• 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!

Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense' [W:406]

Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Texmex said:
Go for it! I hope if this unlikely scenario where to take place, I would hope the employee would sue the **** out or you and your company.
Click to expand...
Tyrant wannabes are always so easily spotted.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

ocean515 said:
LOL.

How would they do that? California is a right to work state. I can fire for any reason I invent.

So by your statement, I take it you support liars and cheats who put business owners at risk? I guess that does get to bottom line of the character of illegal aliens. Probably some of the most self centered people I can imagine. Certainly explains much about the failed countries they failed to learn how to live in.
Click to expand...

So you bitch about supposed character when I applied to workers, but have no problem "inventing" a lie to fire someone you don't like. Can you spell hypocrite?
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Hey guys, don't worry! The people who broke the law to get here will now make less money when they start paying taxes and the employers that paid them under the table will totally start paying taxes on them now because it's the law.... :roll:
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Texmex said:
So you bitch about supposed character when I applied to workers, but have no problem "inventing" a lie to fire someone you don't like. Can you spell hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Well that's just a figure of speech, but at the end of the day, it's the truth.

I know it may come as a shock to you, and I can see you support liar and cheats, but imagine this.

An employee comes to you and says, "here you go, real documentation that means I'm legal, thank you President Obama." "All those other documents I provided before were forged and I lied on my employment application."

Guess what TMex, that is simple grounds for termination that will hold up in any court, no matter how sympathetic.

So can you spell "ignorant"?
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

ocean515 said:
Well that's just a figure of speech, but at the end of the day, it's the truth.

I know it may come as a shock to you, and I can see you support liar and cheats, but imagine this.

An employee comes to you and says, "here you go, real documentation that means I'm legal, thank you President Obama." "All those other documents I provided before were forged and I lied on my employment application."

Guess what TMex, that is simple grounds for termination that will hold up in any court, no matter how sympathetic.

So can you spell "ignorant"?
Click to expand...
Perhaps in Spanglish.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Moderator's Warning:
Texmex and Ocean, can you both spell "infraction" and "thread ban"? Because you're about to become very familiar with one or both of those things if you continue to sign off your posts with baiting one liners
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Fenton said:
He's been faithfully ignoring our Federal Immigration laws for the last 6 years.

Our system isn't "broken ", our laws are being ignored.

NOW he wants to via FIAT to " faithfully execute the laws " he swore to uphold ?

Bull ****.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, show where any of the steps he plans to take on immigration are outside the scope of 1986 INA law or the 1996 immigration reform law enacted under former President Clinton. If you can do that, then I'm in your corner. But based on my reading of current INA law and the 1996 immigration reform law, there's nothing he's doing that's illegal in this matter.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Misterveritis said:
Last night a coup took place. The American system of government fell to a tyrant. The federal government is in enemy hands. In my opinion this sets the stage for a revolution or a civil war.

Illegal aliens are still illegal. The Tyrant declared that our borders are open and that the US is ripe for elimination. This will go very poorly for the vast majority of us. I cannot understand why many of you hate the US citizens so much.

Do not scrape the hope and change bumper stickers off your cars.
Click to expand...

He did no such thing. Geez...such hyperbole. :roll:

Border security is well within the legal bounds of the President since such was an essential part of 1996 immigration reform law.

Non-deportation of minors whose parents entered this country illegally AND who they themselves have not committed any crimes was also part of 1996 immigration reform law.

Issuing work and student VISA is part of immigration policy (1986 INA law).

The only issue you can question is that 5-yr period the President spoke of where he will not go after illegal immigrants as long as they have no criminal background. The 1996 law has a 10-yr period affixed, but even here such discretionary prosecution is still within his bounds as Chief Executive per Division C of the 1996 immigration reform law.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Objective Voice said:
He did no such thing. Geez...such hyperbole. :roll:

Border security is well within the legal bounds of the President since such was an essential part of 1996 immigration reform law.

Non-deportation of minors whose parents entered this country illegally AND who they themselves have not committed any crimes was also part of 1996 immigration reform law.

Issuing work and student VISA is part of immigration policy (1986 INA law).

The only issue you can question is that 5-yr period the President spoke of where he will not go after illegal immigrants as long as they have no criminal background. The 1996 law has a 10-yr period affixed, but even here such discretionary prosecution is still within his bounds as Chief Executive per Division C of the 1996 immigration reform law.
Click to expand...
I shall make no effort to try to convince you.

He is a traitor and you support the traitor. I understand.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

cpwill said:
On the contrary, it is an illegal seizure of legislative power and an attack on the separation of power. Pretty much would fit the bill for a High Crime or Misdemeanor.

I mean, if a President simply saying he can ignore an entire branch of our government and create / change law as he see's fit isn't impeachable, then what is?



This doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment or any Legislation. It's already in the Constitution.. It's already in the law. President Obama has simply decided he will ignore those because he doesn't like them and because Congress will not do what he tells it to (almost as if they were a co-equal branch of government in a system designed to feature checks and balances, or some such...)
Click to expand...

No, possible misuse of powers is not a high crime or a misdemeanor. It's simply an incorrect action by government, subject to a court ordering the government to stop. And considering the precedent set by that last dozen presidents, the actions that Obama is taking aren't outside the scope of his authority. He's doing nothing that past presidents haven't done.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Misterveritis said:
I shall make no effort to try to convince you.

He is a traitor and you support the traitor. I understand.
Click to expand...

You don't have to. Set your personal and/or political bias aside and read the law, understand the situation at hand and the authorities already vested in the Executive and you'll know the EO on immigration action is 100% legal.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Paschendale said:
No, possible misuse of powers is not a high crime or a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

A deliberate abuse of power in a manner that is known to be unconstitutional (and I can link him saying that it would be unconstitutional, if you like) and which violates the separation of powers is absolutely a high crime or misdemeanor.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

cpwill said:
A deliberate abuse of power in a manner that is known to be unconstitutional (and I can link him saying that it would be unconstitutional, if you like) and which violates the separation of powers is absolutely a high crime or misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

If that were true, than any legislator who supported a bill that was later ruled unconstitutional by a court would have committed a crime worthy of ejection from office. Violating the constitution is not a criminal act. And, of course, this move on immigration is not unconstitutional. Every president in the last several decades has done exactly what Obama is doing. Not only the same way, but the same actions. None of this is unprecedented, and none of it violates any aspect of the constitution.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Paschendale said:
If that were true, than any legislator who supported a bill that was later ruled unconstitutional by a court would have committed a crime worthy of ejection from office. Violating the constitution is not a criminal act. And, of course, this move on immigration is not unconstitutional. Every president in the last several decades has done exactly what Obama is doing. Not only the same way, but the same actions. None of this is unprecedented, and none of it violates any aspect of the constitution.
Click to expand...
What are your examples of another president doing the same thing in the same way?
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Paschendale said:
If that were true, than any legislator who supported a bill that was later ruled unconstitutional by a court would have committed a crime worthy of ejection from office.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. Any legislator that (for example) attempted to seize judicial power in a manner that they recognized as being illegal would be worthy of ejection from office.

Violating the constitution is not a criminal act. And, of course, this move on immigration is not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The President disagrees. He said on - what, a couple of dozen occasions? - that doing precisely what he did would be illegal and unconstitutional. But now it is convenient and no more elections, so.... :shrug: :roll:

The existence of impeachment is not carte blanche for the President to violate the Constitution until yanked back. Once upon a time (oh, say, in 2003-2008) Democrats realized this.

Every president in the last several decades has done exactly what Obama is doing
Click to expand...

That is incorrect - as PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF has pointed out:
President Obama said:
Obama: 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.
Click to expand...

Not only the same way, but the same actions.
Click to expand...

No, they haven't been. See POTUS above.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Objective Voice said:
You don't have to. Set your personal and/or political bias aside and read the law, understand the situation at hand and the authorities already vested in the Executive and you'll know the EO on immigration action is 100% legal.
Click to expand...
He is a traitor and you support him.

I understand that he changing the nature of the electorate to one that will give the Democrats what they want, domination. His actions are reprehensible. This was a coup and like always in history there will be those who support the coup. You support his coup.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Paschendale said:
If that were true, than any legislator who supported a bill that was later ruled unconstitutional by a court would have committed a crime worthy of ejection from office. Violating the constitution is not a criminal act. And, of course, this move on immigration is not unconstitutional. Every president in the last several decades has done exactly what Obama is doing. Not only the same way, but the same actions. None of this is unprecedented, and none of it violates any aspect of the constitution.
Click to expand...

It was a coup and the American citizens lost their nation.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Paschendale said:
No, possible misuse of powers is not a high crime or a misdemeanor. It's simply an incorrect action by government, subject to a court ordering the government to stop. And considering the precedent set by that last dozen presidents, the actions that Obama is taking aren't outside the scope of his authority. He's doing nothing that past presidents haven't done.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

There's absolutely nothing illegal, improper, immoral or unconstitutional about what he's doing. Folks may not like it, but he is within his legal and constitutional bounds to do it much as many people believe Gov. Perry was within the limits of his authority to withhold funding from a TX public agency because it's director conducted herself inappropriately.

I see no difference here; just a higher level of governance and authority. One's at the state-level; the other is at the federal level. It's just funny when a Republican Governor exercises his executive authority and does so ever so slightly on the margins, it's immediately deemed "executive authority" by the Right. But when a Democrat President does the same using executive orders it's deemed "tyranny". :roll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Misterveritis said:
He is a traitor and you support him.

I understand that he changing the nature of the electorate to one that will give the Democrats what they want, domination. His actions are reprehensible. This was a coup and like always in history there will be those who support the coup. You support his coup.
Click to expand...

It is obvious it's not any supposed Constitutional issue that concerns you, it's getting beaten at the polls that is your main concern.

I don't think President Obama has broken any law and certainly hasn't violated the Constitution. You don't agree. We shall see.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Texmex said:
It is obvious it's not any supposed Constitutional issue that concerns you, it's getting beaten at the polls that is your main concern.

I don't think President Obama has broken any law and certainly hasn't violated the Constitution. You don't agree. We shall see.
Click to expand...
The Tyrant is waging war against the American citizen, the US and the Constitution.

You have already been diminished. You don't realize it or maybe you are not an American citizen. This does not have a happy ending.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Misterveritis said:
The Tyrant is waging war against the American citizen, the US and the Constitution.

You have already been diminished. You don't realize it or maybe you are not an American citizen. This does not have a happy ending.
Click to expand...

If this is how you truly feel, I expect to see you rallying the troops and quelling the coup. Since this is doubtful, I imagine you will just have to fume a while.

BTW, I was born an American citizen, how about you?
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Texmex said:
If this is how you truly feel, I expect to see you rallying the troops and quelling the coup. Since this is doubtful, I imagine you will just have to fume a while.

BTW, I was born an American citizen, how about you?
Click to expand...
Anchor baby?

I have been working this fight for a while. The Article V Convention of States is the last legal method for stopping the tyrant and quelling the tyranny. I fear revolutions. They nearly always take on a life of their own and end in a new tyranny. I see no "Washingtons" to be the Indispensable Man. And civil wars are even worse. The coup must be ended. If the Congress will not defend itself then where do American citizens turn? Once enough realize the magnitude of the harm done to the nation last night can the force of arms be far behind?
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Grant said:
What are your examples of another president doing the same thing in the same way?
Click to expand...

Here you go...

1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy. Congress in October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.
Click to expand...

Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Misterveritis said:
Anchor baby?
Click to expand...
How to reply without getting banned. You got me, I was a 1952 anchor baby. :mrgreen: You should be embarrassed! :3oops:
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Texmex said:
How to reply without getting banned. You got me, I was a 1952 anchor baby. :mrgreen: You should be embarrassed! :3oops:
Click to expand...
LOL. It figured. Why else would you so strongly support tyranny against the US?

Never fear that I will turn you in. I don't play that way. I leave that form of perfidy to others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom