DACA Upheld by Supreme Court

[candycorn]

Because he probably was told it would be a slam dunk.

Ah, so the conman got conned again.

you should know about being conned, you SJW hack.

Your bitterness brings me much joy. More please

Look at this circle jerk.

Now we can add DACA to your long list of frustrations...

Sexual
Romantic
Reading Comprehension
DACA

Just to name a few.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

Yes, they do; where else do 'Dreamers' get educated, get jobs, etc? Illegal immigration affects all education systems and school districts in the U.S. State Colleges and universities are especially affected by DACA. It's another encouragement to break our laws and break our education budgets.

Schools have no ability to determine if they are complying. A student shows up and they get an education. This is all a waste of an argument anyway as you know we are going to do nothing about the issue.

Business wants them here so here they will stay. Trump even argued that a law was needed to allow them to stay here.

 

[martybegan]

Because he probably was told it would be a slam dunk.

Ah, so the conman got conned again.

you should know about being conned, you SJW hack.

Your bitterness brings me much joy. More please

Look at this circle jerk.

Now we can add DACA to your long list of frustrations...

Sexual
Romantic
Reading Comprehension
DACA

Just to name a few.

Wow, talk about assumptions.

Yet all we get from your type is frothing yammering when it comes to Trump, and the real target of your hatred, anyone who doesn't think EXACTLY LIKE YOU.

 

[Flash]

Four batshit crazy Libtards and a stupid RINO appointed asshole decided that Obama could import MS-13 gang members because they can be future Democrat voters. Disgusting!

 

[Picaro]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

Yes, they do; where else do 'Dreamers' get educated, get jobs, etc? Illegal immigration affects all education systems and school districts in the U.S. State Colleges and universities are especially affected by DACA. It's another encouragement to break our laws and break our education budgets.

Schools have no ability to determine if they are complying. A student shows up and they get an education. This is all a waste of an argument anyway as you know we are going to do nothing about the issue.

Business wants them here so here they will stay. Trump even argued that a law was needed to allow them to stay here.

Thanks for conceding the point that it's illegal, especially the billions being spent on it.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

Yes, they do; where else do 'Dreamers' get educated, get jobs, etc? Illegal immigration affects all education systems and school districts in the U.S. State Colleges and universities are especially affected by DACA. It's another encouragement to break our laws and break our education budgets.

Schools have no ability to determine if they are complying. A student shows up and they get an education. This is all a waste of an argument anyway as you know we are going to do nothing about the issue.

Business wants them here so here they will stay. Trump even argued that a law was needed to allow them to stay here.

Thanks for conceding the point that it's illegal, especially the billions being spent on it.

If you are unable to actually address what I say don't change what I say. That's cowardly and cheap.

Did they arrive illegally? Yes.

Is not actually enforcing the law illegal? No.

Trump is doing the same thing. He's not enforced employment laws on any employers.

 

[Picaro]

If you are unable to actually address what I say don't change what I say. That's cowardly and cheap.

You mean like you did with my posts? And then basically repeated what I said about the GOP and its love for criminal illegal aliens? lol okay ...

 

[Billiejeens]

This will just be rewritten and another order will be sent this week

They will choose to side against Trump on the next one too. He needs to try though.

BTW, the 3 branches are SUPPOSED TO BE CO-EQUAL. Why are we allowing the SC this much power?

I see it as appropriately checking the power of the Executive. The way the system was meant to work.

No, they are deciding a far leftists EO are not allowed to be nullified. They dont have that power. These are CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. Antvthe president DOES NOT have to abide by their decrees

They are co-equal so that they can check each other's power. It is working the way it was meant to work. The problem here is Congress refusing for decades to tackle real immigration reform.

Who is checking the Supreme Court's Power
Can you give examples?

 

[pknopp]

This will just be rewritten and another order will be sent this week

They will choose to side against Trump on the next one too. He needs to try though.

BTW, the 3 branches are SUPPOSED TO BE CO-EQUAL. Why are we allowing the SC this much power?

I see it as appropriately checking the power of the Executive. The way the system was meant to work.

No, they are deciding a far leftists EO are not allowed to be nullified. They dont have that power. These are CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. Antvthe president DOES NOT have to abide by their decrees

They are co-equal so that they can check each other's power. It is working the way it was meant to work. The problem here is Congress refusing for decades to tackle real immigration reform.

Who is checking the Supreme Court's Power
Can you give examples?

All Trump has to do is proceed as directed.

 

[Billiejeens]

This will just be rewritten and another order will be sent this week

They will choose to side against Trump on the next one too. He needs to try though.

BTW, the 3 branches are SUPPOSED TO BE CO-EQUAL. Why are we allowing the SC this much power?

I see it as appropriately checking the power of the Executive. The way the system was meant to work.

No, they are deciding a far leftists EO are not allowed to be nullified. They dont have that power. These are CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. Antvthe president DOES NOT have to abide by their decrees

They are co-equal so that they can check each other's power. It is working the way it was meant to work. The problem here is Congress refusing for decades to tackle real immigration reform.

Who is checking the Supreme Court's Power
Can you give examples?

All Trump has to do is proceed as directed.

That's nice
Are you trying to answer the question I asked her?

 

[playtime]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama instructed them to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

Obama himself called it unconstitutional. Then did it anyways.
And he is a "constitutional scholar" remember?

This is what Obama said:

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
Obama did urge Congress to act, saying, "There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments."

This is the Republicans' spin on Obama's words:

It has been a theme among Republicans and conservatives that before he penned DACA, Obama had said that he was bound by law to pursue deportations. The Speaker of the House John Boehner posted a list of 22 times when Obama said "he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law."
Indeed, Obama did tell a Univision audience Oct. 25, 2010, that "I'm president, I'm not king."
But he continued on to say, "If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves.
In announcing DACA, Obama emphasized that it was a temporary policy. He did not issue an executive order. Rather, the policy was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
Later in his presidency, Obama expanded the approach of deferred action to families, and for various reasons, that was blocked by the courts. There is no question that his interpretation of his authority grew over time.

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com

Translation - Because no one ever told him no, and the media covered his ass -
He decided that he would try that "king" thing after all.

^^^ irony at its finest ^^^

You may not know what "irony" means.

^^^ doubled down ^^^

 

[Wyatt earp]

It’s getting close, the time is getting just about right to protect our borders, protect our heritage, culture, language.

growing up in a city where latinos and other refugees flooded our schools and lowering our wages, and disrespecting our culture my patience is thin.

if we don’t stop this invasion our country is gone.

Supreme Court Rejects Trump Admin's Rescinding of DACA

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s effort to end legal protections for 650,000 young immigrants, a stunning rebuke to the president in the midst of his reelection campaign.

www.breitbart.com

Your dream of Civil War is not going to happen kid. If that will ever happen you better start hunting for your food with the rest of 312+ millions Americans.
I can assure you that DACA people are far better human than you. Lots of them now has professional jobs. Cops, R nurses, teachers, professors, engineers, social workers, architects. YOU? YOU?

And they are fucking illegal, don't you have any morals fuck head you can't jump ahead of the line asshole.

 

[Billiejeens]

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

Aka making up stuff as it goes along

this is judicial activism at its worst

It was a correct ruling. The matter is settled.

I laugh
The Supreme Court specifically said that it wasn't settled.

 

[playtime]

I know most of you don’t live in the heart of a urban area like I do,, I’m TELLING YOU AMERICAN CULTURE IS GONE, our heritage is laughed at, this anti American culture will only grow... I know before I die I will be smiling,, the time can’t come fast enough. I remain patient and unbelievably firm that I will raise the flag on the tears of millions of defeated anti American democrats. Until that day, let’s all stay focused. God bless

View attachment 351856

Brilliant.

Sarcasm with the added benefit of being 100# accurate

you would be amazed at how many i've passed out to the deplorables on this board.

actually - it probably wouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[Billiejeens]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

They do play a role - they are victims.

 

[Billiejeens]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama instructed them to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

Obama himself called it unconstitutional. Then did it anyways.
And he is a "constitutional scholar" remember?

This is what Obama said:

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
Obama did urge Congress to act, saying, "There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments."

This is the Republicans' spin on Obama's words:

It has been a theme among Republicans and conservatives that before he penned DACA, Obama had said that he was bound by law to pursue deportations. The Speaker of the House John Boehner posted a list of 22 times when Obama said "he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law."
Indeed, Obama did tell a Univision audience Oct. 25, 2010, that "I'm president, I'm not king."
But he continued on to say, "If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves.
In announcing DACA, Obama emphasized that it was a temporary policy. He did not issue an executive order. Rather, the policy was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
Later in his presidency, Obama expanded the approach of deferred action to families, and for various reasons, that was blocked by the courts. There is no question that his interpretation of his authority grew over time.

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com

Translation - Because no one ever told him no, and the media covered his ass -
He decided that he would try that "king" thing after all.

^^^ irony at its finest ^^^

You may not know what "irony" means.

^^^ doubled down ^^^

So, I was right
No shock.

 

[playtime]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama instructed them to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

Obama himself called it unconstitutional. Then did it anyways.
And he is a "constitutional scholar" remember?

This is what Obama said:

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
Obama did urge Congress to act, saying, "There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments."

This is the Republicans' spin on Obama's words:

It has been a theme among Republicans and conservatives that before he penned DACA, Obama had said that he was bound by law to pursue deportations. The Speaker of the House John Boehner posted a list of 22 times when Obama said "he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law."
Indeed, Obama did tell a Univision audience Oct. 25, 2010, that "I'm president, I'm not king."
But he continued on to say, "If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves.
In announcing DACA, Obama emphasized that it was a temporary policy. He did not issue an executive order. Rather, the policy was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
Later in his presidency, Obama expanded the approach of deferred action to families, and for various reasons, that was blocked by the courts. There is no question that his interpretation of his authority grew over time.

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com

Translation - Because no one ever told him no, and the media covered his ass -
He decided that he would try that "king" thing after all.

^^^ irony at its finest ^^^

You may not know what "irony" means.

^^^ doubled down ^^^

So, I was right
No shock.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

They do play a role - they are victims.

See to it that their parents and their parents employer start to pay taxes to support the school system.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This will just be rewritten and another order will be sent this week

They will choose to side against Trump on the next one too. He needs to try though.

BTW, the 3 branches are SUPPOSED TO BE CO-EQUAL. Why are we allowing the SC this much power?

I see it as appropriately checking the power of the Executive. The way the system was meant to work.

No, they are deciding a far leftists EO are not allowed to be nullified. They dont have that power. These are CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. Antvthe president DOES NOT have to abide by their decrees

They are co-equal so that they can check each other's power. It is working the way it was meant to work. The problem here is Congress refusing for decades to tackle real immigration reform.

Obama was a dictator he did it by EO

God damn

 

[Billiejeens]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

They do play a role - they are victims.

See to it that their parents and their parents employer start to pay taxes to support the school system.

So you that quickly concede that your previous comment was incorrect.
Thanks.