Obama's actions lawful, top legal scholars say-

That is why the Republican Party's "Hispanic outreach"....will always fail. Latinos can clearly see the membership of the GOP and what they think about Latinos.

- - - Updated - - -

YOU tried to make an analogy to torture....it was YOUR strawman.

BTW, the Beloved Son, Rand...will whine and moan and complain about Obama's move....and then in true Rand flip-flop fashion...will also come out and support something similar later.

 

Having heard all the Gruber stuff cited during the ACA debate and votes back in 2009 and 2010 and finally finding out that Gruber, their nonpartisan guru from MIT was in fact partisan and basically lying all the way, I wouldn't trust anyone or experts trotted out by the white house whether what the president did last night was legal or not.

I suppose it all depends on how the 1986 law was written. Did that law grant the president the leeway to do what he did? I don't know, but I think what powers that law gave the executive will have the final say whether or not what the president did last night is constitutional or not.

Overall I am kind of indifferent on his actions, its like the dream act, I am unsure whether the president had the power to do what he did or if he actually rewrote the law. Only the language of the 1986 law will answer that question.

The intent of this congress was to do nothing, that is clear. So President Obama did defy the intent of this congress. But the bigger question is did he defy the intent of the congress which passed the originally law back in 1986 or not? That in my mind will be the determining factor on whether or not what the president did last night is constitutional or not.

 

OK, for all who are wondering (why don't you just quote the stuff?), here it is:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This IS something assorted Congresses have done. No argument. There are laws on the books, and, it is up to the chief executive (president) to enforce them..... wait for it ..... little longer .... but he does have discretion when there is no laws that specifically forbids him from using that discretion in certain circumstances (like deportations). I am also sure that somewhere in the many law volumes and court cases, there are cases where the legislative body cannot order the chief executive to do something that requires funding, not provide said funding, then accuse the CEO of not following the law, which is EXACTLY what Congress is doing. It's called having your cake and eating it, too.

 

Stop with the Alinsky word play. Obama doesn't get constant and continual
Do-overs.I know Obama feels he's entitled to say stuff and then say more stuff
to cover over what stuff he already said.It's already beyond absurd.
That is what the Election was about 2 weeks ago.
Obama and his commies are trying to acclimate the culture that it's perfectly
okey dokey to Lie. That's it's No Biggie.Get the public used to lies and lying.
Like Porn or oversized soda drinks.

 

That is unless he has learned since that it Is within his authority. I am sure it will end up in the SC and if They say it Is within his powers then that is that.

 

Isn't 0bama our top constitutional scholar?? For three years he has been telling the Mexicans that he doesn't have the legal authority to do what he is trying to do.

That means that "0" is a liar so these Chicago thugs that agree with him now are liars too. One way or the other.

The funniest part of this was that these people will be paying their fare share of taxes. That means that they will be getting earned income credit and a refund of a tens of thousands of dollars depending on how long they claim they have been here. Those that aren't scamming the welfare system already will be getting that along with free health care.

0bama expects one of these 11M to discover a cure for conservatism and self-reliance or develop an less dangerous way to cook meth but I can't remember seeing very many Mexican engineers.

 

- - - Updated - - -

He said it would be unconstitutional, which means illegal since the constitution is law.

 

Being legal doesn't make it morally right, and Obama's intentions are NOT morally correct!

 

LOL, so sorry but not even the President is the final say on what is Constitutional or not, that is the job of the Supreme Court and when they rule on it I have the idea you will be whining about Liberal Judges writing laws, again.

 

Just look at the latest from the guy who drafted Obamacare. His comments reflect a common sentiment among Democrats. Their basic philosophy is "the American people are stupid and cannot make decisions for themselves, so they need us to think and make decisions for them".

Examples:
Obamacare- Wildly unpopular with the citizenry, passed by Democrats anyway.
Executive action on Immigration- wildly unpopular with the citizenry, Obama charges forward anyway.

 

why would he not have said that? He clearly may have thought that at the time but learned how much room he had to work with.

 

He is also doing much more than just deferment, he is also making those covered eligible for work permits, allowing them to be employed in the country legally and compete with citizens and legal residents for better-paying jobs.

 

because you say so? What would be the moral thing to do?

 

There is no need to expound.it's very simple.Has Obama ever said he Misspoke.
I don't believe so. Which is a polite way of saying he was wrong or lied or
whatever. Obama is one of those guys who refuses to admit he's wrong.
It is part of Liberalism.The Dempocrat Party never apologizes,as a general rule.
They never demand that their own step down,also.
In fact,Obama is one of those guys who believes he should double down
when caught in a Lie or blunder.
It was expected that Obama would do as he always does.To Trotsky-out some
leftists scholars to make an irrelevant legal argument.An argument that is
so flabby and out of shape it couldn't stand on the merits { on 2 foot }
even when sitting on a democrat mascot { the Donkey }.
During Siesta of all times.

 

You don't think he had reseaerched the limits of his authority before he started telling people that it wasn't within his authority?

His authority hasn't changed.

I guess you could argue that he was incompetent before and made a statement based on ignorance, but really...

 

Truly, ironic to see the Right declare a law that was signed by RONALD REAGAN "illegal and un-Constitutional", huh?

- - - Updated - - -

In 2012, the US Supreme Court already decided that the immigration agents could be given broad discretionary powers over the deportation process...

Anthony Kennedy (Reagan appointee) wrote the majority opinion.

 

Stop playing political games and close the border FIRST! Then actually try to reach a solution the American public actually agrees with. Duh!

 

1. So the answer to my question is "No, he didn't say in the past, what he proposed last night was un-Constitutional....the Rightwing talking point is false.

2. Have you ever actually read an entire book by Saul Alinsky? Yes or No?

- - - Updated - - -

"Stop playing politics and do what we conservatives want first!"

 

Its not lawful, he just invalidated congress.

If obama can hand down edicts like a king, then congress has no reason to exist.

 

I know this isn't the point you are trying to make but they are hard working. They can also do more than pick cabbage although someone has to do that too. As an employer I can tell you that our Mexican immigrant friends are as a group the hardest working people I am aware of.

 

First he did nothing when he had total control of the Congress and then it took him four years to study up on the Constitution before he wiped his butt with it and went against the will of the people who just kicked his ass in the last election.

 

This may come as a shock to you, but the American people just voted to put republicans in charge of congress.

Obamas first action after, he heard the will of the American people, was to invalidate the will of the American people, and the power of congress to enact laws.

Furthermore, His idea is idiotic from the outset. How is an illegal alien going to prove theyve been in America for 5 years?

Do you believe identity theft is a victimless crime?

Should illegal aliens who have committed identity theft, be allowed to stay too?

 

Obama and his commies are not rational.There is no making sense with them,
Especially what they say.The live to DECEIVE and DISTORT and play word games.
Just like Einstein said - " God does not play dice " so to that - Obama does not
play fair -.being fair and above board is the last thing on Obama's docket.
That is why he always managed to say that he's all about fairness and the Middle Class.
It's ALL Alinsky tactic.Go out and say stuff and actually DO the Opposite.
Obama said all kinds of touchy feely stuff in 2008.They never happened.
They were a Foil. Therefore it's Obama who wears a Tin-foil hat.
Obama is purposedly Preventing the American Dream.Purposedly thwarting
a better more transparent country.With more and better jobs.Where red States
and blue states have commonality and Americana.

 

The President's reluctance to step in will be noted, as well as his only doing so after a long-standing failure of Congress to address the issue, even after a bipartisan bill had passed in the Senate when the House leadership denied members the opportunity to vote on it.

It parallels Pappy Bush's acting unilaterally in 1989, after the Senate had passed a bill to to broaden legal status to the families of those to whom Reagan had granted amnesty but the House refused to take up the bill. Bush, as chief executive, ordered his INS to put in place the Senate's measures.


The principle difference between then and now is the rise of right wing media entertainers, of course, and the control they exert over their President-hating followers and the GOP.

That will become even more blatantly obvious.

 

HELLO! Securing the border is what makes reasonable common sense if you have an immigration problem. Why should we ignore the existing law in this one instance? What justifies ignoring one law, while enforcing others? Yes conservatives want this, but only because it is rational and sensible. We should want something irrational and nonsensical?