What Obama said about Immigration and passing it.

[jericho]

Funny that he said this and now, look at what he is doing. No way he needs to ever be held to his word. he is the capital L in liar.

 

President said in Miami, this is something he seemed to understand too."

 

“He was talking about immigration that day, and here's something else he said on the topic. "I know [that] some… wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that's not how democracy works.'

“Indeed, it isn't.

 

“All of which makes the President's planned executive action on immigration even more jarring.

 

“If the President truly follows through on this attempt to impose his will unilaterally, he will have issued a rebuke to his own stated view of democracy. And he will have contradicted his past statements on this very issue.

 

“The instances of President Obama saying that he does not have the power to do the kinds of things he now plans to do are almost too numerous to list. He tried to suggest otherwise last weekend. But a prominent fact-checker panned the spin as "Pinocchio-laden' and clarified that the President has been asked "specifically…[about] the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now.' The President's previous answers seemed to be unequivocal: he lacked the legal authority to act.

 

“As just one example, President Obama said last year that executive action was "not an option' because "[he] would be ignoring the law.' "There is a path to get this done,' he said, "and that is through Congress.'

“He's right. The action he's proposed would ignore the law, would reject the voice of the voters, and would impose new unfairness on law-abiding immigrants — all without solving the problem. In fact, his action is more likely to make it even worse.

 

Read more here: WASHINGTON, D.C.: McConnell: 'Congress will act' if Obama issues immigration executive order | Politics and Government | Kentucky.com

[hidinout]

I'm all for immigration reform , even some form or type of amnesty --- but this lawless , no respect for the law approach is poison ... This type of behavior is what has killed our country . And democrats are willing to do on any topic -- don't like what the voters do on marriage or health care or immigration -- screw them -- they are supid , like Obamas advisor admitted on multiple occasions . Just give them what I think is best ! -- right out of the condescending liberal playbook , as long we keep having suckers fall for it work ..very very sad .

[Run To State]

You guys plan on watching the president basically whiz on the constitution tonight?

[cammando]

Immigration reform IS needed.... BUT, you have to show me that the border can and will be secured BEFORE I'll agree to anything else..

[jericho]

This country has become a complete joke due to this President. I thought GW Bush was bad, well PRESIDENT OBAMA is 10 times worse. Harry Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have proved that this set of DEMS cant run a country.

They are willing to bankrup America to get some votes from the illegals.

[Clyde]

You guys plan on watching the president basically whiz on the constitution tonight?

 

How is an EO unconstitutional? It's not the first time a POTUS has used one in regards to immigration, correct?

[Bluegrasscard]

How is an EO unconstitutional? It's not the first time a POTUS has used one in regards to immigration, correct?

 

Some incorrectly cite EOs by Reagen and Bush as proof. These have been grossly out of context.

 

Their actions plugged a gap in a law by Congress. They suspended deportation of children and later spouses of those actually affected by a new law passed by Congress and signed the President on granting the original amnesty action. It impacted those who had had directly family relations of those who were directly impacted by a legally passed law. Basically it took the risk of family separation out while those who qualified worked through the process. Once all those who qualified were processed the EOs were no longer needed. There was no lasting, permenant impact of the EOs and it affected those were directly effected by the new law.

 

Some have said that the EOs will coming will be able to be replaced by new, not yet written laws. If an EO needs a law to replace it then it is acting as an law. A law on immigration. And laws on immigration are controlled Constitutionally by Congress. Creating laws out of thin air is definitely not the purpose of EOs.

[Run To State]

How is an EO unconstitutional? It's not the first time a POTUS has used one in regards to immigration, correct?

See post #7.

 

To answer further, I will let the president himself explain it to you. Maybe he should watch the video as well since his memory seems to be failing him.

 

[video=youtube_share;ehH8KMIxntQ]

[hidinout]

Only an extreme sympathizer can apologize for this action . Clyde I know you are smarter than to equate previous EO's with what the emperor plans to to do today . Wish people would just call wrong " wrong " regardless of party .

[ggclfan]

You guys plan on watching the president basically whiz on the constitution tonight?

 

Not wasting any of my time watching his goofiness...I have Jamaal Charles on my FF team so I will be watching something more entertaining.

[Clyde]

Only an extreme sympathizer can apologize for this action . Clyde I know you are smarter than to equate previous EO's with what the emperor plans to to do today . Wish people would just call wrong " wrong " regardless of party .

 

From everything I read today when I saw these posts many legal scholars on both sides of the political fence say the POTUS has the legal right to pass any sort of temporary reform. So instead of simply saying "emperor" tell me HOW it's doesn't pass legal muster when it has in the past and legal scholars say it will continue to do so?

 

That's what I'm asking.

[Clyde]

“I’m not disagreeing with you,” chimed in John Baker Jr. midway through Schroeder’s remark. Baker, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center, had earlier accused the Obama administration of having, “as its purpose,” the goal of “destabilizing the republic.” But he also made the case that the way to stop a president this hell-bent on destruction was neither through lawsuits nor impeachment. It's through cleaner legislative language.

 

“If Congress wants to restrain the discretion of the president, they are supposed to do what the separation of powers encourages them to do: Write the statute tightly so that it will be actually administered the way you want it administered," Baker said. "The reality is many members of Congress don’t care how it is administered until somebody squawks about it. They don’t read the statutes, so how do they know how it is going to be administered.”

 

 

Legal Panel At Federalist Society Begrudgingly Accepts Obama's Immigration Powers

This guy obviously is not a fan of the POTUS.

[Clyde]

On immigration, Obama may be cynical, but he's not breaking the law | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

But Margaret Stock, a Republican immigration lawyer and a Federalist Society member, notes that such accusations don’t appreciate that all this is fully authorized by those laws. "The Immigration and Nationality Act and other laws are chock-full of huge grants of statutory authority to the president,” she explains, a point also emphasized by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in its 2013 brief. “Congress gave the president all these powers, and now they are upset because he wants to use them. Other presidents have used the same authority in the past without an outcry.”

[Clyde]

But conservatives argue that failing to prosecute is not the same as legalizing, the further step that the president would be taking by issuing work permits.

 

But this is incorrect. Until Congress actually passes a law issuing permanent residency, nothing that Obama is suggesting would prevent future presidents from stripping these folks of their temporary status and deporting them. So an executive action falls short of “legalization” or “amnesty.”

 

 

So you guys that tell me it's unconstitutional are at odds with at least some Republican, conservative legal scholars. You'll pardon me if I sort of think it's not quite the absolute that you're trying to sell.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

So what was said in his speech. I got home from dinner in time to turn on the TV to hear the President say, "...and God bless America", turn around, and walk away from the podium.