Why have laws?

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?

What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?

Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.

As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.

Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?

What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?

Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.

As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.

Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.

You are aware that under current law, unaccompanied minors cannot be deported until they've seen an immigration judge? (A law passed by George W. Bush in 2008)

And internal IRS best practices are not "laws" either.

 

[Skylar]

Because these children are from non-contiguous countries (not Canada or Mexico), they cannot be immediately deported, but must first go before a judge. This is according to U.S. law, as well as international refugee treaties to which the U.S. is party.

Explaining the surge of child migrants from Central America

With Obama looking to change that law, to make it easier to deport these children:

Obama will also request that Congress change a law that requires *unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries be allowed to fight their deportations in immigration court before being sent out of the country. The change would make it easier for the U.S. to quickly return such children to their home countries, mirroring a similar law currently in place for children from Mexico.

Obama to seek $2 billion to stem surge of Central American immigrants*-*Los Angeles Times

What about this, specifically do you object to, Templar?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously. Why have laws? Our government nowadays seems not to care about the law. Examples range from the destruction of evidence in the IRS scandal, to talks of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of children at the border. So, why do we have laws?

What good are laws if people won't follow them? Conversely, what good are laws that violate other ones? Why do we have a Constitution if our government won't execute it?

Anyhow, we have immigration laws. Obama claims he has no choice but to bypass congress to get Immigration reform done. The problem is, he has plenty of laws on the books regarding immigration. So why have them if our government is so willing to bypass them? Why have a Congress if our CinC is simply going to ignore them? Yes, 'compassion' and 'think of the children' and all of that. That's no excuse to eviscerate the law.

As far as the IRS scandal goes, there are accountability standards in place. None of them are adhered to, as we saw with Koskinen. That resulted in violating the Constitution rights of hundreds of non profit Conservative groups. Simply put, the law is meaningless as long as we have those in our government, Democrat or Republican, who refuse to enforce it.

Broken record time: So in the end, what good are laws? Apparently, not good enough for our friends in Washington to follow.

You are aware that under current law, unaccompanied minors cannot be deported until they've seen an immigration judge? (A law passed by George W. Bush in 2008)

And internal IRS best practices are not "laws" either.

Uh yeah, they are if they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. They have parent laws, so any violation of those regulations violates the parent law and as such regulations carry the same weight of law. By edicts of Congress, and according to J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), federal agencies are able to make rules of their own, so long as they don't stretch beyond what is called for by Congress. These rules must have an intelligible principle set forth by Congress or they violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Like I said. Laws.

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because these children are from non-contiguous countries (not Canada or Mexico), they cannot be immediately deported, but must first go before a judge. This is according to U.S. law, as well as international refugee treaties to which the U.S. is party.

Explaining the surge of child migrants from Central America

With Obama looking to change that law, to make it easier to deport these children:

Obama will also request that Congress change a law that requires *unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries be allowed to fight their deportations in immigration court before being sent out of the country. The change would make it easier for the U.S. to quickly return such children to their home countries, mirroring a similar law currently in place for children from Mexico.

Obama to seek $2 billion to stem surge of Central American immigrants*-*Los Angeles Times

What about this, specifically do you object to, Templar?

Read the comment below.

 

[TemplarKormac]

With Obama looking to change that law, to make it easier to deport these children:

What about this, specifically do you object to, Templar?

Read the comment below.

So....nothing then?

Were you aware of the law that prevents the immediate deportation of these children? If yes, then why would we violate it? If no, then perhaps you should do some deeper research on the issue.

Do you have reading trouble, friend?

Uh yeah, they are if they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. They have parent laws, so any violation of those regulations violates the parent law and as such regulations carry the same weight of law. By edicts of Congress, and according to J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), federal agencies are able to make rules of their own, so long as they don't stretch beyond what is called for by Congress. These rules must have an intelligible principle set forth by Congress or they violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Like I said. Laws.

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

 

[Skylar]

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

We can send them back. But they get a hearing before a judge first if they are 1) children 2) from a non-contiguous country (ie, something other than canada or mexico).

Again, you don't seem to be aware of the laws surrounding this issue. Or Obama's attempts to change them to make the deportations faster.

 

[Skylar]

Read the comment below.

So....nothing then?

Were you aware of the law that prevents the immediate deportation of these children? If yes, then why would we violate it? If no, then perhaps you should do some deeper research on the issue.

Do you have reading trouble, friend?

Uh yeah, they are if they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. They have parent laws, so any violation of those regulations violates the parent law and as such regulations carry the same weight of law. By edicts of Congress, and according to J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), federal agencies are able to make rules of their own, so long as they don't stretch beyond what is called for by Congress. These rules must have an intelligible principle set forth by Congress or they violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Like I said. Laws.

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

So you're claiming that the laws preventing the deportion of children from non-contiguous countries without a hearing before an judge doesn't exist? Or that it shouldn't be enforced?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

We can send them back. But they get a hearing before a judge first if they are 1) children 2) from a non-contiguous country (ie, something other than canada or mexico).

Again, you don't seem to be aware of the laws surrounding this issue. Or Obama's attempts to change them to make the deportations faster.

By bypassing congress? Obama doesn't want to wait for Congress to act, he will issue an Executive Order abolishing that law. That law Bush passed made it harder to deport people. I know. I know about the law. My gosh, do you think I'm stupid? But if you want it done, DO IT RIGHT.

“The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by King George III. The description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image. Continental European examples were no more appealing. And, if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the executive powers in those governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian. I cannot accept the view that the clause is a grant in bulk of all conceivable executive power.”

Justice Hugo Black, Majority Opinion, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

According to Justice Hugo black in that ruling, Executive Orders must:

1) "stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”

and they would stand dubiously if it is

2) “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

What Obama is doing might be well and good, but it violates legal precedent. It robs Congress of it's ability to make laws to address the situation.


Skylar. I have been studying law, local, state and federal as a hobby for nearly 5 years. I probably know more about the law than you. Don't lecture me about law. Make Congress repeal that law, the president has no power to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So....nothing then?

Were you aware of the law that prevents the immediate deportation of these children? If yes, then why would we violate it? If no, then perhaps you should do some deeper research on the issue.

Do you have reading trouble, friend?

Uh yeah, they are if they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. They have parent laws, so any violation of those regulations violates the parent law and as such regulations carry the same weight of law. By edicts of Congress, and according to J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), federal agencies are able to make rules of their own, so long as they don't stretch beyond what is called for by Congress. These rules must have an intelligible principle set forth by Congress or they violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Like I said. Laws.

And frankly I don't care what Bush did. That law he passed was a mistake as well. Not only can we not send them back, more are coming. Anytime I bring up Obama, Bush comes up. This is a blatant ploy by the Hondurans because Obama issued an EO enforcing the Dream Act. Those people aren't stupid. Obama alone is responsible for this crisis, and Bush didn't help either. This compassion business is causing a humanitarian crisis.

So you're claiming that the laws preventing the deportion of children from non-contiguous countries without a hearing before an judge doesn't exist? Or that it shouldn't be enforced?

I would thank you not to put words in my mouth.

It is known as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. And yes, it does exist. Anything else? I asked in my OP "what good are laws that violate other laws?" which was specifically pointed at presidents past or present. If a law violates another law, it shouldn't be enforced. If a law is unconstitutional, abolish it.

 

[Skylar]

By bypassing congress? Obama doesn't want to wait for Congress to act, he will issue an Executive Order abolishing that law. That law Bush passed made it harder to deport people. I know. I know about the law. My gosh, do you think I'm stupid? But if you want it done, DO IT RIGHT.

You don't seem to follow what's going on with these kids. Its Congress that passed the law that is making the deportation of these children more difficult. And Obama that is asking congress to change the law.

Obama will also request that Congress change a law that requires *unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries be allowed to fight their deportations in immigration court before being sent out of the country. The change would make it easier for the U.S. to quickly return such children to their home countries, mirroring a similar law currently in place for children from Mexico.

Obama to seek $2 billion to stem surge of Central American immigrants*-*Los Angeles Times

You seem to be demanding that Obama ignore the law, ignore the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and simply do as he pleases.

You can't rightly complain about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation. Well, I suppose you could. But its a wildly inconsistent position.

 

[Skylar]

It is known as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. And yes, it does exist. Anything else? I asked in my OP "what good are laws that violate other laws?" which was specifically pointed at presidents past or present.

Then its the law that is preventing the immediate deportation of these children. And Obama's compliance with it. With Obama asking Congress to change the law to make the process of deportation easier.

When I asked you what you had a problem with, you started citing USSC decisions from 1928 and talking about 'parent laws'. But you didn't actually answer the question. So let me try again:

What about this, specifically do you object to, Templar?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Besides, that law deals with trying to prohibit human trafficking. You do know that stuff goes on down there, don't you?

 

[Skylar]

Besides, that law deals with trying to prohibit human trafficking. You do know that stuff goes on down there, don't you?

'Stuff', huh? Way to break out the technical jargon.

Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster.

Where then, is your problem? Its a simple question. And in a hour and half a dozen posts, one you've starkly refused to answer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By bypassing congress? Obama doesn't want to wait for Congress to act, he will issue an Executive Order abolishing that law. That law Bush passed made it harder to deport people. I know. I know about the law. My gosh, do you think I'm stupid? But if you want it done, DO IT RIGHT.

You don't seem to follow what's going on with these kids. Its Congress that passed the law that is making the deportation of these children more difficult. And Obama that is asking congress to change the law.

Obama will also request that Congress change a law that requires *unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries be allowed to fight their deportations in immigration court before being sent out of the country. The change would make it easier for the U.S. to quickly return such children to their home countries, mirroring a similar law currently in place for children from Mexico.

Obama to seek $2 billion to stem surge of Central American immigrants*-*Los Angeles Times

You seem to be demanding that Obama ignore the law, ignore the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and simply do as he pleases.

You can't rightly complain about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation. Well, I suppose you could. But its a wildly inconsistent position.

"If Congress won't act, I will."

-President Obama. February 21, 2012.

"We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation... I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone...And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions..."

-President Obama, January 14, 2014

Tell me, where do you get off telling me not to complain? I have every right to. He cares little about the law, he continues a disturbing trend of Presidents who willfully flout the law when it suits them. It must stop. Do you really think he will wait on Congress to pass something pertaining to those children?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

By bypassing congress? Obama doesn't want to wait for Congress to act, he will issue an Executive Order abolishing that law. That law Bush passed made it harder to deport people. I know. I know about the law. My gosh, do you think I'm stupid? But if you want it done, DO IT RIGHT.

You don't seem to follow what's going on with these kids. Its Congress that passed the law that is making the deportation of these children more difficult. And Obama that is asking congress to change the law.

You seem to be demanding that Obama ignore the law, ignore the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and simply do as he pleases.

You can't rightly complain about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation. Well, I suppose you could. But its a wildly inconsistent position.

"If Congress won't act, I will."

-President Obama. February 21, 2012.

"We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation... I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone...And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions..."

-President Obama, January 14, 2014

Tell me, where do you get off telling me not to complain? I have every right to. He cares little about the law, he continues a disturbing trend of Presidents who willfully flout the law when it suits them. It must stop. Do you really think he will wait on Congress to pass something pertaining to those children?

Perhaps you should wait and see if he actually does anything before getting outraged.

Saying and doing are two different things.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Besides, that law deals with trying to prohibit human trafficking. You do know that stuff goes on down there, don't you?

'Stuff', huh? Way to break out the technical jargon.

Back to the point, the law specific prohibits the deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing.

Obama isn't deporting unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries without a deportation hearing. Which is exactly what the law says he should do.

Obama is taking it step further, asking Congress to change the law so that deportation of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries can occur faster.

Where then, is your problem? Its a simple question. And in a hour and half a dozen posts, one you've starkly refused to answer.

I just looked up the law, you buffoon. It says nothing about deportations. In fact they have to see a judge to determine if they were or are victims of human trafficking.

Please learn to read and study the law. I love how you two tried to spin the law into something it wasn't. Lucking I can do research on the fly.

Read.

President Bush signs William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking

 

[Skylar]

Tell me, where do you get off telling me not to complain? I have every right to

And I have every right to tell you your position is wildly inconsistent if you're lamenting about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation.

Again, its the law that is preventing these children from being immediately deported. Obama is following the law.

So what's the problem?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't seem to follow what's going on with these kids. Its Congress that passed the law that is making the deportation of these children more difficult. And Obama that is asking congress to change the law.

You seem to be demanding that Obama ignore the law, ignore the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and simply do as he pleases.

You can't rightly complain about Obama enacting his own regulation while *demanding* that Obama enact his own regulation. Well, I suppose you could. But its a wildly inconsistent position.

"If Congress won't act, I will."

-President Obama. February 21, 2012.

"We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation... I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone...And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions..."

-President Obama, January 14, 2014

Tell me, where do you get off telling me not to complain? I have every right to. He cares little about the law, he continues a disturbing trend of Presidents who willfully flout the law when it suits them. It must stop. Do you really think he will wait on Congress to pass something pertaining to those children?

Perhaps you should wait and see if he actually does anything before getting outraged.

Saying and doing are two different things.

That is a cop out, Doc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Tell me, where do you get off telling me not to complain? I have every right to. He cares little about the law, he continues a disturbing trend of Presidents who willfully flout the law when it suits them. It must stop. Do you really think he will wait on Congress to pass something pertaining to those children?

Perhaps you should wait and see if he actually does anything before getting outraged.

Saying and doing are two different things.

That is a cop out, Doc.

It's not.

Getting outraged about rhetoric is stupid. Only actions matter.