• 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!

Rahm Emanuel creates ‘Trump-free zone’ for students at Chicago schools

Not really. if congress does nothing then that is on them. The fact is DACA should have been struck down by the courts to begin with.
It was unconstitutional. Obama had no authority to make that law.

Republicans are already working on some kind of a bill let see if democrats play along.
The thing is by giving them a time line they have to do something instead of sitting on their thumbs screaming about it.
Not that I feel the need to argue the point strongly, but if it gets bumped back to Trump how is it "on" Congress?

DACA has as yet to be Constitutionally struck down, so Trump would have to live with it or repeal it through EO. Congress can simply do nothing, if it so chooses.

Also, I really don't see the Dems participating in ending DACA any more than I saw them participate in ending the ACA. What would be their motivation?
 
It's that Rahm went out and made it a very public challenge to the Federal government. That's the issue.
Meh.

Political bluster. Trump does the same **** to him.
 
Rahm Emanuel tells students Chicago schools are 'Trump-free zone' - Washington Times

A sitting US Mayor saying his city is proudly supporting illegal activities. **** the worlds gone mad.

Then the Chicago City Schools need to be a Federal Tax Money Free Zone as well.

What an ass. I don't like Trump... AT ALL. But, he is the President, and the frigging law is the frigging law.

Is it okay for the Chicago City Schools to teach kids that the Constitution doesn't matter? Or that the other laws of the land do not matter if you think they are mean and icky?

This is nothing but a political stunt by a Democrat to kowtow favor with his future voters. Cut off the federal money to the idiot and his city. See how he feels about that.
 
Not that I feel the need to argue the point strongly, but if it gets bumped back to Trump how is it "on" Congress?

DACA has as yet to be Constitutionally struck down, so Trump would have to live with it or repeal it through EO. Congress can simply do nothing, if it so chooses.

Also, I really don't see the Dems participating in ending DACA ariy more than I saw them participate in ending the ACA. What would be their motivation?

then it is on them that they failed to pass a bill.
The president doesn't have authority to make or create law.

SO if they feel strongly enough they should work and in 6 months get a bill passed.
it should be that difficult unless they make it so.

However emanuel doesn't have the power to do what he said.
 
Not that I feel the need to argue the point strongly, but if it gets bumped back to Trump how is it "on" Congress?

DACA has as yet to be Constitutionally struck down, so Trump would have to live with it or repeal it through EO. Congress can simply do nothing, if it so chooses.

Also, I really don't see the Dems participating in ending DACA any more than I saw them participate in ending the ACA. What would be their motivation?

DACA is unconstitutional. It doesn't have to be struck down because it wasn't enacted under the Constitutional Powers in the first place, so it's unenforceable. Plus, there are numerous examples of the SCOTUS striking down Obama EO's, hence setting the precedence for all of his overreaching EO's that circumvented Article I of the US Constitution to be considered unconstitutional and unenforceable.
 
DACA is unconstitutional. It doesn't have to be struck down because it wasn't enacted under the Constitutional Powers in the first place, so it's unenforceable. Plus, there are numerous examples of the SCOTUS striking down Obama EO's, hence setting the precedence for all of his overreaching EO's that circumvented Article I of the US Constitution to be considered unconstitutional and unenforceable.
DACA's constitutionality has yet to be tested, even though you may indeed be right.

But we're dancing in some philosophical areas here, because it is an EO directing prioritizing. So I see no reason the directive would not be in effect until rescinded or over-turned in Court.

If you're saying an individual in government can disobey the directive due to their belief it's unconstitutional, then the same can be said of all untested EOs.
 
DACA's constitutionality has yet to be tested, even though you may indeed be right.

But we're dancing in some philosophical areas here, because it is an EO directing prioritizing. So I see no reason the directive would not be in effect until rescinded or over-turned in Court.

If you're saying an individual in government can disobey the directive due to their belief it's unconstitutional, then the same can be said of all untested EOs.

One way around is as good philosophically. Get rid of the obama opinion or keep it doesnt seem to be more than an opinon constitutionally. So slap it down or act according to it. Where is the discussion without the legal interpretation.
 
One way around is as good philosophically. Get rid of the obama opinion or keep it doesnt seem to be more than an opinon constitutionally. So slap it down or act according to it. Where is the discussion without the legal interpretation.
Exactly!
 
DACA's constitutionality has yet to be tested, even though you may indeed be right.

But we're dancing in some philosophical areas here, because it is an EO directing prioritizing. So I see no reason the directive would not be in effect until rescinded or over-turned in Court.

If you're saying an individual in government can disobey the directive due to their belief it's unconstitutional, then the same can be said of all untested EOs.

The Constitution does not grant the power or authority to the President, for the President to issue directives or prioritization of laws enacted by Congress.

The law is rather simplistic in it's foundation - we are either in compliance with the law, or we are not, also known as an illegal act.

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3 specifically states "...; he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, ..." Nowhere in that clause or within any other part of the Constitution does it say what the Democrats have contended and the SCOTUS has struck down, that the President has the power to legislate by fiat, hence circumventing the entirety of the Article I powers and authorities of the US Constitution. No where in that clause or in the US Constitution does it give the President, on philosophical grounds or otherwise, the power or authority to issue directives that change a law, lessen or increase the enforcement of a law below or beyond what Congress enacted, or to change the impact of a law.
 
The Constitution does not grant the power or authority to the President, for the President to issue directives or prioritization of laws enacted by Congress.

The law is rather simplistic in it's foundation - we are either in compliance with the law, or we are not, also known as an illegal act.

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3 specifically states "...; he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, ..." Nowhere in that clause or within any other part of the Constitution does it say what the Democrats have contended and the SCOTUS has struck down, that the President has the power to legislate by fiat, hence circumventing the entirety of the Article I powers and authorities of the US Constitution. No where in that clause or in the US Constitution does it give the President, on philosophical grounds or otherwise, the power or authority to issue directives that change a law, lessen or increase the enforcement of a law below or beyond what Congress enacted, or to change the impact of a law.
Law is a stronger purview of yours than mine, but my understanding is that Obama is using the guise of "prioritizing" actions, which he believes is within his right. I suspect there is some wiggle room there. Maybe not enough to carry the day, but we shall see.

But regardless, is there not an obligation to carry out a Presidential directive that has not been found unconstitutional? It seems you're putting the cart before the horse.
 
Law is a stronger purview of yours than mine, but my understanding is that Obama is using the guise of "prioritizing" actions, which he believes is within his right. I suspect there is some wiggle room there. Maybe not enough to carry the day, but we shall see.

But regardless, is there not an obligation to carry out a Presidential directive that has not been found unconstitutional? It seems you're putting the cart before the horse.

No, not for the rest of us. Yet, the Executive Branch must comply or be insubordinate. Neither Obama nor Trump are King. They have no legislative power, at all. Changing a law, in any way, is a legislative act.
 
Hyperbole is calling, asking you to stop it.

The irony! It burns!







I mean...you actually see someone who thinks it's wrong to betray a promise to "dreamers" - people brought here as little children against their will (not that their will was capable of anything at their age), raised as Americans, are effectively Americans in every sense but for a piece of paper, people who were promised by America through its last President that they could say, provided conditions - and say "**** the world's gone mad". But it's someone else who has a problem with hyperbole?

The only hyperbole here is on the part of persons who want to make themselves feel superior with self-righteous declarations about how we need to deport these innocents to send a message to would-be illegals in general....

...on the part of people who somehow screwed their mind into such a pretzel that they consider themselves morally above "liberals" for wanting to deport a seventeen year old who only knows English, is going to be attending college, is going to be a contributing member of American society, off to a country whose language they do not speak because daddy did something bad twenty years ago.

And "hyperbole" is being nice.





I can't stop you thumping your chest about how awesomely American you are for not taking kindly to their kind, but FFS, drop the pretense. The only hyperbole here is on the part of those who want to deport "dreamers."
 
Last edited:
Much ado here in this thread, about the proverbial nothing.

Trump kicked the can down the road, and DACA is still in effect. Nothing's changed. And nothing my ever change.
The purpose of all this is solely appeasing Trumps base that are mostly angry, aging, AM radio listening, white folk who's world that they knew has long since passed.
 
People like that mayor should be thrown out of office and permanently barred from any elected and appointed office. By trying to shield illegals it shows that he is a anti-American piece of **** and has no regard for our immigration laws.

He should be arrested.
 
Much ado here in this thread, about the proverbial nothing.

Trump kicked the can down the road, and DACA is still in effect. Nothing's changed. And nothing my ever change.
The purpose of all this is solely appeasing Trumps base that are mostly angry, aging, AM radio listening, white folk who's world that they once knew has long since passed.
 
Personally, I'm all for making the USA a Trump free country. But you've got to start somewhere. Thanks Rahm.
 
Yes, props to him saying "**** America"... thanks for the insight.
Here's the problem generally with those who lean right. They see the world in only black and white. There is something in their brains that makes them incapable of seeing any grey. I'd wager that same biological mechanism makes them incapable of experiencing sympathy and to a large degree empathy.
 
Here's the problem generally with those who lean right. They see the world in only black and white. There is something in their brains that makes them incapable of seeing any grey. I'd wager that same biological mechanism makes them incapable of experiencing sympathy and to a large degree empathy.
It's not a black/white/grey thing here. It's a simple matter of reality. My compassion is for those that are doing it the right way. For a sustainable way. unchecked illegal immigration drives resources from those who are here legally, who are citizens, working hard to improve their lives within the law. Illegal is quite clear that it's the WRONG way see.
 
It's not a black/white/grey thing here. It's a simple matter of reality. My compassion is for those that are doing it the right way. For a sustainable way. unchecked illegal immigration drives resources from those who are here legally, who are citizens, working hard to improve their lives within the law. Illegal is quite clear that it's the WRONG way see.
Reality? Ripping apart families, uprooting and destroying lives. That's reality. That's the "grey area" that conservatives are unable to comprehend . And you know what another reality is? That if somehow all of these young adults were from say Sweden, Denmark or Norway, some nation where they "look and act right", Trump and his base wouldn't be saying boo.
 
A Sheriff did the same thing ... so ...

And he should be thrown out also. We either have laws or we don't. All too often we don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom