Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals

[freedombecki]

So how do we go about dealing with a rogue President who is making executive orders that countermand the law of the land? Does anybody here honestly think such a concept is legitimate? When he is inaugerated, the President swears:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

Should we add the phrase "....and uphold the laws of the land." or some such?

The mainstream media will continue to shrug off any misdoings by this President, and our resident liberals on this and countless other blogs will also defend him in anything, to deflect and justify by pointing to sins of Republicans, and accuse us of being hateful, racist, partisan, ideologues, etc. when we object.

Obviously impeachment at this late date is not an option.

Why should it be?

Frankly, I'm wondering what the objection here is, exactly.

Even Mitt Romney has admitted that we can't round up and deport 11 million people.

It won't happen.

So Obama has said, "We aren't going to bother trying to hunt down people who've been here since they were children, speak English as their first language, and had no say in being brought here. Until Congress finally gets off its ass and acts, I'm going to put our resources into actually finding recent illegals and more importantly, ones that are committing crimes."

It's a matter of priorities, isn't it?

This always happens 5 or 6 months before an election when the Democrats are in charge, so they can get votes from people who don't particularly like this country, do not know the language, and are not listed on any voter polls.

It's a method the DNC uses to enhance their election. 800,000 votes is a lot of votes with which to stuff a ballot box, and who's going to have time to check to see who is of age to vote or not after ALL thesevotes are added to the DNC rolls with "help" from a DNC "helper."

I'm going to say it plainly, Joe and I mean this: "Foul Ball!!!"

 

[Meister]

What a bunch of BS! Obama stole an idea from Marko Rubio that democrats condemned. Marco Rubio was attempting the almost identical thing via congress (the legal and therefor moral route). What Obama has done is pander to the Hispanic vote- the vote he all but ignored when he had total political majority for two years.

Obama thinks Hispanics are stupid and won't know or understand the facts- Your hypocrisy is showing~

So what's your objection. He's adopted your idea.

Or is this going to be another one of those "We Republicans were totally for that Until The Black Guy Did It" routines.

If it had gone through Congress it would have been law. Now it's temporary, and can be thrown out as early as next January. Look at it as shooting yourself in the foot for a transparent political ploy. Cheap thrills, huh?

 

[Moonglow]

presidential decrees are law, duh!

 

[JoeB131]

What a bunch of BS! Obama stole an idea from Marko Rubio that democrats condemned. Marco Rubio was attempting the almost identical thing via congress (the legal and therefor moral route). What Obama has done is pander to the Hispanic vote- the vote he all but ignored when he had total political majority for two years.

Obama thinks Hispanics are stupid and won't know or understand the facts- Your hypocrisy is showing~

So what's your objection. He's adopted your idea.

Or is this going to be another one of those "We Republicans were totally for that Until The Black Guy Did It" routines.

The objection is asswipe. he broke the law and deemed it done instead of allowing the Congessional Body of the United States do it as dictated by US Law.

Uh, no....

He's using his executive discretion as to where to put resources.

Which again, he's apparently allowed to do.

I'm not seeing what your problem here is, exactly.

Do you really think it's a good idea to take a person who was brought here illegally when he was 2, has been brought up as an American, had gone to school and gotten good grades, stayed out of trouble, and now works a respectable job, and deport him to a country he has no real connection with other than he was born there a long time ago.

Again, if it was a good idea when Marco suggested it, then it's a good idea when Obama is actually doing it.

 

[Foxfyre]

So how do we go about dealing with a rogue President who is making executive orders that countermand the law of the land? Does anybody here honestly think such a concept is legitimate? When he is inaugerated, the President swears:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

Should we add the phrase "....and uphold the laws of the land." or some such?

The mainstream media will continue to shrug off any misdoings by this President, and our resident liberals on this and countless other blogs will also defend him in anything, to deflect and justify by pointing to sins of Republicans, and accuse us of being hateful, racist, partisan, ideologues, etc. when we object.

Obviously impeachment at this late date is not an option.

Why should it be?

Frankly, I'm wondering what the objection here is, exactly.

Even Mitt Romney has admitted that we can't round up and deport 11 million people.

It won't happen.

So Obama has said, "We aren't going to bother trying to hunt down people who've been here since they were children, speak English as their first language, and had no say in being brought here. Until Congress finally gets off its ass and acts, I'm going to put our resources into actually finding recent illegals and more importantly, ones that are committing crimes."

It's a matter of priorities, isn't it?

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution the clause that allows a President's priorities to arbitrarily overturn a law that Congress passed. And then make your best case for why a President should have that power. And how that does not make a President into a king or dictator which the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent.

 

[JoeB131]

What a bunch of BS! Obama stole an idea from Marko Rubio that democrats condemned. Marco Rubio was attempting the almost identical thing via congress (the legal and therefor moral route). What Obama has done is pander to the Hispanic vote- the vote he all but ignored when he had total political majority for two years.

Obama thinks Hispanics are stupid and won't know or understand the facts- Your hypocrisy is showing~

So what's your objection. He's adopted your idea.

Or is this going to be another one of those "We Republicans were totally for that Until The Black Guy Did It" routines.

If it had gone through Congress it would have been law. Now it's temporary, and can be thrown out as early as next January. Look at it as shooting yourself in the foot for a transparent political ploy. Cheap thrills, huh?

Actually, the president can do what he did under the current law. The ICE has the authority to grant work permits and visas to these minors. That this doesn't give them is a path to citizenship.

And, yeah, I guess the Weird Mormon Robot can throw these folks out in January for not being "White and Delightsome" like Mormon Scripture says, but he'd have a riot on his hands if he tried it.

besides, who'd do the lawns on his mansions.

"I can't have illegals here! I'm running for Office for pete's sake." - Mitt Romney.

 

[clevergirl]

What a bunch of BS! Obama stole an idea from Marko Rubio that democrats condemned. Marco Rubio was attempting the almost identical thing via congress (the legal and therefor moral route). What Obama has done is pander to the Hispanic vote- the vote he all but ignored when he had total political majority for two years.

Obama thinks Hispanics are stupid and won't know or understand the facts- Your hypocrisy is showing~

So what's your objection. He's adopted your idea.

Or is this going to be another one of those "We Republicans were totally for that Until The Black Guy Did It" routines.

You can tell a democrat by his pandering to the lowest possible denominator (racism)

No, my problem is that our president is a vote pandering slimy character who has put his political ambitions above proper Constitutional restraints- it's disheartening and shameful.

The fact that Marco Rubio was attempting legislation via the route provided by our Constitution and was criticized by democrats as "taking the Dream out of the Dream Act", but now that the president has done it (having stolen the idea because he has none of his own) people like you cheer him on. This makes you not only despicable but disloyal to our Constitution-

 

[freedombecki]

presidential decrees are law, duh!

This one means Obama's buns are done.

He burned out the last shred of respectability he had with the American voters by giving away jobs to low bidders, and I bet the Unions are already in line with free how-to-screw-whitey instructions for formerly illegal alien recruits.

He may have gained a million new voters, but he just lost himself ten million Americans who are going to be mad hatters at the polls, and he isn't going to make it through this time with that kind of backlash against his hovering vote schemas.

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution the clause that allows a President's priorities to arbitrarily overturn a law that Congress passed. And then make your best case for why a President should have that power. And how that does not make a President into a king or dictator which the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent.

Actually, the law as written gives the president a lot of discretion on how to implement it..

Did you just forget Dubya and all his "signing statements" which let him intrepret the laws the way he wanted to.

 

[JoeB131]

presidential decrees are law, duh!

This one means Obama's buns are done.

He burned out the last shred of respectability he had with the American voters by giving away jobs to low bidders, and I bet the Unions are already in line with free how-to-screw-whitey instructions for formerly illegal alien recruits.

He may have gained a million new voters, but he just lost himself ten million Americans who are going to be mad hatters at the polls, and he isn't going to make it through this time with that kind of backlash against his hovering vote schemas.

Polls show that the majority supports the DREAM act...

Gallup: Majority of Americans support DREAM Act | Immigration Chronicles | a Chron.com blog

And the kind of person who would get really upst about this sort of thing are the kind of people who weren't going to vote for Obama because of his skin color anyway.

He had a lot to gain and really nothing to lose by doing this. And if the Republicans fight him on this, they just alienate themselves further with Hispanics.

 

[freedombecki]

So what's your objection. He's adopted your idea.

Or is this going to be another one of those "We Republicans were totally for that Until The Black Guy Did It" routines.

If it had gone through Congress it would have been law. Now it's temporary, and can be thrown out as early as next January. Look at it as shooting yourself in the foot for a transparent political ploy. Cheap thrills, huh?

Actually, the president can do what he did under the current law. The ICE has the authority to grant work permits and visas to these minors. That this doesn't give them is a path to citizenship.

And, yeah, I guess the Weird Mormon Robot can throw these folks out in January for not being "White and Delightsome" like Mormon Scripture says, but he'd have a riot on his hands if he tried it.

besides, who'd do the lawns on his mansions.

"I can't have illegals here! I'm running for Office for pete's sake." - Mitt Romney.

Thank you for revealing why Obama did this shit.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You can tell a democrat by his pandering to the lowest possible denominator (racism)

No, my problem is that our president is a vote pandering slimy character who has put his political ambitions above proper Constitutional restraints- it's disheartening and shameful.

The fact that Marco Rubio was attempting legislation via the route provided by our Constitution and was criticized by democrats as "taking the Dream out of the Dream Act", but now that the president has done it (having stolen the idea because he has none of his own) people like you cheer him on. This makes you not only despicable but disloyal to our Constitution-

Sorry, I was a Republican until you dumbasses nominated Romney.

And a lot of sensible Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain thought this was a good idea.

Finally, this guy is realizing you can't play nice with these jokers. He's finally hitting back. It's about fucking time.

 

[Sarah G]

presidential decrees are law, duh!

This one means Obama's buns are done.

He burned out the last shred of respectability he had with the American voters by giving away jobs to low bidders, and I bet the Unions are already in line with free how-to-screw-whitey instructions for formerly illegal alien recruits.

He may have gained a million new voters, but he just lost himself ten million Americans who are going to be mad hatters at the polls, and he isn't going to make it through this time with that kind of backlash against his hovering vote schemas.

You don't speak for the American voters Becki. Congress can still act and pass the Dream Act. If they don't, there will be backlash alright. Continue to hate or do the right thing.

Rubio wants this to be permanent , you all should listen.

 

[freedombecki]

presidential decrees are law, duh!

This one means Obama's buns are done.

He burned out the last shred of respectability he had with the American voters by giving away jobs to low bidders, and I bet the Unions are already in line with free how-to-screw-whitey instructions for formerly illegal alien recruits.

He may have gained a million new voters, but he just lost himself ten million Americans who are going to be mad hatters at the polls, and he isn't going to make it through this time with that kind of backlash against his hovering vote schemas.

Polls show that the majority supports the DREAM act...

Gallup: Majority of Americans support DREAM Act | Immigration Chronicles | a Chron.com blog

And the kind of person who would get really upst about this sort of thing are the kind of people who weren't going to vote for Obama because of his skin color anyway.

He had a lot to gain and really nothing to lose by doing this. And if the Republicans fight him on this, they just alienate themselves further with Hispanics.

Race card!

It's irrelevant because Latinos are white. And when they become business owners, which is imminent, you better watch out, buddy, because they're not going to like the anti-business climate produced by Democrats who hate small business owners because they are free enterprise entrepreneurs. With their majority which you are creating, they are going to screw the Marxism for which Obama is pushing with his "redistribution of wealth" propaganda by eventually going conservative. It's in their conservative genes.

You wealth-redistribution guys are engaging in a major foot shoot with Obama as your leader.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution the clause that allows a President's priorities to arbitrarily overturn a law that Congress passed. And then make your best case for why a President should have that power. And how that does not make a President into a king or dictator which the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent.

Actually, the law as written gives the president a lot of discretion on how to implement it..

Did you just forget Dubya and all his "signing statements" which let him intrepret the laws the way he wanted to.

I hate repeating myself, but in this case I will:

So how do we go about dealing with a rogue President who is making executive orders that countermand the law of the land? Does anybody here honestly think such a concept is legitimate? When he is inaugerated, the President swears:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Should we add the phrase "....and uphold the laws of the land." or some such?

The mainstream media will continue to shrug off any misdoings by this President, and our resident liberals on this and countless other blogs will also defend him in anything, to deflect and justify by pointing to sins of Republicans, and accuse us of being hateful, racist, partisan, ideologues, etc. when we object.

 

[Moonglow]

So how do we go about dealing with a rogue President who is making executive orders that countermand the law of the land? Does anybody here honestly think such a concept is legitimate? When he is inaugerated, the President swears:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

Should we add the phrase "....and uphold the laws of the land." or some such?

The mainstream media will continue to shrug off any misdoings by this President, and our resident liberals on this and countless other blogs will also defend him in anything, to deflect and justify by pointing to sins of Republicans, and accuse us of being hateful, racist, partisan, ideologues, etc. when we object.

Obviously impeachment at this late date is not an option.

Why should it be?

Frankly, I'm wondering what the objection here is, exactly.

Even Mitt Romney has admitted that we can't round up and deport 11 million people.

It won't happen.

So Obama has said, "We aren't going to bother trying to hunt down people who've been here since they were children, speak English as their first language, and had no say in being brought here. Until Congress finally gets off its ass and acts, I'm going to put our resources into actually finding recent illegals and more importantly, ones that are committing crimes."

It's a matter of priorities, isn't it?

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution the clause that allows a President's priorities to arbitrarily overturn a law that Congress passed. And then make your best case for why a President should have that power. And how that does not make a President into a king or dictator which the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent.

so you agrue through the use of ignorance?

US presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

 

[gallantwarrior]

many republicans supported it also.

And what the fuck does that mean? Who gives a fuck? If they agree with it maybe they should follow the Constitution process and vote on it. and show they support it in a vote.

What part of the Constitution allows Filibusters?

Filibusters are part of the rules the US Senate has crafted to facilitate compromise on touchy issues. The constitutionality of this practice is not the issue here.

 

[freedombecki]

presidential decrees are law, duh!

This one means Obama's buns are done.

He burned out the last shred of respectability he had with the American voters by giving away jobs to low bidders, and I bet the Unions are already in line with free how-to-screw-whitey instructions for formerly illegal alien recruits.

He may have gained a million new voters, but he just lost himself ten million Americans who are going to be mad hatters at the polls, and he isn't going to make it through this time with that kind of backlash against his hovering vote schemas.

You don't speak for the American voters Becki. Congress can still act and pass the Dream Act. If they don't, there will be backlash alright. Continue to hate or do the right thing.

Rubio wants this to be permanent , you all should listen.

I am listening. I am hearing many, many more vote clicks for Republicans in 2012. More in fact, than in 2010.

 

[Moonglow]

This one means Obama's buns are done.

He burned out the last shred of respectability he had with the American voters by giving away jobs to low bidders, and I bet the Unions are already in line with free how-to-screw-whitey instructions for formerly illegal alien recruits.

He may have gained a million new voters, but he just lost himself ten million Americans who are going to be mad hatters at the polls, and he isn't going to make it through this time with that kind of backlash against his hovering vote schemas.

You don't speak for the American voters Becki. Congress can still act and pass the Dream Act. If they don't, there will be backlash alright. Continue to hate or do the right thing.

Rubio wants this to be permanent , you all should listen.

I am listening. I am hearing many, many more vote clicks for Republicans in 2012. More in fact, than in 2010.

vote clicks?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should it be?

Frankly, I'm wondering what the objection here is, exactly.

Even Mitt Romney has admitted that we can't round up and deport 11 million people.

It won't happen.

So Obama has said, "We aren't going to bother trying to hunt down people who've been here since they were children, speak English as their first language, and had no say in being brought here. Until Congress finally gets off its ass and acts, I'm going to put our resources into actually finding recent illegals and more importantly, ones that are committing crimes."

It's a matter of priorities, isn't it?

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution the clause that allows a President's priorities to arbitrarily overturn a law that Congress passed. And then make your best case for why a President should have that power. And how that does not make a President into a king or dictator which the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent.

so you agrue through the use of ignorance?

US presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

I am arguing through ignorance? Perhaps you can explain how an executive order granting amnesty to illegals of any age is 'taking care that the laws be faithfully executed."