• 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

His answer is the very proposal he made last night. In 2011 he said he had no authority to give a temporary protective status. Last night he said otherwise.

You said he was wrong back then. Now you're saying he was right back then? Make up your mind.

Backin 2011 he was asked if could give blanket protection to students and he said no. That's not any shape of form what he said last night.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Backin 2011 he was asked if could give blanket protection to students and he said no. That's not any shape of form what he said last night.

You didn't read his words, did you?

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.“


Whether talking about students or housewives is irrelevant. Those were his words.

His words in 2011 were different than his words last night. You know it, but your obscene partisanship prohibits you from honestly admitting that.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

The people who are supporting this insult to constitutional government had better hope there is never a conservative administration. If a President truly has authority not to enforce federal laws he disagrees with, or even to reward millions of people who have violated them, how can they complain if those laws turn out to be ones they support?

It was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion when President Lincoln declined to enforce the Supreme Court's extremely divisive 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, nor did he call it that. But the result was similar. It's clear the Framers meant the Legislative Branch, i.e. Congress, to be the strongest of the three. That's why it is the subject of Article I. If the Executive Branch, the subject of Article II, can invade Congress's powers, it can certainly invade the Supreme Court's. That was established by Article III, and the Judicial Branch has always been the weakest of the three--Jefferson didn't even want to create it.

What grounds for squawking would the people who are strutting today about their emperor's diktat have, if a future President declined to enforce, say, Roe v. Wade--or more accurately, the part of it that still survives? After all, if a President has power to refuse to enforce acts of Congress, surely he also has power not to enforce a decision by a federal court. Both are law, and any Supreme Court decision, just like any act of Congress, means no more than the President is willing to make it mean. Or are Mr. Obama's drones so ignorant they imagine that Congress can be walked on, and yet the Supreme Court cannot?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

The people who are supporting this insult to constitutional government had better hope there is never a conservative administration. If a President truly has authority not to enforce federal laws he disagrees with, or even to reward millions of people who have violated them, how can they complain if those laws turn out to be ones they support?

It was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion when President Lincoln declined to enforce the Supreme Court's extremely divisive 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, nor did he call it that. But the result was similar. It's clear the Framers meant the Legislative Branch, i.e. Congress, to be the strongest of the three. That's why it is the subject of Article I. If the Executive Branch, the subject of Article II, can invade Congress's powers, it can certainly invade the Supreme Court's. That was established by Article III, and the Judicial Branch has always been the weakest of the three--Jefferson didn't even want to create it.

What grounds for squawking would the people who are strutting today about their emperor's diktat have, if a future President declined to enforce, say, Roe v. Wade--or more accurately, the part of it that still survives? After all, if a President has power to refuse to enforce acts of Congress, surely he also has power not to enforce a decision by a federal court. Both are law, and any Supreme Court decision, just like any act of Congress, means no more than the President is willing to make it mean. Or are Mr. Obama's drones so ignorant they imagine that Congress can be walked on, and yet the Supreme Court cannot?

That bolded part is very noteworthy. What if GW Bush had bypassed Congress and did this to Roe? Would it be okay when his Press Secretary Dana Perino said it was okay?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Wont this increase unemployment? Instead of 9 million legal workers looking for employment, you will have 14 million workers looking for employment. Excepting the illegals who are already illegally employed, who will keep their illegal jobs (though now they have to pay taxes and get paid minimum wage, so they might get fired)

Employment Situation Summary
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

That bolded part is very noteworthy. What if GW Bush had bypassed Congress and did this to Roe? Would it be okay when his Press Secretary Dana Perino said it was okay?

I never pay attention to what all those lawyers and law professors say about constitutional law, when there is a presidential Press Secretary's opinion to consult. But I'm particular as to which one. Nothing at all against Ms. Perino, but when I want a truly authoritative opinion on a difficult constitutional question, I turn to President Pinocchio's mouthpieces. And as clever as Mr. Jay Carney-Barker was, there is something in a name--when it comes to con law, I rely on Mr. Josh Earnest.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Here's an excellent read on the subject:

Ten Arguments Against Obama's Executive Action - AMAC, Inc. AMAC, Inc.

Excerpts:

Four: If you issue an EO making permanent residents or citizens out of a significant number (say, five to seven million) illegal, unentitled, or “undocumented” foreigners on U.S. soil, you are instantly obligating federal taxpayers and states to afford these newly minted “Americans” or “newly legal residents” any number of privileges, entitlements, and rights not previously held, above and beyond not being deported. This plainly costs taxpayers and States money, offering them every reason to appeal the decision and apparent standing to do so. (IN EFFECT, IT'S A FORM OF TAXATION WITHOUT PROPER REPRESENTATION. ALL TAX / REVENUE BILLS ARE RO ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PER THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Origination Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Logicman).

Argument five: If you issue an EO that instantly grants “stay and work” status to currently illegal aliens, even if they have legal relatives, you instantly soak up part of the job pool from which real Americans are hoping to gain employment. In effect, you are hammering the working-class Americans again.

Six: If you issue this EO, you instantly send an international message – a new and shocking invitation: “We just gave away the citizenship or residency farm – so please line up or flood over and come get yours.” In effect, such an EO will trigger multiple future waves of illegal migration for economic purposes by new and unconnected illegal aliens who see that our laws are not being honored, and so they will come for free entry, too – if not at once, then soon enough.

Nine: Just as adopting a child into a home affects other family members, instantly making “legal residents” or “citizens” out of five or seven million people – many of whom snuck into the country unlawfully – would have profound effects on the rest of the country. It cheapens the brand we call American; it undermines the values and processes in which we take pride. It slights and diminishes the struggle of those who have strived long and hard to become naturalized citizens, or permanent residents, many of whom are also from these same countries. It says that laws under which we live are of less value, and can be unilaterally upended by one man. It reduces respect for all those who have come to our shores legally, and who take pride in being legally American. This is no small matter. We are, collectively, only what we say we are and live up to – when we cheapen the definition of American, we cheapen it for everyone.

Finally: We are a nation and people of laws, not of whimsy or capricious acts by self-adulating leaders, not subject to any dictator or the assumption of power by this or that president. These lines are well-drawn. The U.S. Supreme Court long ago made the point. We are not ruled by executive order, never have been, legally and prudentially cannot be, and should not now be. For any president to believe that he has the power to step upon all these legal and prudential considerations, because he has a pen and a phone, indifference to rule of law, or illusions of unilateral authority is simply misguided.



Yeah, I mentioned that taxation without representation too.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

The people who are supporting this insult to constitutional government had better hope there is never a conservative administration. If a President truly has authority not to enforce federal laws he disagrees with, or even to reward millions of people who have violated them, how can they complain if those laws turn out to be ones they support?

It was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion when President Lincoln declined to enforce the Supreme Court's extremely divisive 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, nor did he call it that. But the result was similar. It's clear the Framers meant the Legislative Branch, i.e. Congress, to be the strongest of the three. That's why it is the subject of Article I. If the Executive Branch, the subject of Article II, can invade Congress's powers, it can certainly invade the Supreme Court's. That was established by Article III, and the Judicial Branch has always been the weakest of the three--Jefferson didn't even want to create it.

What grounds for squawking would the people who are strutting today about their emperor's diktat have, if a future President declined to enforce, say, Roe v. Wade--or more accurately, the part of it that still survives? After all, if a President has power to refuse to enforce acts of Congress, surely he also has power not to enforce a decision by a federal court. Both are law, and any Supreme Court decision, just like any act of Congress, means no more than the President is willing to make it mean. Or are Mr. Obama's drones so ignorant they imagine that Congress can be walked on, and yet the Supreme Court cannot?

Presidents don't "enforce Roe v Wade". Abortion clinics are run by non-governmental entities and are not controlled by the Executive branch of the federal govt. Homeland Security and ICE are part of the Executive branch of the govt and POTUS does control them.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I never pay attention to what all those lawyers and law professors say about constitutional law, when there is a presidential Press Secretary's opinion to consult. But I'm particular as to which one. Nothing at all against Ms. Perino, but when I want a truly authoritative opinion on a difficult constitutional question, I turn to President Pinocchio's mouthpieces. And as clever as Mr. Jay Carney-Barker was, there is something in a name--when it comes to con law, I rely on Mr. Josh Earnest.

Oh he's earnest alright.

Josh Earnest, like Dana Perino, isn't a Constitutional authority. Like Perino, he isn't even a lawyer. He has a BA in political science. No thinking person would use a Press Secretary's opinion on Constitutionality as being worth anything.

I'm shaking my head at some of the posts in this thread. Not sure if they're laugh worthy or I should cry for this country.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I never pay attention to what all those lawyers and law professors say about constitutional law, when there is a presidential Press Secretary's opinion to consult. But I'm particular as to which one. Nothing at all against Ms. Perino, but when I want a truly authoritative opinion on a difficult constitutional question, I turn to President Pinocchio's mouthpieces. And as clever as Mr. Jay Carney-Barker was, there is something in a name--when it comes to con law, I rely on Mr. Josh Earnest.

I posted a link with a detailed explanation for the legal justification for Obama's action. It was signed by dozens of legal scholars who are experts in the matter. You ignored them

Be honest. The only opinions you will listen to are those that already agree with you
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

For six years the GOP has stuck up its middle finger to the President and now he finally gives it back to them. My only question is why it took so long?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

For six years the GOP has stuck up its middle finger to the President and now he finally gives it back to them. My only question is why it took so long?
I am not surprised that you support the tyrant and the growing tyranny. It is during times like these that all of the wannabes come out.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I am not surprised that you support the tyrant and the growing tyranny. It is during times like these that all of the wannabes come out.

I never said I support the speech or the decision. I was merely making an observation and then asking a question.

I do have serious questions about an imperial presidency and any president taking authority upon himself that is questionable. Sadly, for too many, those questions seem to come and go as they occupy and vacate the White House.

When I taught US History for many years we had a textbook with a chapter entitled THE FAILURE OF THE POLITICIANS. It was about the lead up to the Civil War. I think about that and have thought about that over the last ten years.

There are no virgins in this whore house no matter how many want to pretend otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I never said I support the speech or the decision. I was merely making an observation and then asking a question.

Why, of course. Who could ever have thought anything else?

Do you support your President's decision?


I do have serious questions about an imperial presidency and any president taking authority upon himself that is questionable. Sadly, for too many, those questions seem to come and go as they occupy and vacate the White House.

You, of course, don't count yourself among those "too many."
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

There's nothing extra-constitutional about it.


look you may be far more authoritarian than I. Even Obama on 22 occasions has stated he does not have the authority to legislate on immigration, it's a clear violation of separation of powers and is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

I posted a link with a detailed explanation for the legal justification for Obama's action. It was signed by dozens of legal scholars who are experts in the matter. You ignored them

Be honest. The only opinions you will listen to are those that already agree with you

Be honest. The only opinions you will listen to are those that already agree with you. That's why you ignored the opinions I posted by expert legal scholars.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

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.



can you believe he was able to say with a straight face that he did all he could to shut down the borders?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Why, of course. Who could ever have thought anything else?

Do you support your President's decision?




You, of course, don't count yourself among those "too many."

I want to learn more about it and hear some opinions from Constitutional experts before I weigh in on one side or the other. My comment was about the politics of it all - not the constitutional issues.

This is quite interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../11/20/obama-immigration-and-the-rule-of-law/
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's Executive Order

look you may be far more authoritarian than I. Even Obama on 22 occasions has stated he does not have the authority to legislate on immigration, it's a clear violation of separation of powers and is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.

He doesn't have the authority to legislate.

Good thing he hasn't legislated.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

look you may be far more authoritarian than I. Even Obama on 22 occasions has stated he does not have the authority to legislate on immigration, it's a clear violation of separation of powers and is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.

From what I've seen, without referring to any particular persons, collectivists tend to have a strongly undemocratic, totalitarian streak. And they usually try to hide it by attributing that very characteristic to conservatives, while pretending to take the side of this or that poor, disadvantaged group against these jackbooted brutes.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Be honest. The only opinions you will listen to are those that already agree with you. That's why you ignored the opinions I posted by expert legal scholars.

I didn't ignore any legal scholars opinions. I have dismissed them because their opinions lack any legal reasoning. Instead, they argue irrelevancies such as "it's a bad policy" or "other presidents worked with congress" etc, none of which have nothing to do with the legality of Obama's actions.

But if you know of a legal scholar who has made a legal argument as to why the president's actions are illegal, feel free to post them.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

You didn't read his words, did you?

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.“


Whether talking about students or housewives is irrelevant. Those were his words.

His words in 2011 were different than his words last night. You know it, but your obscene partisanship prohibits you from honestly admitting that.

His words were different than last night, you are correct about that. Last night he was not answering a question about protecting a group of people like students.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

can you believe he was able to say with a straight face that he did all he could to shut down the borders?

Hard to measure something when a constantly changing measurement is being applied.

No, not really. I really think that he believes that to be the case.

Perhaps self delusion, right up there with the self delusion that he's some sort of leader, and that he's a masterful politician, that he's unifying the country, etc. etc. etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom