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, the President HIMSELF over the years MANY TIMES has said what he did last night is not constitutional. He knows it himself. Watch the tapes. The legal scholars on both sides can argue and twist things around on any subject including this one. As a conservative leaning guy, I don't even think doing what he did is all that bad. Something has to be done about the illegals in the country but I don't agree with how he did it and that nothing is being done about sealing the borders. Sealing the border MUST be included with granting amnesty or we are going to have a new flood of illegals making the problem even worse.

 

The timing of this is very suspicious. After the Republicans won in the wave election a couple of weeks ago, Obama said he wanted to work with the new congress but then does this BEFORE they are even in place. There was no rush to do this other than Obama wanted to pick a fight with the Republicans and he knew this would accomplish that. I actually think Obama wants a terrible relationship with congress so he can blame them for all his failures and he knows the media will largely back him.

Well actually how ever many illegals that all of a sudden become legal, will get all free benefits due to tax payers and are 18 are now Dems.

 

First, they are not "suddenly" legal. They still have to come forward, go through the process, and proceed to the back of the line. All that was done was they were promised that as long as they are haven't broken any laws (aside from being here illegally), and they come forward, they won't be automatically deported. They are still likely months, if not years from being able to vote. And let's face it, as a country we struggle to get more than 50% of our current population to vote. Maybe we should be more concerned about our own voting apathy than the effect of adding a few million new voters.

Legalities aside, what are the main bullet points and time frame of his plan?

Jonathon Turley , constutional law expert from Georgetown U and and largely a democrat supporter is no fan of this move , and neither is Jay Sekelow a supporter of this move , lastly even if it is questionably legal it's a terrible terrible political move . Unless you are an illegal immigrant .

 

.

 

So you've cited some legal folks that think you're right. I've cited some Republican legal folks that think the POTUS is not breaking the law or violating the constitution. Why is your guy right?

Clyde, the President HIMSELF over the years MANY TIMES has said what he did last night is not constitutional. He knows it himself. .

 

Surely you're not mad that he said one thing and then changed his mind, right? Especially in regards to legal interpretation? A POTUS can't change his mind? A POTUS can't be political?

 

Why do you hang your hat on his previous legal interpretation? If he had said it was 100% LEGAL would you also be saying " it must be - he said so himself?"

 

Are we now saying President Obama is the top legal scholar in the country? Did I miss this declaration?

 

Hammer him for being political. That's more than fair.

So you've cited some legal folks that think you're right. I've cited some Republican legal folks that think the POTUS is not breaking the law or violating the constitution. Why is your guy right?

 

The debate is why it will probably be challenged, seems like there are a lot of conflicting opinions from the legal community. I think someone said Boehner would have to file a suit?

The debate is why it will probably be challenged' date=' seems like there are a lot of conflicting opinions from the legal community. I think someone said Boehner would have to file a suit?[/quote']

 

Exactly. Conflicting opinions. Why are there so many definitive statements being made.

Surely you're not mad that he said one thing and then changed his mind, right? Especially in regards to legal interpretation? A POTUS can't change his mind? A POTUS can't be political?

 

Why do you hang your hat on his previous legal interpretation? If he had said it was 100% LEGAL would you also be saying " it must be - he said so himself?"

 

Are we now saying President Obama is the top legal scholar in the country? Did I miss this declaration?

 

Hammer him for being political. That's more than fair.

 

I think Obama fashions himself as a top legal scholar but no, I don't think he is. As I said, you can find legal scholars who will argue both sides on ANY issue. To answer your question, I AM very mad that he continually says things that are patently false on many issues (if you want to say he is just changing his mind, then you are more forgiving of him than me). I don't think for one second he "changed his mind" on whether this is constitutional or not. He still feels it is not constitutional but is doing it anyway because (1) it is what he wants to do, (2) he doesn't give a rip about the constitution and (3) he wants to create a wider rift between the Republicans and himself because it will help him politically (since he has nothing to say good about what he has done, it helps him to say at least I am better than the R's).

 

He may be wrong on the third point IMO - even though the media will back him no matter what, I think the tide is turning on him and that the country as a whole is seeing just how deceitful both he and the media have been. The elections a couple of weeks show that to some extent and the Gruber fallout, even though it is being ignored by many in the media, is pretty damaging.

The debate is why it will probably be challenged, seems like there are a lot of conflicting opinions from the legal community. I think someone said Boehner would have to file a suit?

 

The Texas governor (Abbott) has already said Texas will file suit. There will be many I would think.

I'm wasting my time , he could be caught on tape laughing at the stupid voters who support him and they STILL make excuses for him .. wait that already happened and I'm correct !!!

SNL....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X_D32LVz_s

Exactly. Conflicting opinions. Why are there so many definitive statements being made.

 

You are to intelligent for the comments you are making and the position you are forming.

 

One can agree with the results and still admit the procedure crossed a line. There is a lot of legal buffornery being discussed. Grey areas being pushed. The bottom line is Obama created a new category of citizen or citizen in waiting without an act of Congress . You can't honestly believe in your gut this is legal .

You are to intelligent for the comments you are making and the position you are forming. One can agree with the results and still admit the procedure crossed a line. There is a lot of legal buffornery being discussed. Grey areas being pushed. The bottom line is Obama created a new category of citizen or citizen in waiting without an act of Congress . You can't honestly believe in your gut this is legal .

 

How in the world would you or I be able to make an educated decision when legal scholars cannot agree?

How in the world would you or I be able to make an educated decision when legal scholars cannot agree?

 

Legal experts look for loop holes and grey area's and I get it. As an educated person I can understand that redefining a new class of people without an act of congress is almost unprecedented. I'm guessing the only thing similar would be Lincoln after the Civil War but I don't even think that is a fair comparison.

 

If we need a law degree to have an opinion on a pure political move we might as well shut this forum down now.

"I just took an action to CHANGE THE LAW."

 

 

 

https://www.votetocracy.com/blog/what-are-executive-orders

 

"Presidents have been accused a number of times of abusing executive orders. The most common abuse is when the president uses them to make or change laws without the approval of Congress."