long as he kept deporting at least 400,000 illegal border crossers every year.....snip~
    Here's the problem MMC. Obama can certainly determine that illegal aliens will not be prosecuted. That is wholly within his power as chief executive. However, Obama cannot claim that these illegals are here legally by virtue of his order, and reward them with work permits and so on. That is not within his power. That power resides with congress.

Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •