States sue to rein in Obama's illegal amnesty

[JakeStarkey]

Hardly anyone gives a doodle about what a small group of far righties and libertarians wanting a border security and mass deportation bill passed and enacted before business enforcement and immigration reform happens.

You guys are dooshes, and some of you are so stupid you think Obama is a Kenyan.

What you want won't happn the way you want, and if the Congress teap creep party tries to shut down the government again McConnell and Boehner will hold open up and down votes.

 

[TooTall]

Let's see. Accept your interp of the difference, although there is not any. Or accept the EO is water tight and make fun of those, like you, who either know no better or are deliberately lying. You are an uneducated liar.

There is a distinct difference between an EO and an EA that you are far too ignorant to be able to understand.

 

[Flopper]

He took action to change the law, but he didn't really change the law. What does that mean?

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

What other kinds of law are there besides statutory law? All I understand is Obama said "I took action to change the law." and now I am told he did not change the law. My next 'absurd' question is, did his action change the law or was he just lying and pandering to illegal immigrants?

Has anyone actually seen any written order from the president at all, or is he claiming that he can now change the law just by saying he wants to do so?

Yes, however, there is no executive order. What the president signed was a presidential memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security detailing the plan.

In Obama's speech, he announced executive actions, which are little more than a wish list, not executive orders. However what he issued was a Presidential Memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security who will issue regulations or orders based on that memorandum.

Presidential Memorandums although similar to Executive Orders are not numbered or printed in the Federal Registry. However, they do carry the weight of law. They're published by the Whitehouse and can be founded on the following link.

Presidential Memoranda The White House

Here's a good link that about executive actions, memorandums, and orders.
Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

 

[TooTall]

He took action to change the law, but he didn't really change the law. What does that mean?

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

What other kinds of law are there besides statutory law? All I understand is Obama said "I took action to change the law." and now I am told he did not change the law. My next 'absurd' question is, did his action change the law or was he just lying and pandering to illegal immigrants?

Has anyone actually seen any written order from the president at all, or is he claiming that he can now change the law just by saying he wants to do so?

Yes, however, there is no executive order. What the president signed was a presidential memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security detailing the plan.

In Obama's speech, he announced executive actions, which are little more than a wish list, not executive orders. However what he issued was a Presidential Memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security who will issue regulations or orders based on that memorandum.

Presidential Memorandums although similar to Executive Orders are not numbered or printed in the Federal Registry. However, they do carry the weight of law. They're published by the Whitehouse and can be founded on the following link.

Presidential Memoranda The White House

Here's a good link that about executive actions, memorandums, and orders.
Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

This is from your link.

"Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

The question is does the immigration executive action published by Obama actually set policy or is it a wish list of policies he wants?

 

[Spare_change]

So, basically, it's anything the President does that doesn't modify a law.

No, it's pretty much anything the President does, period. If Obama picks his nose at his desk, that's an executive action.

Keep digging your hole and tell me that Obama took action to change the law. He can't even modify a law, but he said he did.

You're trying to create problems that don't exist. Obama is using his authority as President to do things that are within the scope of his job. Just because you don't like it does not justify throwing your wet panties around in a hissy fit.

I take that mealy mouthed answer as an admission the Obama issued an EA and is a lying sack of dog squeeze for telling his base that he took action to change the law.

My numbers were from the government and were linked. Next!

All of my numbers were linked and were in context. Yours? Meh.

That you don't know the difference between executive orders etc is your problem, son, no one else.

You droids' hatred twists evidence and critical thinking into stupid conclusions.

The black man is president and will remain so. The brown people will not be mass deported.

The EO give the Congress a several month window to act: do so.

Obama didn't issue an EO dumbass! And the EA he did sign is a weak attempt at blackmail.

Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.


The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

Simply put, once again, Obama talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. For all his righteous rhetoric about how he was going to direct the executive branch to do this, and demand the Congress do that .... he simply wrote an opinion piece, that carries NO ability to implement his proposal.

In short, when it came 'nut cutting' time, Obama flinched. Despite all his posturing, he did nothing ... kinda like he does most of the time (how's that 'red line' thing working for ya?)

 

[hadit]

He took action to change the law, but he didn't really change the law. What does that mean?

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

What other kinds of law are there besides statutory law? All I understand is Obama said "I took action to change the law." and now I am told he did not change the law. My next 'absurd' question is, did his action change the law or was he just lying and pandering to illegal immigrants?

Has anyone actually seen any written order from the president at all, or is he claiming that he can now change the law just by saying he wants to do so?

It is all at this web site.

Text of the White House Fact Sheet on Obama 8217 s Immigration Action - Washington Wire - WSJ

He took action to change the law, but he didn't really change the law. What does that mean?

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

What other kinds of law are there besides statutory law? All I understand is Obama said "I took action to change the law." and now I am told he did not change the law. My next 'absurd' question is, did his action change the law or was he just lying and pandering to illegal immigrants?

Has anyone actually seen any written order from the president at all, or is he claiming that he can now change the law just by saying he wants to do so?

Yes, however, there is no executive order. What the president signed was a presidential memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security detailing the plan.

In Obama's speech, he announced executive actions, which are little more than a wish list, not executive orders. However what he issued was a Presidential Memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security who will issue regulations or orders based on that memorandum.

Presidential Memorandums although similar to Executive Orders are not numbered or printed in the Federal Registry. However, they do carry the weight of law. They're published by the Whitehouse and can be founded on the following link.

Presidential Memoranda The White House

Here's a good link that about executive actions, memorandums, and orders.
Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

That's cool. He can be ignored then.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you say don't believe it, after the info has been posted on the Board, as it has, then, yes, you do need to refute it with data.

Hint: it does not exist.

Jake, when have YOU been able to provide any data? Seriously. "Information from the board" may be all you can say if you can't even defend your own position.

 

[Flopper]

He took action to change the law, but he didn't really change the law. What does that mean?

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

What other kinds of law are there besides statutory law? All I understand is Obama said "I took action to change the law." and now I am told he did not change the law. My next 'absurd' question is, did his action change the law or was he just lying and pandering to illegal immigrants?

Has anyone actually seen any written order from the president at all, or is he claiming that he can now change the law just by saying he wants to do so?

Yes, however, there is no executive order. What the president signed was a presidential memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security detailing the plan.

In Obama's speech, he announced executive actions, which are little more than a wish list, not executive orders. However what he issued was a Presidential Memorandum to the Director of Homeland Security who will issue regulations or orders based on that memorandum.

Presidential Memorandums although similar to Executive Orders are not numbered or printed in the Federal Registry. However, they do carry the weight of law. They're published by the Whitehouse and can be founded on the following link.

Presidential Memoranda The White House

Here's a good link that about executive actions, memorandums, and orders.
Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

This is from your link.

"Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

The question is does the immigration executive action published by Obama actually set policy or is it a wish list of policies he wants?

What was published was the Presidential Memorandum to the Homeland Security. It carries the legality of an executive order. Other than the fact that executive orders are published in the Federal Register, and Presidential Memorandum are published by the Whitehouse, I don't see any difference.

 

[Siete]

the immigration EO suddenly morphs into an EA ... wow.

and the morons morph into idiots, and not so sudden.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you say don't believe it, after the info has been posted on the Board, as it has, then, yes, you do need to refute it with data.

Hint: it does not exist.

In that case, I am sure you will post a link to that information since I don't read every post on this board.

Don't worry he won't. I he knew anything about the immigration issue don't out think he would have provided it by now, rather than trying to say the issue has already been posted? If they have to rely on another poster on this board to provide the information, you can be pretty sure they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you say don't believe it, after the info has been posted on the Board, as it has, then, yes, you do need to refute it with data.

Hint: it does not exist.

Jake, when have YOU been able to provide any data? Seriously. "Information from the board" may be all you can say if you can't even defend your own position.

Shakles, I have read all of the information available. You have not. You can't compete.

The EO can't be shaken in court. Watch as your arguments are dismissed.

I figure from the evidence to the conclusions; you begin with a conclusion and then fit evidence to it. The EO is an EO. It is what it is.

That's why you always fail.

 

[bendog]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

I thought the SC said Obamacare was .... legal.

 

[Flopper]

So, basically, it's anything the President does that doesn't modify a law.

No, it's pretty much anything the President does, period. If Obama picks his nose at his desk, that's an executive action.

Keep digging your hole and tell me that Obama took action to change the law. He can't even modify a law, but he said he did.

You're trying to create problems that don't exist. Obama is using his authority as President to do things that are within the scope of his job. Just because you don't like it does not justify throwing your wet panties around in a hissy fit.

I take that mealy mouthed answer as an admission the Obama issued an EA and is a lying sack of dog squeeze for telling his base that he took action to change the law.

My numbers were from the government and were linked. Next!

All of my numbers were linked and were in context. Yours? Meh.

That you don't know the difference between executive orders etc is your problem, son, no one else.

You droids' hatred twists evidence and critical thinking into stupid conclusions.

The black man is president and will remain so. The brown people will not be mass deported.

The EO give the Congress a several month window to act: do so.

Obama didn't issue an EO dumbass! And the EA he did sign is a weak attempt at blackmail.

Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.


The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

Simply put, once again, Obama talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. For all his righteous rhetoric about how he was going to direct the executive branch to do this, and demand the Congress do that .... he simply wrote an opinion piece, that carries NO ability to implement his proposal.

In short, when it came 'nut cutting' time, Obama flinched. Despite all his posturing, he did nothing ... kinda like he does most of the time (how's that 'red line' thing working for ya?)

No, the Presidential Memorandums are not opinion pieces. They contain directives. Those directives contain general provisions and set up a task force to deal with specifics.

However, the heart of his plan is in executive actions. See link below. As you read this stuff, keep in mind that the real goal of all this is keep immigration reform on the front burner for the next two years and hopefully force congress to take action. By the time congress actually does anything, policies will be pretty well set and difficult to change. Republicans will produce the same type immigration law as in the past, providing they do anything at all, giving the president wide latitudes on enforcement because Republicans don't want to deal with immigration. If they did, it would be in the Legislative Agenda.

A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action Immigration Policy Center

 

[bendog]

No, it's pretty much anything the President does, period. If Obama picks his nose at his desk, that's an executive action.

You're trying to create problems that don't exist. Obama is using his authority as President to do things that are within the scope of his job. Just because you don't like it does not justify throwing your wet panties around in a hissy fit.

I take that mealy mouthed answer as an admission the Obama issued an EA and is a lying sack of dog squeeze for telling his base that he took action to change the law.

My numbers were from the government and were linked. Next!

All of my numbers were linked and were in context. Yours? Meh.

That you don't know the difference between executive orders etc is your problem, son, no one else.

You droids' hatred twists evidence and critical thinking into stupid conclusions.

The black man is president and will remain so. The brown people will not be mass deported.

The EO give the Congress a several month window to act: do so.

Obama didn't issue an EO dumbass! And the EA he did sign is a weak attempt at blackmail.

Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.


The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

Simply put, once again, Obama talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. For all his righteous rhetoric about how he was going to direct the executive branch to do this, and demand the Congress do that .... he simply wrote an opinion piece, that carries NO ability to implement his proposal.

In short, when it came 'nut cutting' time, Obama flinched. Despite all his posturing, he did nothing ... kinda like he does most of the time (how's that 'red line' thing working for ya?)

No, the Presidential Memorandums are not opinion pieces. They contain directives. Those directives contain general provisions and set up a task force to deal with specifics.

However, the heart of his plan is in executive actions. See link below. As you read this stuff, keep in mind that the real goal of all this is keep immigration reform on the front burner for the next two years and hopefully force congress to take action. By the time congress actually does anything, policies will be pretty well set and difficult to change. Republicans will produce the same type immigration law as in the past, providing they do anything at all, giving the president wide latitudes on enforcement because Republicans don't want to deal with immigration. If they did, it would be in the Legislative Agenda.

A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action Immigration Policy Center

Agreed the purpose is to keep immigration on the front burner, but I think the dem hope is no gop primary candidate will be able to endorse letting the folks stay and still survive the primaries. In short, they want the clown car candidates again.

 

[RKMBrown]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

I thought the SC said Obamacare was .... legal.

No. They merely ruled on one minor aspect. They ruled that the new taxes in ACA are constitutional. IOW they ruled that Congress can tax us.

What happened was some folks got focused on the "term" mandate.. The scotus ruled that congress lied to the American public and the mandate was a tax. Apparently lying to the American public.. yeah that's what politicians do, day in and day out.

There are dozens of other potential constitutional issues wrt. ACA that are making their way to the SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The EO is to force Congress to act.

I am sure the Dems want Congress to act "poorly."

 

[bendog]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

I thought the SC said Obamacare was .... legal.

No. They merely ruled on one minor aspect. They ruled that the new taxes in ACA are constitutional. IOW they ruled that Congress can tax us.

What happened was some folks got focused on the "term" mandate.. The scotus ruled that congress lied to the American public and the mandate was a tax. Apparently lying to the American public.. yeah that's what politicians do, day in and day out.

There are dozens of other potential constitutional issues wrt. ACA that are making their way to the SCOTUS.

yeah. The only real issue is about the state and federal exchanges, and unless the scotus chooses to be incredibly intellectually dishonest about what really occurred in drafting, the gop's real option is to pass a fcking law.

 

[RKMBrown]

This lawsuit is nothing more than a handjob to those in the base who are too stupid to know it's bullshit.

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

I thought the SC said Obamacare was .... legal.

No. They merely ruled on one minor aspect. They ruled that the new taxes in ACA are constitutional. IOW they ruled that Congress can tax us.

What happened was some folks got focused on the "term" mandate.. The scotus ruled that congress lied to the American public and the mandate was a tax. Apparently lying to the American public.. yeah that's what politicians do, day in and day out.

There are dozens of other potential constitutional issues wrt. ACA that are making their way to the SCOTUS.

yeah. The only real issue is about the state and federal exchanges, and unless the scotus chooses to be incredibly intellectually dishonest about what really occurred in drafting, the gop's real option is to pass a fcking law.

tons of issues...

The scotus can do all sorts of stuff.. wrt. the federal exchange issue. As written ACA was fine to say screw the states that don't want it, because it was passed by congress and signed into law.. at issue is Obama's not going by the law written... so what's new? Obama's got the discretion to say up means down when you turn the law upside down and the left means right when he reads it in the mirror. The guy's administration is a criminal organization. Congress is supposed to manage the President not the Scotus. I don't see this going anywhere.

If Obama's name was Nixon... congress would deal with his lawlessness.

 

[bripat9643]

The EO is to force Congress to act.

I am sure the Dems want Congress to act "poorly."

Why doesn't he just round them up and put them in prison? That would also force them to act.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it wouldn't. The far right and nativists in the GOP would cheer. So would the prison guard unions you support.