• 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

eohrnberger said:
And Obama's actions since WRT immigration enforcement policies have made it next to impossible for a Republican to vote for it.

The congressional gridlock that he complains about can be traced back to his action. It's just that he blames Republicans, and the majority of the ill informed believe him.
Click to expand...





The Republicans have found it impossible to vote on almost anything except to repeal the ACA.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
I would say that he did not suspend deportations, he only deferred them. Sounds like a case of semantics, but suspend and defer may have different meanings depending on the issue.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone from the New York Times to the Washington Post to Factcheck.org has all come to the same conclusion - the President explicitly said that to do what he did would be illegal, and then he went out and did it anyway.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
The Republicans have found it impossible to vote on almost anything except to repeal the ACA.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. There are dozens of bills that have been sitting on Harry Reid's desk - many of them bipartisan - that have passed the House. The guy responsible for nothing happening in Congress is the current (and soon to be ex) majority leader.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Okay...I got it. "ever" just means the current group.

So...how do you think the next Congress is going to treat him?
Click to expand...

By and large, they're not. The President just took any chance of actual compromise and blasted it into a million tiny pieces. Trust that he would even bother to enforce any provision of any compromise or agreement that he didn't happen to personally like is now pretty close to zero, and without trust, you can't make deals.

Obama just set the tone for the next two years. Get ready for some bitter times.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
The Republicans have found it impossible to vote on almost anything except to repeal the ACA.
Click to expand...

Really? Is that what you think?

Do you believe that almost 400 bills from the House that are sitting on Harry's desk all deal with the repeal of Obamacare?
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
Tyranny? What exactly did he do to cause such consternation?? Did he give blanket amnesty to anyone? All he did was deferr deportation of some undocumented people, which is well within his authority, as he is the one that has them deported. This is a temporary measure, which will save some parents from being snatched away from their children.
Click to expand...

I don't know what those big words like consterpation mean. But if you say so, that must be all our President did.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
I would say that he did not suspend deportations, he only deferred them. Sounds like a case of semantics, but suspend and defer may have different meanings depending on the issue.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Reminds me of another Democratic President who had an issue with the meaning of the word, "is".
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

matchlight said:
I don't know what those big words like consterpation mean. But if you say so, that must be all our President did.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I had to look that word up. This is all I found:


 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Ontologuy said:
Cut the tough-girl threats and ask a specific detailed question that's solely on-topic sans unwarranted accusations of hatred against the poster.

Try again.





I don't have to try again. I already asked the question and you trying to be cute doesn't get you out of answering.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
The Republicans have found it impossible to vote on almost anything except to repeal the ACA.
Click to expand...
Lets say that's true. So what? There is no clause in the Constitution that says the president may take over the role of legislator if the legislators dont pass any laws. I get that you support what the president did, but it is still illegal. Don't take my word for that though. Ask the former Constitutional law professor named Obama that said over and over that he had no legal authority to take the action he did.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Henrin said:
Anyone interested in limited government has to limit the power given to states. I don't see how you can have unlimited power on one side and limited power on the other and not have enormous government pretty quick.
Click to expand...



Geez, I actually agree with you on this one.:mrgreen:
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
I believe that he said three years.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Juanita. :2wave:

Yet another problem for the next President to handle, since he'll be gone. Do you think it's reasonable to expect that he might begin to address the problem of decent paying jobs in his last two years - which he said he was focusing on like a laser since he became POTUS? The top 10 occupations in the US are currently paying less than $35,000 a year. That's a lot of people who have to be struggling on a daily basis. Now add in millions of illegals who will be competing with American workers for fewer and fewer jobs, and it will equal a huge mess, IMO. :shock:
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
This Congress has refused to work with this President on most issues and, unfortunately, will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

The house sent over three hundred bills to the Senate which never made it to the floor. Please explain to me how that is an example of the house not working with the President. You are incorrect when you say the Congress has refused to work with the president unless you are accusing the Democrat controlled senate of not working with Obama.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Henrin said:
That is what I'm thinking too. What are they going to use to proof their case? Why would you even risk coming forward in the first place? If you fail to prove your case you're going to be deported.
Click to expand...



I agree with you on the "risk" part. Many will be afraid to register for fear of the government having their names when deportations resume. Many will try to wait until Comprehensive Immigration Reform is eventually passed.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Mycroft said:
It is well known that Obama doesn't do anything unless it is of some political advantage to him or to his Party. Given that, the question arises...what does he gain with this illegal immigration action? There have been some views expressed that Obama's aim is to provoke the Republicans into doing something that can be turned against them. Such as, shutting down the government or, even, initiating impeachment proceedings. Above all, he wants to generate a violent, over-the-top reaction from them.

Now...I don't know if those views are correct, but I can certainly see that as something Obama might want to do. But...if so, it appears he wasted a lot of his limited political capital with this effort. It seems he is NOT getting a violent reaction from Republicans. Here is Boehner's response to Obama...doesn't sound too violent or over-the-top to me.


Click to expand...


This certainly doesn't seem like the over reaction that Obama was looking for. May cooler heads be prevailing in the Republican Congressional leadership?

We can only hope so.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
That is such a dishonest statement. It is just the opposite and everyone is aware of that.
Click to expand...

It's not dishonest because you say it is. Please point to a time in recent history where the government was more partisan and more dysfunctional.
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Juanita said:
The Republicans have found it impossible to vote on almost anything except to repeal the ACA.
Click to expand...

That's not true in any sense, by any measure.

Exasperated House Democratic leaders have compiled a list showing that they have passed 290 bills that have stalled in the Senate.
The list is the latest sign that Democrats in the lower chamber are frustrated with their Senate counterparts.

An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the list is put together during each Congress, but that this year’s number is likely the largest ever. However, he said Pelosi blames GOP senators, not Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) or Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Click to expand...
Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts | TheHill

Even the House Democrats complain about the bi-partisan supported bills passed by the House that went to die in Harry Reid's desk and his Senate.

So non sequitur, your facts are confused.
 
I see the Liar-in-Chief's fanny-covering squads are working overtime to cook up more batches of baloney. For pointers, they might want to watch some tapes of Lois "I Take the Fifth" Lerner lying about the grotesque, Nixon-like abuse of the IRS to persecute President Pinocchio's political enemies. Or, they could polish their technique by listening to Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton rattle off whoppers to explain away the jihadist murders of Americans in Benghazi, part of the fallout from Mr. Obama's private war in Libya. But if you really want to learn how to defend a damned lying tyrant with creative bull, as Pinocchio's sycophants are determined to do, you've got to study the master--Joseph Goebbels.

For example, Goebbels' use of trumped-up provocations by Czechoslovakia to justify invading it in 1938 was a stroke of genius. The story was fed to the German people in the papers, on radio, and in newsreels. Our blood brothers in the Sudetenland were being mistreated by the vile, arrogant Czechs! As part of the German Volk, they were looking to the Vaterland for help! The belligerent Czechs continued to commit armed provocations against the Vaterland, all along the border! Germans were being killed! Our peace-loving Fuhrer showed the utmost restraint, but finally the outrages became unendurable, and he had no choice but to act! And when the heroic German forces swept in to their rescue, our Sudeten brothers and sisters wept with joy--reunited, at last, with the Vaterland!
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064008253 said:
Americans not showing up at the polls exerted their will, which spoke volumes. It showed there is nothing to support about the democrat agenda.
Click to expand...

Or the republican agenda
 
matchlight said:
I see the Liar-in-Chief's fanny-covering squads are working overtime to cook up more batches of baloney. For pointers, they might want to watch some tapes of Lois "I Take the Fifth" Lerner lying about the grotesque, Nixon-like abuse of the IRS to persecute President Pinocchio's political enemies. Or, they could polish their technique by listening to Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton rattle off whoppers to explain away the jihadist murders of Americans in Benghazi, part of the fallout from Mr. Obama's private war in Libya. But if you really want to learn how to defend a damned lying tyrant with creative bull, as Pinocchio's sycophants are determined to do, you've got to study the master--Joseph Goebbels.

For example, Goebbels' use of trumped-up provocations by Czechoslovakia to justify invading it in 1938 was a stroke of genius. The story was fed to the German people in the papers, on radio, and in newsreels. Our blood brothers in the Sudetenland are being mistreated by the vile, arrogant Czechs! As part of the German Volk, they are looking to the Vaterland for help! The Czechs are continually committing belligerent provocations against the Vaterland, all along the border! Our peace-loving Fuhrer showed the utmost restraint, but finally the outrages became unendurable, and there was no choice but to act. And when the heroic German forces swept in to their rescue, our Sudeten brothers and sisters wept with joy--reunited, at last, with the Vaterland!
Click to expand...

For all your blather about tyrants and the Third Reich, I'm still waiting for you to post an argument containing a legal arguement that shows Obama did anything illegal here
 
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Henrin said:
Anyone interested in limited government has to limit the power given to states. I don't see how you can have unlimited power on one side and limited power on the other and not have enormous government pretty quick.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that limits the power "given" to the States. In fact, the Constitution says that the States...and the People...HAVE all the power that is not reserved, by the Constitution, for the federal government.

You talk about "one side" and "the other". It's not a contest between the federal government and the States...or, at least, it was never intended to be. Big federal government Congresses and Presidents HAVE made it a contest over the years. That's unfortunate.

A State with a big government only affects that State. Citizens of that State, if they don't like the government, are free to try to change it or to move elsewhere. A big federal government, on the other hand, affects the whole country...AND the States. The best solution is to keep the federal government small and limited and let the citizens of the various States decide for themselves how big they want their State government to be.
 
sangha said:
For all your blather about tyrants and the Third Reich, I'm still waiting for you to post an argument containing a legal arguement that shows Obama did anything illegal here
Click to expand...

You've got a long wait. I save my arguments about constitutional law for people who either know something about it or want to learn.
 
matchlight said:
I see the Liar-in-Chief's fanny-covering squads are working overtime to cook up more batches of baloney. For pointers, they might want to watch some tapes of Lois "I Take the Fifth" Lerner lying about the grotesque, Nixon-like abuse of the IRS to persecute President Pinocchio's political enemies. Or, they could polish their technique by listening to Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton rattle off whoppers to explain away the jihadist murders of Americans in Benghazi, part of the fallout from Mr. Obama's private war in Libya. But if you really want to learn how to defend a damned lying tyrant with creative bull, as Pinocchio's sycophants are determined to do, you've got to study the master--Joseph Goebbels.

For example, Goebbels' use of trumped-up provocations by Czechoslovakia to justify invading it in 1938 was a stroke of genius. The story was fed to the German people in the papers, on radio, and in newsreels. Our blood brothers in the Sudetenland were being mistreated by the vile, arrogant Czechs! As part of the German Volk, they were looking to the Vaterland for help! The belligerent Czechs continued to commit armed provocations against the Vaterland, all along the border! Germans were being killed! Our peace-loving Fuhrer showed the utmost restraint, but finally the outrages became unendurable, and he had no choice but to act! And when the heroic German forces swept in to their rescue, our Sudeten brothers and sisters wept with joy--reunited, at last, with the Vaterland!
Click to expand...

Hmm. That's a very disturbing historical parallel, and some would dismiss it out of hand. I'm concerned that it's far closer to the uncomfortable truth than not.

If the news media is a tool (like a gun), and the tool is used to do harm, do you blame the tool or do you blame the tool user?

In this case, I think it fair to blame both the tool (news media are people who choose) and the tool user (Obama and the Democrats).

Match, would you say that the media is as complicit with Obama and his agenda as ever? Or do you think that they've woken up back up? Sometimes I wonder if they have woken up form their messiah adoring, parroting issued talking points slumber.

All we'd have to imagine is a Republican president taken the same or similar action, an the out rage they'd no doubt express. But an against Obama? Hardly it seems.

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley who is a liberal has been warning against the dangers of executive overreach for over a year now even testifying before Congress. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY, DEC. 3, 2013: You have the rise of an uber presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. And I really think that the framers would be horrified.

TURLEY, FEB. 26: I believe we are now in a constitutional tipping point in our system. It's a dangerous point for our system to be in.

TURLEY, JULY 16: He has said that he's going to resolve the deadlock in Congress, the division with Congress, by ordering changes on his own terms as a majority of one. That's what makes it dangerous.
Click to expand...
Turley: Democrats creating 'dangerous' Obama 'uber presidency'

The assessment of a liberal and well respected Constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Turley

Turley: Obama The President That Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be

How long before the rest of the liberals throw their own under a bus, shouting him down, assassinating his character in a barrage of personal attacks?

I believe this is what you get when you combine a narcissistic and opportunistic politician with a complicit media that servers more as presidential media bodyguard (Ministry of Truth) than journalists.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's Executive Order

Mycroft said:
I have to disagree with you.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that limits the power "given" to the States. In fact, the Constitution says that the States...and the People...HAVE all the power that is not reserved, by the Constitution, for the federal government.

You talk about "one side" and "the other". It's not a contest between the federal government and the States...or, at least, it was never intended to be. Big federal government Congresses and Presidents HAVE made it a contest over the years. That's unfortunate.

A State with a big government only affects that State. Citizens of that State, if they don't like the government, are free to try to change it or to move elsewhere. A big federal government, on the other hand, affects the whole country...AND the States. The best solution is to keep the federal government small and limited and let the citizens of the various States decide for themselves how big they want their State government to be.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. The states have sovereign powers. They and their people saw fit, in the Constitution, to give the United States certain limited, enumerated powers and to deny a few others that would conflict with them (e.g. making treaties, coining money) to themselves. All powers other than those, they retained. In our system, the states and the United States form separate but overlapping spheres of power--we have a federal government, and not a national one. That de-centralized scheme is usually called "federalism." Federalism is a structural feature of the Constitution that is underscored by the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reaffirmed all this in two 1990's decisions, New York v. U.S. and Printz v. U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom