|
MrRodgers -> RE: Will GOP shut down DHS ? (2/20/2015 5:04:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Better question... How much do those who are paying attention love the DHS
To put a sharper point on it, how popular is Obamas illegal amnesty program among mainstream voters
Obama refuses to deal. The propagandists are all screaming that its all the GOPs "fault"
Not everyone is that stupid though
Well except that what Obama did was no more illegal when Reagan and Bush I did it.
They didn't do it just for shits and giggles, though. They did it for specific reasons and to protect those immigrants from having to go back home where they could be persecuted, or as a reward for serving. The law that allowed (I think it was Reagan) to expedite the immigration process actually included wording stating the President was allowed to do what Reagan did. He wasn't the first to expedite immigration proceedings according to that law, either.
Look guys, the forum now has a conservative apologist! One whom 'massages' things to place conservatives in the best possible light, and liberals in the worst.
Seriously.....(and back to reality)
Pot...Kettle...
quote:
DS, the President didnt take these actions as you put it "...for shits and giggles..." either! He had his reasons. Did you listen to them fairly? The President speaks often like a college professor. If you know how college professors talk during a lecture, it is to have one or a few main points. And that each main point has several supporting information/arguments attached. Thus, the speaker is displaying their whole train of thought and process to you, the audience. For many conservatives, they do not understand this process. It helps to get a college degree, which many of them do not.
I'm not demanding you to agree to what the President states for his push on the matter. Just if you have previously listen to them and considered things objectively? I dont agree with the President's stances on stuff at times. But I understand....why....he has arrived at his viewpoint. And that he is allowed his viewpoint. He's a US Citizen like you or me, right? But his viewpoint carries the backing of the White House with it. So that does give it considerably more pull at the federal level then us two combined! Tens of millions of people voted for the guy to be in the White House in two general elections.
You really do need to waddle away, Joether.
Do you really believe that President Obama's immigration orders are the same as Reagan's and Bush 41's?
You continually prove yourself to be a legend in your own mind.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Plus in US v Nixon the court said the president has the right to prosecute or not...any charges he wishes. To me, that includes violations of immigration law.
I don't understand how the President's oath to uphold the Constitution includes his not executing the laws passed by Congress. How the Supremes ever came to that conclusion escapes me. If you would, please link to that so I can try to follow the majority's reasoning.
The President does follow the laws past by Congress. And the White House also has certain latitudes to operate apart from the other two branches of government. Or, are you desiring that we diminish the powers of one branch, because its inconvenient with your political beliefs, and give it more power over the other two, when it agrees? That is what your arguing here, DS. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately to the rest of us: You dont get to dictate the power levels and structure!
You obviously don't have a clue what the fuck I'm supporting. It should be completely obvious to anyone who can read the English language on these boards that you're clueless as to what I write.
I said I wanted to read the majority's decision so I could understand why they felt the President could ignore executing the laws of the land. I said I didn't understand how the SCOTUS could come to that decision.
You are becoming more irrelevant, every time you post.
Article II of the Constitution states that the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But that does not mean that the president has an absolute duty to prosecute all violations of federal law, or that he cannot choose which ones to pursue based on policy considerations. If it did, virtually every president in the last century or more would be in violation.
Past presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have systematically exempted large numbers of illegal immigrants from deportation, including some 1.5 million people in the case of Bush. That does not by itself prove that Obama is acting legally; perhaps Reagan and Bush were undermining the rule of law as well.
But it does at least provide an important precedent, especially since few in either party claimed that the prior administrations’ actions were illegal at the time they were done. In this field, Congress itself has delegated wide latitude to the president, which makes the exercise of discretion even less problematic than in many other cases where the law is written in a more categorical way.
|
|
|
|
