Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'
Adding a statute of limitations to law is changing that law. To say that X is still a crime but that those committing X before 2007 are no longer subject to being charged with X now is illegal. That creates future immunity rather than merely granting amnesty for past acts.
If you're still hung up on the actions the Obama Administration took on implementing or removing certain aspects of the PPACA, all I can say is "get over it". If Congress really believed the President acted in ways that were not in the best interest of the people or the country in his capacity as the Chief Executive in "faithfully executing laws", they would have brought about impeachment proceedings immediately as it happened. They didn't. So, clearly it's all just a whole lot of blustering by the GOP to make this President seem like a tyrant when, in fact, he hasn't done anything outside of his legal authority as the nation's Chief Executive that any other president before him hasn't done. With that, let's get the nuts and bolts of what the video in the OP is really about (assuming that no one else has since I haven't taken the time to read through the thread in its entirety):
Immigration!
Clearly, the concept the GOP is trying to convey to the American people is "President Obama isn't adhering to constitutional or Congressional procedure, towit, allowing Congress to write laws that are "necessary and proper". Specifically, writing the rules on immigration and nationalization per Art I, Sect. 8, clause 4:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...
Thing is, Congress has failed to act since 1986 when our current Immigration and Naturalization Act was enacted. Since then, at least four different U.S. Presidents have tried to change INA law; Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 42 and Obama. Now, here's the irony for the GOP...ready for it? Here it comes!
According to both historical facts and as outlined in this
article (local news source as published by the AP), both Reagan and GHW Bush did more to usher in "amnesty" for illegal Mexican immigrants than President Obama is attempting to do currently. Moreover, neither of the aforementioned Presidents place ANY responsibility on the newly amnestied immigrants when both signed current INA law (Reagan, 1986) or signed EO's that expanded immigration policy (GHW Bush, 1990).
So, why all the fuss from the GOP over immigration policy now? IMHO, there are three reasons for it:
1)
Saving face! The GOP knows that this immigration mess was started by two of their own in the White House and they don't want to be "remembered" or further blamed for escalating the problem. They claim they want to fix it through increased boarder security (i.e., putting up a fence), but the truth is unless you're willing to build a wall AND patrol it, you're never going to keep illegal Mexicans out. Nonetheless, the truth of the matter here is people are starting to understand that this immigration mess began under not one, but TWO Republican presidents and the GOP knows it.
2)
The Politics of it all. The GOP doesn't want a Democratic President to win the immigration issue for one very important reason: VOTES!!! It is estimated that America will become more Brown (and Black) than White over the next decade or so. Thus, whomever wins this immigration "image" issue (because that's what it boils down to...which Party can do more for immigrants than the other) that's who will win over the "Brown voting block" in future elections.
3)
Labor. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hispanics today are yesterday's slaves. When so many are hiding in the shadows performing arduous labor and being poorly compensated for it, it's almost akin to slavery only illegal immigrants aren't baring the brutality of the lash, yet they are being paid for their labor (though unfairly). So, when you hear GOP pundits make the pay wage argument that "poor Blacks can't find jobs due to illegal Mexicans," understand that this is a fringe issue indented to persuade people from looking at immigration policy and instead shift their focus on economic policy and unemployment issues. Put another way: It's intended to stir folks emotions to anger and why wouldn't it in todays unemployment, low wage, part-time work environment?
When you peel back the layers on this immigration issue, what you'll find is those who are screaming the loudest about "executive over-reach" and "unfairness" for those who don't get to the back of the line before the "pay taxes", are really terrified of being blamed for exacerbating the problem - a problem they caused in the first place.