Obama to sign executive order on Immigration Reform

[VRAMdemon]

Then the President should be impeached. Where are the calls for impeachment from the opposition? There aren't any real ones because he is acting within the legal bounds of his discretionary authority. If congress wants to pass a law restricting executive authority (they won't because the GOP wants it if they get the white house) they can.

Get the House to pass the Senate version. If they feel the President goes outside the bounds of the law they can impeach him.

Yep, Remember (9-11)... not that long ago? When Republicans were arguing for maximum scope of presidential autonomy from Congress, maximum powers, maximum freedom of action, even to the point of attaching an unprecedented number of "signing statements" to bills, all based on the strong version of the unitary executive theory.

 

[piasabird]

I consider executive orders suggestions with no law binding them in place.

 

[fskimospy]

I consider executive orders suggestions with no law binding them in place.

This is not correct. Legally speaking executive orders have the force of law.

The important distinction is that the reason executive orders have the force of law is that they derive their authority either from the president's inherent constitutional authority or from a statute.

Has anyone on here actually seen a coherent legal argument as to why Obama does not have the authority to do this?

 

[fskimospy]

14 Democrats joined 39 Republicans in the Senate to vote down amnesty legislation in 2007. I guess that was bipartisan as well.

Unless my calendar is wrong and it's suddenly 2007 again (sweet!) who cares?

 

[fskimospy]

Unfounded? This Administration has used the DOJ to intimidate state and local governments determined to enforce federal immigration laws.

Yes, states and local governments were attempting to usurp federal authority to manage immigration.

And by 'used DOJ to intimidate' you mean 'challenged state actions in court and won in every court that heard it'.

 

[K1052]

You said Republican concerns were unfounded...they're not.

You implied that the president is violating the law by using the DOJ to intimidate states and municipal governments. This (if accurate and provable) is illegal. Why has the House not impeached him?

Because he's actually not, that's why. They also don't want to rip out the levers of executive power from the presidency since they'll be wanting to use them also.

 

[Remobz]

This is not correct. Legally speaking executive orders have the force of law.

The important distinction is that the reason executive orders have the force of law is that they derive their authority either from the president's inherent constitutional authority or from a statute.

Has anyone on here actually seen a coherent legal argument as to why Obama does not have the authority to do this?

Nope. I doubt it as well.

 

[fskimospy]

You implied that the president is violating the law by using the DOJ to intimidate states and municipal governments. This (if accurate and provable) is illegal. Why has the House not impeached him?

Because he's actually not, that's why. They also don't want to rip out the levers of executive power from the presidency since they'll be wanting to use them also.

 

[michal1980]

I love how much the left is embracing this further growth of presidential power. As if its impossible that in the future someone they don't agree will be in office.

I for one think that the next republican in office should double down on these presidential powers. Just go nuts, stop enforcing every law a democrat likes.

and just be like... Obama did it.

 

[cabri]

He isn't choosing to NOT deport people.

He is also following the law.

where does it say otherwise?

edit: lol funny to see you state "Words Do have meaning" the ironing...

If a person is in custody and illegal; what is stopping ICE from being shipped out to their own country?

If a person's location is known and they have been ordered to be deported, why is ICE not collecting them and shipping them out?

Why is ICE allowing people into the country when apprehended at the border and releasing them with a vague promise to appear in 2-3 years later when there is no address to notify them?

 

[fskimospy]

I love how much the left is embracing this further growth of presidential power. As if its impossible that in the future someone they don't agree will be in office.

I for one think that the next republican in office should double down on these presidential powers. Just go nuts, stop enforcing every law a democrat likes.

and just be like... Obama did it.

You're an idiot. Let me say it for the 4th or 5th time:

He is not ignoring any laws. He is acting within the statutory authority already granted him by Congress.

 

[cabri]

So...don't do you job because the President cannot be trusted to do his anyway....


yeah. Sounds like a 3 year old tantrum to me.

Obama has aptly demonstrated with respect to immigration that he will not do the job that the country expects according to the laws.

He chooses to ignore the wishes of Congress and not enforce laws that exists.
Until Congress changes the immigration laws (which is what Obama wants), the existing laws are in force and should be enforced to the best of the government's ability.

ICE and the DOJ are not do so.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You're an idiot. Let me say it for the 4th or 5th time:

He is not ignoring any laws. He is acting within the statutory authority already granted him by Congress.

IF that truly was the case, why now? Why not years ago.... you know... when he was saying he couldn't...

 

[fskimospy]

Obama has aptly demonstrated with respect to immigration that he will not do the job that the country expects according to the laws.

He chooses to ignore the wishes of Congress and not enforce laws that exists.
Until Congress changes the immigration laws (which is what Obama wants), the existing laws are in force and should be enforced to the best of the government's ability.

ICE and the DOJ are not do so.

Can you link to a legal analysis of Obama's actions that says they are illegal?

 

[michal1980]

You're an idiot. Let me say it for the 4th or 5th time:

He is not ignoring any laws. He is acting within the statutory authority already granted him by Congress.

Right,right.


Liberal talk you speak. not enforcing the law, is not the same as ignoring the law. Got it.

So all the GOP president has to do, is not enforce laws.

err better yet prioritize everything else except the laws the liberals like.

 

[fskimospy]

IF that truly was the case, why now? Why not years ago.... you know... when he was saying he couldn't...

Because this isn't a permanent solution and it doesn't address all illegal immigrants within the US?

He tried to enact more comprehensive legislation, the House wasn't having it. Such is life.

 

[michal1980]

Can you link to a legal analysis of Obama's actions that says they are illegal?

Just because he might be doing something 'legal' does not mean he is doing the right thing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Has anyone on here actually seen a coherent legal argument as to why Obama does not have the authority to do this?

They'd need to cite a law that he is violating.

 

[michal1980]

Because this isn't a permanent solution and it doesn't address all illegal immigrants within the US?

He tried to enact more comprehensive legislation, the House wasn't having it. Such is life.

why didn't he try when he had the house and senate?

 

[fskimospy]

Right,right.

Liberal talk you speak. not enforcing the law, is not the same as ignoring the law. Got it.

So all the GOP president has to do, is not enforce laws.

err better yet prioritize everything else except the laws the liberals like.

I am willing to bet you know basically nothing about this topic.

Here's a CRS briefing on it in case you want to get caught up: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf

 

[fskimospy]

Just because he might be doing something 'legal' does not mean he is doing the right thing.

"I disagree with this action" is a very different statement than 'OMG TYRANNY'.

 

[Remobz]

What will happen to the illegals that are in the USA less than a year right now? Would they have to hide out for 5 years then come out of the closet?

 

[Svnla]

Obama speech of last night - "Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents' arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?."


Funny because last time I check, IF they (ILLEGALS) follow the LEGAL path to get here, NO ONE would rip their families apart. THEY ripped their OWN families apart BECAUSE of THEIR OWN ILLEGALS actions/paths.

Let see how far Billy Bob would go in court if he would use that same excuse of "not ripping family apart" when he would be receive a few years in county jail for cooking meth. After all, he is an "UNDOCUMENT" pharmacist, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Because this isn't a permanent solution and it doesn't address all illegal immigrants within the US?

He tried to enact more comprehensive legislation, the House wasn't having it. Such is life.

For the last 6 years? Seems to me the R's took the house in the nov 2010 elections so again why not when he had the house and senate?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ighlights-22-Times-Obama-Against-Exec-Amnesty
Attack the source if you want - I'm more interested in the quotes. He couldn't all the way up until now... right...

 

[fskimospy]

For the last 6 years? Seems to me the R's took the house in the nov 2010 elections so again why not when he had the house and senate?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ighlights-22-Times-Obama-Against-Exec-Amnesty
Attack the source if you want - I'm more interested in the quotes. He couldn't all the way up until now... right...

This isn't 'amnesty' by any definition for the term that has been used in relation to immigration.

That was easy. Breitbart depends on those reading it to be easily duped.