The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO

The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

truckinslave -> The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 1:36:36 PM)
Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal?

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 1:40:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? His previous statements say that what it is believed he is going to do tonight is unconstitutional.

truckinslave -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 1:51:52 PM)
I know. When you look at how he's played/sounded the martyr before..... when you consider his obvious messianic self-image.... does he want crucified on the impeachment cross?

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 1:54:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I know. When you look at how he's played/sounded the martyr before..... when you consider his obvious messianic self-image.... does he want crucified on the impeachment cross? No, he wants to be King. And he knows that impeachment would fail, creating the illusion that Republicans are after him because they are racists.

truckinslave -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 1:55:29 PM)
As was/is Jesus.....?

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 1:57:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave As was/is Jesus.....? He may have delusions of that magnitude.

truckinslave -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 2:01:51 PM)
His actions make no sense to me other than from two starting points: 1. He truly believes that this is the morally right thing to do (yeah, I know, right?), and is worth the tremendous political and personal costs to follow, or: 2. He wants to pick an (impeachment) fight, completing his martyrdom and (finally) giving Dims something to run on/against.

mnottertail -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 2:20:34 PM)
Nope the Ebola ridden nutsuckers haven't got a legal leg to stand on, as usual, they are felching hallucination. See Arizona et al V United States. Over and out, its settled law, Obama is good to go.

DomKen -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 2:24:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing?

truckinslave -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 3:03:16 PM)
Neither Regan nor Bush broke existing law to issue millions of green cards. Had they done so, their action would not make these actions legal. I have just been made aware, however, of the existence of a law passed in 1996 that may make my question moot. These are, I think, legal waters both deep and murky.... No doubt we shall earn much more about the laws in question in the coming weeks. No less a liberal stalwart that Jonathan Turley has joined the House legal team; he and Dershowitz are the two lib legal eagles for whom I have the most respect....

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 3:07:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing? They did it through congress. That's the difference.

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 3:11:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing? It was a mistake when they did it, but pay attention, they did it legally, even Obama has repeatedly said that doing it this way was unconstitutional, but who care about the Constitution.

truckinslave -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 3:25:36 PM)
Dollars to donuts the same people who are offering kneejerk sophomoric support to this action were also big supporters of the FEC recess appointments. After all, their Ear Leader reputedly taught Con Law; what could go wrong?

DomKen -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 7:16:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing? They did it through congress. That's the difference. Nope. They issued EO's exactly like Obama just did. Get your facts straight.

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 7:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing? They did it through congress. That's the difference. Nope. They issued EO's exactly like Obama just did. Get your facts straight. They didn't issue EO's to ignore the law, get your facts straight because that is exactly what Obama did.

DomKen -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 7:23:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing? They did it through congress. That's the difference. Nope. They issued EO's exactly like Obama just did. Get your facts straight. They didn't issue EO's to ignore the law, get your facts straight because that is exactly what Obama did. Yes, they did. Get you facts straight. Each EO involved deferred deportations of some group exactly like Obama's.

BamaD -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 7:59:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Much has been written about the potential illegality of some of the provisions of the imminent EO. Most of what I've read involves discussion of Constitutionality in a somewhat theoretical sense. I have a much narrower question. Let us assume that Ebobama is indeed going to tell the requisite feds to issue green cards to illegal immigrants who meet criteria x, y and z. That's because the law, as currently written, requires recipients of green cards to meet criteria a, b and c. My question is simple: how can the green cards issued thusly be legal? The same way it was legal for Reagan, Bush I and II to do the same. How come it was perfectly legal and fine for a white republican President to do something but completely illegal and unconstitutional for a scary brown Democratic President to do the exact same thing? They did it through congress. That's the difference. Nope. They issued EO's exactly like Obama just did. Get your facts straight. They didn't issue EO's to ignore the law, get your facts straight because that is exactly what Obama did. Yes, they did. Get you facts straight. Each EO involved deferred deportations of some group exactly like Obama's. They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million.

DomKen -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/20/2014 9:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They did so in compliance with the 1986 law, get your facts straight, so they were just wrong, not extra legal. There is also a major difference in magnitude. Reagan delayed deportation of a couple hundred thousand, Obama several million. Obama is in compliance with the same law and scale is really irrelevant.

starkem -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 2:41:22 AM)
To the original question: it can be said that all natural US citizens are not "natural" unless they are Native Americans. Yet, I do not wish to start a new discussion in anthropology or history. To your question or whomever posed it: The reason that it is feasible that you can adapt such an edict or status as a natural US citizen is because some authority made it so! Don't try to put anyone in the category of illegitimate that is a fellow working and thriving human being within these borders. Even as you have asked this question so eloquently, it is merely verbal sewage that you are spewing from a place of fascist indignation to those you deem unworthy. If any president or governing body wishes to address and amend immigration laws in a sense of justice, fairness and equity, your inquiry appears hypocritical at best to the freedoms that all people should enjoy and demand as human rights. However, you have the right to inquire. You also have the right to vote to change laws you deem unconstitutional or illegal. Remember majority rules this process to some extent, and not the privileged few who wish to maintain the status quo. The reality is that the faces of US citizens are changing, and their roles in society are expanding progressively. I find these changes refreshing and necessary, and more in line with the changing reality of the population. I find the use of calling a man outside of his name in this matter, or suggesting he is engaged in some illegality (Obama) is very unsettling.

thishereboi -> RE: The possible illegality of Ebobama's EO (11/21/2014 7:20:06 AM)
I just don't know truckin. I keep trying to focus on the question but all I keep seeing is the juvenile name calling you can't seem to stop yourself from spewing. Ebobama? Seriously how fucking old are you? And why would I attempt an adult conversation with such an immature mind?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875