• 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 to take executive action on immigration

polgara said:
Good evening, AP. :2wave:

A) Obama has just said that he intends to go around Congress to issue an EO on immigration since Congress will not act on the problem soon enough to suit him, which is against the law.

B) The Supreme Court has just sent him a unanimous message that he is overstepping his power!

C) BHO's response? "Just watch me do it again!"

Certainly not the A.B.C.s we learned in school, are they? :shock:
Click to expand...

What did we expect? He's a world class scumbag.
 
polgara said:
Good evening, AP. :2wave:

A) Obama has just said that he intends to go around Congress to issue an EO on immigration since
Congress will not act on the problem soon enough to suit him, which is against the law.
Click to expand...
Obama said nothing of the kind.
He did say he was moving assets to the border to help with the illegal problem.
A problem Republicans say they want dealt with in the House but refuse to vote for Immigration Reform for the rest of the year.
Not quite the bang for the buck we were looking for huh?
How do you like those Hispanics calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief on one hand and the GOP House refusing to vote on the other .
 
As is the House who refuses to vote for Immigration Reform for the rest of the year.
Why do Republicans run from Sen. Rubio's bi-partisan bill passed one year ago ?
DB20 said:
What did we expect? He's a world class scumbag.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
As is the House who refuses to vote for Immigration Reform for the rest of the year.
Why do Republicans run from Sen. rubio's bi-partisan bill passed one year ago ?
Click to expand...

The House has passed numerous border security bills, but you knew that. Comprehensive reform is not needed to solve the current situation...
 
NIMBY said:
As is the House who refuses to vote for Immigration Reform for the rest of the year.
Why do Republicans run from Sen. Rubio's bi-partisan bill passed one year ago ?
Click to expand...

No immigration reform is needed. We already have laws in place regarding immigration. Enforce them and kick out the illegals.

Pretty simple.

Although if it were me in Congress my immigration reform would include littering the paths used by illegals for entry into this nation with landmines.
 
DB20 said:
No immigration reform is needed. We already have laws in place regarding immigration. Enforce them and kick out the illegals.

Pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Tell me of those simple laws.

Although if it were me in Congress my immigration reform would include littering the paths used by illegals for entry into this nation with landmines.
Click to expand...
Rep. Steve King from Iowa ?
 
NIMBY said:
As is the House who refuses to vote for Immigration Reform for the rest of the year.
Why do Republicans run from Sen. Rubio's bi-partisan bill passed one year ago ?
Click to expand...

I see people claiming that, but nobody can give me a senate bill number.

Back the accusation up please.
 
MaggieD said:
Hope Obama doesn't say "enough is enough" about the right to vote.

Time to define the power of EOs, folks. Past time.
Click to expand...

Obama should change his name to Reagan, then the republicans would all be behind him.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What? says who? you.....

That action is the very definition of dictatorship.

It's ****ing nasty....
Click to expand...

Was Ronald Reagan a dictator?
 
The Senate bill passed was S. 744...
 
Mr.Nick said:
You're a socialist so your ideas are illegal and moot.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

I know you fantasize about Bush, but buddy you aren't the "decider."
 
MMC said:
Uhm.....Who just gave 500 mil to some Rebels who have lost their conflict and chances in Syria while allowing Terrorists to carve out a niche in the ME?

Oh yeah.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked the United States borders were not in the middle east.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Since when was it illegal to have socialistic ideas?
Click to expand...

Socialism is the term used for when the government spends money on things the right disagrees with.
 
Last edited:
Texmex said:
Was Ronald Reagan a dictator?
Click to expand...

Interesting read:

In 1952, the Supreme Court decided the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), also known as “The Steel Seizure Case.” At the height of the Korean War, President Truman was faced with a strike of the nation’s major steel producers by the U.S. Steel Workers of America. Instead of invoking the emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act (which had been passed by Congress over Truman’s veto) to prevent the union from striking or using the Defense Production Act (which would have legally allowed seizure of the plants), Truman passed over Congress and issued an executive order seizing their production facilities and kept management in place. A federal judge issued an injunction barring the government from holding the steel plants and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared that the President had no power to act, except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress.

It was Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion, however, which the Youngstown decision will be remembered for. Justice Jackson noted that the President's authority to issue executive orders (EO) and proclamations can be broken down into three categories:

(1) Those issued pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress. Here the president’s authority is at its maximum. The EO is invalid only if the federal government as a whole lacks authority to do what the EO does.

(2) Those based upon undefined powers that lay in a "zone of twilight" where the President acts solely on the basis of his independent power and Congress has not spoken. Congressional inactivity or indifference may sometimes enable measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, the validity of the EO depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

(3) Those incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, and thus rely solely upon his constitutional authority. Here presidential EO power is at its lowest, and must be scrutinized with caution before being taken, because the EO is only constitutional if a court can disable the Congress from acting on the subject.

With regard to this third type of EO, Jackson warns that what is at stake is the American system of checks and balances – the very equilibrium established by our constitutional system. Here we must recall that our current president has shown a heightened ambition to “get around” the U.S. Constitution he swore to uphold and protect. In “The Audacity of Hope,” he wrote that he could not reject “the school of thought that sees the Founding Fathers only as hypocrites and the Constitution only as a betrayal of the grand ideals set forth by the Declaration of Independence.” Later, in a 2001 interview with Chicago public radio station WBEZ, State Senator Obama stated:

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Thirty years later the Supreme Court reviewed President Carter’s EO seizing of Iranian assets in response to the Iran Hostage Crisis, as well as President Reagan’s ratification of that EO. In Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 657 (1981), the presidents’ actions were held constitutional because they were done specifically pursuant to congressional authorization and, therefore, because they involved national security and Congress had acquiesced in the president’s actions, were issued pursuant to the strongest of presidential authority.

President Obama’s five executive orders above are clearly unconstitutional under the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court because the five executive orders are not only merely “incompatible” with the expressed or implied will of Congress, they directly contravene, change, or alter acts of Congress in violation of the separation of powers and the U.S. Constitution. Congress set forth specific deadlines and enforcement laws with regard to the implementation of Obamacare and the president has changed them on his own authority because it was politically advantageous to do so. Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama’s executive order to stop defending it is directly contrary to the will and intent of Congress. He has declared certain laws “unconstitutional” – something that not even the most radical liberals have suggested is within the purview of the executive branch. He has also halted the enforcement of existing immigration policy enacted by Congress pursuant to their congressional authority on his own initiative because he simply didn’t like the law. Lastly, he exempted a number of states from the No Child Left Behind Law which was duly passed by Congress....just the tip of the iceberg.

On Monday, February 10, 2014, the Obama Administration announced yet another unconstitutional edict. This time the regime has reversed Congress once again, pronouncing that it will violate the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate for the second consecutive year - in direct violation of the law Congress voted on and passed. Obama's Treasury Department said it will delay the mandate's penalty another year for small businesses with 50 to 99 employees and will also adjust some of the requirements for larger employers. Under the Executive Branch's new legislation - passed without a single vote in Congress, businesses with 100 or more employees must offer coverage to at least 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016. Congess didn't debate and pass this law and Obamacare provided quite differently. Our president just willed the new laws into existence. These are clearly unconstitutional proclamations committed for purely political reasons.

The uninformed supporters of our president blindly defend this usurpation of executive power by noting that “all presidents issue executive orders”, but there has never been a president in history who has so brazenly sidestepped Congress’ powers and usurped the role of lawmaker. It is now also clear that the nation’s attorney general is of absolutely no help in giving our president guidance on this subject. In responding to questions at a Senate hearing recently, Eric Holder was asked to explain to Congress why he thought Barack Obama was within his constitutional limits when he reversed Congress by issuing an executive order to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate. After Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) read to him the above Supreme Court’s rulings on the matter, Holder replied:

I’ll be honest with you, I have not seen — I don’t remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I’m not sure where along the spectrum that would come.”

Armed with his radical pen, President Obama has fulfilled the words of humorist Will Rogers, who observed that Congress doesn't make laws anymore, "they just wave at the bills as they go by." It is no wonder that many members of Congress are truly wondering if they really are the nation’s lawmakers any more.
Click to expand...

The five EOs referred to are:

In the spring of 2012, President Obama issued an aggressive string of executive orders to combat what he viewed as hopelessly-deadlocked Congress. Some of his more controversial, and arguably unconstitutional executive orders are as follows:

1. Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act;
2. Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls;
3. Changed significant provisions of and the timing of Obamacare;
4. Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional;
5. Reshaped immigration policy by ordering the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal immigrants.

ARE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS CONSTITUTIONAL? - MequonNOW
 
Mr.Nick said:
You just made that up because they (executive orders) don't, er work the way you claim they do.
Click to expand...
No i did not make it up.
"A presidential executive order (EO) is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers." Presidential Executive Orders: An Overview



If I wasn't Barred I would file a civil suit against Obama right now.
Click to expand...
Probably wont get you far since its legal and constitutional. But hey have at it.
 
jamesrage said:
Our president picks and chooses what laws he wants to follow.So why would anyone with a brain in their head who is actually against illegal immigration and amnesty trust that our president would uphold both sides of this so called immigration reform compromise?
Click to expand...

What laws specifically is he not upholding?
 
MrVicchio said:
Do you know what despotism is?
Click to expand...

Obama has absolute power? Interesting theory. Until you realize that executive orders are not absolute power. So there goes that ****ty despotism relation.
 
sawdust said:
I was hoping that we wouldn't have to impeach the first black President, but this jackass has to go.
Click to expand...

he can be impeached but you will never get him removed from office with democrats in charge of the senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom