• 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's Executive Order[W:265]

Is Obama breaking the law?

  • Yes, by his own words he is breaking the law

    Votes: 36 48.6%
  • No, perfectly legal

    Votes: 13 17.6%
  • Doing same as Regan and Bush did

    Votes: 13 17.6%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Dont care

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Go Fish

    Votes: 6 8.1%

  • Total voters
    74
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I don't know, it was my opinion. Do you think the Bush administration lied or exaggerated about WMD in Iraq?

Not the place to talk about Bush, is it?

So...do you agree that it's hard to impossible to tell when Obama is lying and when he's not?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Not the place to talk about Bush, is it?

So...do you agree that it's hard to impossible to tell when Obama is lying and when he's not?

He's a politician!!

Just look to see if his lips are moving
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

He was wrong back then, he has prosecutorial discretion as Dana Perino pointed out yesterday.

Dana Perino: Obama ‘Has the Prosecutorial Discretion’ to Act on Immigration | Mediaite

Let me get this right. George W. Bush's former Press Secretary is suddenly the person you turn to for the final say on what's Constitutional?

With all due respect to Ms. Perino, she isn't a Constitutional scholar. She isn't even a lawyer. She has a degree in Communications from Colorado State and a PhD in "Public Affairs Reporting" from U of Illinois.

So now Fox News is the source that gives the accurate information?

By the way, if he was "wrong back then", and she's correct, you're saying that a Constitutional Law Professor who is now the POTUS knew less about the Constitution than someone with a Bachelors Degree in Communications from a state school?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

there was not urgency that could not have waited for the new session of congress.

But of course there was an urgency!

Obama had to get this in place before the new congress was in session and he had to do something to stem his sliding poll numbers.
That's awfully urgent, even if it's in his mind only.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Given the fact that when she was press secretary she was probably extensively briefed on GWB similar executive actions, I bet she knows more than you.

Never mind what I know about it. Andy McCarthy, just to cite one example, was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on that same network. McCarthy, unlike Perino, is a lawyer. He spent twenty years or more as a federal prosecutor, leading the prosecution of Abdel "The Blink Sheikh" Rahman and other conspirators in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. That experience gives him a very thorough knowledge of prosecutorial discretion, and he flatly disagrees with Ms. Perino's view.

So does John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. He and John Delahunty, another law professor who earlier served in the Justice Department as Yoo did, just wrote about this. This is from their article:


Prosecutorial discretion is indeed one of the president’s affirmative authorities and is rooted in the text of the Constitution. But its primary sphere of operation is in the criminal law. The executive’s power not to bring a criminal case even against a suspect who is likely to have committed a crime can be seen as a logical corollary of the president’s power to pardon. Clemency for those accused or convicted of crimes had long been considered an essential attribute of rulers, and the Framers vested that traditional authority in the president. Moreover, prosecutorial discretion in the criminal area makes sense in separation-of-powers terms: If Congress has enacted a criminal statute that is too harsh, or has become obsolete, or clearly was not intended to apply in a specific situation, prosecutorial discretion serves the constitutional goal of protecting individual liberty from the tyranny of one branch. But the Constitution provides no affirmative presidential power not to enforce the civil law as against a class of 5 million people. That is not “prosecutorial discretion”; it is simply the refusal to discharge a basic constitutional duty.


Why don't you just admit that all you care about is getting the outcome you want, and that you don't give a tinker's damn whether getting it violates the Constitution? That's how your President feels. It's been clear to a lot of us for a long time now that Obama has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, for the Constitution, and for this country generally.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

He's a politician!!

Just look to see if his lips are moving

Okay, sangha...since you've injected yourself into this mini-discussion, I'll ask you, too. Do you condone Obama's lying?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Never mind what I know about it. Andy McCarthy, just to cite one example, was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on that same network. McCarthy, unlike Perino, is a lawyer. He spent twenty years or more as a federal prosecutor, leading the prosecution of Abdel "The Blink Sheikh" Rahman and other conspirators in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. That experience gives him a very thorough knowledge of prosecutorial discretion, and he flatly disagrees with Ms. Perino's view.

So does John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. He and John Delahunty, another law professor who earlier served in the Justice Department as Yoo did, just wrote about this. This is from their article:


Prosecutorial discretion is indeed one of the president’s affirmative authorities and is rooted in the text of the Constitution. But its primary sphere of operation is in the criminal law. The executive’s power not to bring a criminal case even against a suspect who is likely to have committed a crime can be seen as a logical corollary of the president’s power to pardon. Clemency for those accused or convicted of crimes had long been considered an essential attribute of rulers, and the Framers vested that traditional authority in the president. Moreover, prosecutorial discretion in the criminal area makes sense in separation-of-powers terms: If Congress has enacted a criminal statute that is too harsh, or has become obsolete, or clearly was not intended to apply in a specific situation, prosecutorial discretion serves the constitutional goal of protecting individual liberty from the tyranny of one branch. But the Constitution provides no affirmative presidential power not to enforce the civil law as against a class of 5 million people. That is not “prosecutorial discretion”; it is simply the refusal to discharge a basic constitutional duty.


Why don't you just admit that like Mr. Obama, all you care about is getting the outcome you want, and that you don't give a tinker's damn whether getting it violates the Constitution? It's been clear to a lot of us for a long time now that Obama has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, for the Constitution, and for this country generally. The U.S. is now infested with millions of collectivist drones who feel the same way.

Since you're so obviously enamored with what lawyers say about it, here's what several dozen of them say about this matter


http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=754

General authority for defered action exists under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 103(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a), which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to enforce the immigration laws. Though no statutes oregulations delineate defered action in specific terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that decisions to initate or terminate enforcement procedings fall squarely within the authority of the Executive. In the immigration context, the Executive Branch has exercised its general enforcement authority to grant defered action since at least 1971. Federal courts have acknowledged the existence of this executive power at least as far back as the mid–1970s.5

Parole–in–place refers to a form of parole granted by the Executive Branch under
the authority of INA § 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 182(d)(5).
Under this provision, the Atorney
General “may . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such
conditons as he may prescribe only on a case–by–case basis for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit any alien aplying for admision to the United
States.”7 Parole permits a noncitzen to remain lawfuly in the United States, although
parole does not constiute an “admision” under the INA. Individuals who have ben
paroled are eligible for work authorization

Defered enforced departure, often refered to as DED, is a form of prosecutorial
discretion that is closely related to defered action. Almost every Administration since
President Dwight D. Eisenhower has granted DED or the analogous “Extended Voluntary
Departure” to at least one group of noncitzens.15 As with defered action, executive
authority to grant defered enforced departure and extended voluntary departure exists
under the general authority to enforce the immigration laws as set out in INA § 103(a), 8
U.S.C. § 1103(a)
.1
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Constitution
article 2 section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.


shall is mandatory

may is discretionary
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Not the place to talk about Bush, is it?

So...do you agree that it's hard to impossible to tell when Obama is lying and when he's not?
What's good for the goose...
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

He was wrong back then, he has prosecutorial discretion as Dana Perino pointed out yesterday.

Dana Perino: Obama ‘Has the Prosecutorial Discretion’ to Act on Immigration | Mediaite

One other thing I noticed you didn't address. In the post I quoted you said that he was talking about amnesty in 2011. I just pointed out to you that he did not in fact mention amnesty, and you didn't address that at all, and instead put a link to show that someone on Fox News said what he did wasn't against the law. Why did you not address the fact that he never mentioned amnesty in 2011, as you claimed he did?

Was your post a lie?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

MSNBC has it--for GOPs who can't stand what Obama looks like, not you, such as Congressman Mo Brooks who today wants to jail Obama.
I recommend putting a towel over the television so folks can just hear his voice.

10-minute speech-
Also, could be on some radio outlets along with Sirius--bound to be replays--FOX already had the main excerpts .

I want to jail Obama too. Impeach him. Convict him. Remove him from office. Then arrest him and try him for treason. Jail him.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

False-equivalency requires a person to answer a question that contains a word in it that is untrue .

Okay, sangha...since you've injected yourself into this mini-discussion, I'll ask you, too. Do you condone Obama's lying?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Well actually, this one doesn't and prides itself in that.

Let's see how the liberal Supreme Court goes against 'prosecutorial discretion" !
Deciding not to prosecute does not invalidate the law, does it?

The Traitor needs an impeachment and the left needs a defunding.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Constitution
article 2 section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.


shall is mandatory

may is discretionary

What you're forgetting is that all that old white slaveowner stuff from the days of powdered wigs doesn't apply to King Barry the Red. He is special, and above the law.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Congressman Peter King Republican.....just said the House can write up a letter of disapproval and Censure. He would rather go that route than Going with the I- Word. As they don't want to do that.

He says Congress has their oath to the Constitution and that's what the WH has to understand.

Gingrich also mentioned the issue of BO's patience. Just because BO is out of patience with Congress doesn't mean that Supercedes the Constitution.
In other words the Establishment Republicans will do nothing and the tyranny will grow.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

What you're forgetting is that all that old white slaveowner stuff from the days of powdered wigs doesn't apply to King Barry the Red. He is special, and above the law.

some people believe SOMEHOW, that federal law overrides constitutional law....which amounts to a poor education.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

False-equivalency requires a person to answer a question that contains a word in it that is untrue .

Oh? What is this "untrue" word?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Which law would you be speaking about?
The one where your President is currently deporting over 1,000 illegals a day?
Earning him the derision of Latino groups as the deporter-in-chief !

Deciding not to prosecute does not invalidate the law, does it?

The Traitor needs an impeachment and the left needs a defunding.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

You didn't notice the coincidental filing of the lawsuit today ?

In other words the Establishment Republicans will do nothing and the tyranny will grow.
 
Back
Top Bottom