bikerlou47 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It's addressed to all Obama haters.. Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It's addressed to all Obama haters.. Is that you? Yeah, pretty much. How's the "Kool Aid" tasting about now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerlou47 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Just keep drinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDGRUEN Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 All this bloviation about Obama's daring Executive Order granting prosecutorial discretion rights on a broad basis mean nothing. Unless thee is something hidden under Executive Privilege, Obama NEVER issued the alleged Executive Order. Can anybody provide a link to the Federal Register where the Order would appear? Following is what a Republican Senator says about it: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SENATOR RIDICULES OBAMA FOR NOT SIGNING AMNESTY ORDER 'It's a stunning event' Published: 8 hours ago GARTH KANT WASHINGTON – Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading opponent of President Obama’s move to provide amnesty for up to 5 million illegal immigrants, expressed astonishment Monday and ridiculed the administration for not carrying out the action through an executive order. In remarks made at the Washington office of the government-watchdog group Judicial Watch, Sessions said: “I guess they just whispered in the ear of (DHS Director) Jeh Johnson over at Homeland Security, ‘Just put out a memo. That way we don’t have to enforce the law.’” Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/senator-ridicules-obama-for-not-signing-amnesty-exec-order/#jPstRqUEF3g8TJpJ.99 Yes Chuckd -- not only does the esteem Senator Jeff Sessions have the information that obama never issued an Executive Order as he threatened - but he as you said -- just had the Secretary of DHS Johnson issue a series of Memorandum to do it... Totally without legal basis ... ********************************************************** A National Archives librarian, Jeffrey Hartley, made the confirmation in an email Thursday to WND. “As I indicated, it would appear that there is not an Executive Order stemming from the President’s remarks on November 20 on immigration,” Hartley wrote. http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/head-fake-obama-never-signed-amnesty-order/#8hMbwE5XjmVf2AsU.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Here is the latest fallout from Obama's self touted Executive Order...which apparently doesn't even exist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama Admits Amnesty Is For Many More Than 5 Million 7:56 PM 12/09/2014 NEIL MUNRO White House Correspondent President Barack Obama told a group of illegal immigrants in Tennessee that his immigration-law rewrite means “you’re not going to be deported.” Obama’s admission acknowledged that his Nov. 21 declaration provides a de-facto amnesty for the 12 million illegals living in the United States. The confession contradicts his many suggestions, and many media reports, that his Nov. 21 amnesty covers only 5 million illegal immigrants whose children have citizenship or green cards. More here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/09/obama-admits-12-million-amnesty/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The reference is to last year. The figure of 30,000 is wrong. The 5000 released detainees were facing deportation last year but had to be released due to budget cuts. Those released last year were illegal/undocumented aliens, not violent or viscious criminals as portrayed by right wing extremists in their posts here even if by implication. The released from custody 5000 went on to be deported as scheduled. This is not news. It is old stuff blown beyond recognition by fanatic right wingers. As soon as I saw that 30,000 figure I knew it wasn't accurate. Even the staunchest supporters of the president's immigration policy wouldn't support releasing 30,000 convicted criminals onto America's streets. It's ridiculous on its face. At least it is to most people. Hyper-partisans (left and right) on the other hand are predisposed to believing and repeating anything that they think will cast a negative image on their political enemy. Logic be damned. And that's why they end up with egg on their faces so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thailiketoo Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Many refugees were discovered to be undesirables; for example, criminals who had been released from Cuban prisons or other institutions (such as people with mental illness).[citation needed] The exact number of 'undesirables' that arrived in the boatlift is disputed, with estimates ranging from as low as 7,500 to as high as 40,000. Take a guess who was President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift Edited December 10, 2014 by thailiketoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravip Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 "If you plan to enter the US illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." Who REALLY want to enter the US even legally? I know, the terrorists do so very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) All this bloviation about Obama's daring Executive Order granting prosecutorial discretion rights on a broad basis mean nothing. Unless thee is something hidden under Executive Privilege, Obama NEVER issued the alleged Executive Order. Can anybody provide a link to the Federal Register where the Order would appear? Following is what a Republican Senator says about it: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SENATOR RIDICULES OBAMA FOR NOT SIGNING AMNESTY ORDER 'It's a stunning event' Published: 8 hours ago GARTH KANT WASHINGTON – Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading opponent of President Obama’s move to provide amnesty for up to 5 million illegal immigrants, expressed astonishment Monday and ridiculed the administration for not carrying out the action through an executive order. In remarks made at the Washington office of the government-watchdog group Judicial Watch, Sessions said: “I guess they just whispered in the ear of (DHS Director) Jeh Johnson over at Homeland Security, ‘Just put out a memo. That way we don’t have to enforce the law.’” Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/senator-ridicules-obama-for-not-signing-amnesty-exec-order/#jPstRqUEF3g8TJpJ.99 Yes Chuckd -- not only does the esteem Senator Jeff Sessions have the information that obama never issued an Executive Order as he threatened - but he as you said -- just had the Secretary of DHS Johnson issue a series of Memorandum to do it... Totally without legal basis ... ********************************************************** A National Archives librarian, Jeffrey Hartley, made the confirmation in an email Thursday to WND. “As I indicated, it would appear that there is not an Executive Order stemming from the President’s remarks on November 20 on immigration,” Hartley wrote. http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/head-fake-obama-never-signed-amnesty-order/#8hMbwE5XjmVf2AsU.99 It makes no difference whether it was by Executive Order or by Executive Memorandum. The president signed two memoranda ('signed' means he wrote his name). The effect is the same. The president hasn't ever said he signed an executive order. Executive order, executive memorandum...it makes no difference because each one is an order to a department or agency ceo. If the president wants it to be an executive order he sends it to the Federal Register where it is assigned its sequential numeration. Otherwise, it is an executive memorandum. Memoranda far outnumber executive orders. Senator Sessions is a blowhard who is always in session. You and he with others are quoting well financed and prolific fringe media, so I think I'll go to the right of center on this one, just not as far right as you guys do...... FoxNews.com Obama signs executive action delaying deportations for millions of illegal immigrants Published November 21, 2014FoxNews.com His action will grant “deferred action” to two illegal immigrant groups- parents of United States citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for five years, and young people who who were brought into the country illegally as of 2010 “Mass amnesty would be unfair,” Obama said during the primetime address. “Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character.” "Not everyone will qualify," Obama conceded. "That's the truth. Listen, I heard you and what I'm saying is we're still going to have to pass a bill." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/21/obama-signs-executive-action-delaying-deportations-for-millions-illegal/ Obama signs two Presidential Memoranda associated with his Executive Actions on immigration from his office on Air Force One upon his arrival in Las Vegas Edited December 10, 2014 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 How's this for Obama following up on his responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed'? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama Deputies Free 30,862 Foreign Criminals 6:30 PM 12/05/2014 NEIL MUNRO White House Correspondent President Barack Obama’s immigration deputies released 30,862 foreign criminals into the United States’ cities and neighborhoods, according to a federal document. The document also showed that Obama repatriated less than 1 percent of the 12 million illegals living in the United States during the 12 months up to October 2014. Officials also repatriated only 8,805 of the roughly 180,000 unskilled Central American migrants who flooded across the border since 2011, according to the “Fiscal Year 2014 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operation Report.” Read article here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/05/obama-deputies-free-30862-foreign-criminals/ http://documents.latimes.com/immigration-and-customs-draft-report/ @ up-country_sinclair and Publicus: The above quoted post is one I made on 07 December concerning the 30,000+ illegal immigrant criminals released back into the population during fiscal 2014. I provided a link to the article and a link to the official US Government report. If you question my original post, then why don't you dig through the ICE report and discover for yourselves what the investigative reporters for the Daily Caller have already done for us. For your further information, last year's report showed a figure of 36,000 illegal immigrants released back into the general public. Damp wash cloths are good for removing egg from your faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 <snip> It makes no difference whether it was by Executive Order or by Executive Memorandum. The president signed two memoranda ('signed' means he wrote his name). The effect is the same. <snip> He signed TWO of them? If he did, neither of them have the authority to do what he claimed to a heckler that he did. Obama to illegal hecklers: 'I just took an action to change the law' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 How's this for Obama following up on his responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed'? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama Deputies Free 30,862 Foreign Criminals 6:30 PM 12/05/2014 NEIL MUNRO White House Correspondent President Barack Obama’s immigration deputies released 30,862 foreign criminals into the United States’ cities and neighborhoods, according to a federal document. The document also showed that Obama repatriated less than 1 percent of the 12 million illegals living in the United States during the 12 months up to October 2014. Officials also repatriated only 8,805 of the roughly 180,000 unskilled Central American migrants who flooded across the border since 2011, according to the “Fiscal Year 2014 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operation Report.” Read article here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/05/obama-deputies-free-30862-foreign-criminals/ http://documents.latimes.com/immigration-and-customs-draft-report/ @ up-country_sinclair and Publicus: The above quoted post is one I made on 07 December concerning the 30,000+ illegal immigrant criminals released back into the population during fiscal 2014. I provided a link to the article and a link to the official US Government report. If you question my original post, then why don't you dig through the ICE report and discover for yourselves what the investigative reporters for the Daily Caller have already done for us. For your further information, last year's report showed a figure of 36,000 illegal immigrants released back into the general public. Damp wash cloths are good for removing egg from your faces. I posted about a lot of this to a previous immigration thread so based on prior experience with the memory of a certain poster let me reference it again and add to it now. First, the Gingrich-Clinton immigration laws of 1996 vastly expanded and loosened the definition of "aggravated felonies" so that any alien could be charged and found guilty in a secret proceeding, then shipped out immediately. More often however an alien who perhaps shoplifted some cigars would be arrested, convicted in private of an "aggravated felony" and incarcerated, i.e., detained. Secondly, the particular release of this year is radically different from the release of last year. This year, 126,921 aliens were released, whereas last year 5000 of 30,000 were released but deported as scheduled anyway as they were not by any standard convicts. The ICE report states that in the release of this year, 30,852 aliens were released, many of whom were convicted under the greatly expanded parameters of the 1996 "aggravated felony" laws and secret processes that are absent lawyers and witnesses. In each instance the ICE Agency (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was directed to release undocumented or convicted aliens due to a conflation of budget reductions, court decisions pertaining to the 1996 laws (evidence presented in secret to a judge and no attorneys present), detention-focused laws, inadequate facilities and the like. In both instances, ICE is responsible to ensure all aliens released in this manner adhere to the conditions of release that ICE assigns according to the applicable laws and that scheduled deportations are carried out. Released alien convicts are clamped with electronic GPS monitoring devices and are also monitored by the federal Alternatives to Detention Program. Anyone can (and will) produce reports of grotesque horrors committed by aliens convicted of homicide and much else that will be true. However, many undocumented aliens under suspicion are either being investigated, are investigated but not charged, or are charged but not tried, tried but not convicted. Some are indeed convicted of serious crimes, while others are convicted based on their status as aliens which in most instances would probably be fine . It is also the case that the Supreme Court has said the government generally cannot hold immigrants for more than six months if it has no prospect of deporting them. To save money and due to inadequate facilities, among other "administrative" reasons, ICE freed some otherwise 'clean record' detainees before the six-month clock ran out. Funding questions originate in the Congress. "We had been asking for some time whether we would have enough money to sustain the level of detention we had, and we didn't get an answer," the former head of ICE's detention operation, Gary Mead said. "When we did get an answer, it was that we had to start releasing people today." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) <snip> It makes no difference whether it was by Executive Order or by Executive Memorandum. The president signed two memoranda ('signed' means he wrote his name). The effect is the same. <snip> He signed TWO of them? If he did, neither of them have the authority to do what he claimed to a heckler that he did. Obama to illegal hecklers: 'I just took an action to change the law' Thanks for that because it suddenly made things click. Yes, 'hyper' is the word. Hyper sums it all up and does it perfectly well. You guys are hyper. And here I'd been using all these terms and words such as 'far out' and 'extreme right wing' which I've now tossed into the dumpster, and I have guyz like you to thank for it. The president changed the application of the law. Unless of course one doesn't like him, or even hates him, in which case he changed the law, literally, when he in fact changed the application of the laws, and he knows that first and foremost among us. A flight of rhetoric is not a policy or program and the president knows that too. Have the Republican party crack lawyers take the video to court so everyone can watch their briefs fall down. Some presidents tend to be rhetorical while other presidents tend to be....well, Prezident George W Bush: "A lot of times in politics you have people look you in the eye and tell you what's not on their mind." --In Washington, D.C., on September 26, 2008 Hyper...yes, that's it,.hyper... You guys are hyper. Edited December 10, 2014 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Not to be overly argumentative, but, what exactly did he say in the video I provided? Did he say..."I took action to change the law"? Or did he say..."I took an action to change the application of the law"? Regardless of your spin on words, whatever he signed or however he decided to take this action, it is in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states...he (The President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Spin away. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Spin away. That is inevitable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 How's this for Obama following up on his responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed'? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama Deputies Free 30,862 Foreign Criminals 6:30 PM 12/05/2014 NEIL MUNRO White House Correspondent President Barack Obama’s immigration deputies released 30,862 foreign criminals into the United States’ cities and neighborhoods, according to a federal document. The document also showed that Obama repatriated less than 1 percent of the 12 million illegals living in the United States during the 12 months up to October 2014. Officials also repatriated only 8,805 of the roughly 180,000 unskilled Central American migrants who flooded across the border since 2011, according to the “Fiscal Year 2014 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operation Report.” Read article here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/05/obama-deputies-free-30862-foreign-criminals/ http://documents.latimes.com/immigration-and-customs-draft-report/ @ up-country_sinclair and Publicus: The above quoted post is one I made on 07 December concerning the 30,000+ illegal immigrant criminals released back into the population during fiscal 2014. I provided a link to the article and a link to the official US Government report. If you question my original post, then why don't you dig through the ICE report and discover for yourselves what the investigative reporters for the Daily Caller have already done for us. For your further information, last year's report showed a figure of 36,000 illegal immigrants released back into the general public. Damp wash cloths are good for removing egg from your faces. I posted about a lot of this to a previous immigration thread so based on prior experience with the memory of a certain poster let me reference it again and add to it now. First, the Gingrich-Clinton immigration laws of 1996 vastly expanded and loosened the definition of "aggravated felonies" so that any alien could be charged and found guilty in a secret proceeding, then shipped out immediately. More often however an alien who perhaps shoplifted some cigars would be arrested, convicted in private of an "aggravated felony" and incarcerated, i.e., detained. Secondly, the particular release of this year is radically different from the release of last year. This year, 126,921 aliens were released, whereas last year 5000 of 30,000 were released but deported as scheduled anyway as they were not by any standard convicts. The ICE report states that in the release of this year, 30,852 aliens were released, many of whom were convicted under the greatly expanded parameters of the 1996 "aggravated felony" laws and secret processes that are absent lawyers and witnesses. In each instance the ICE Agency (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was directed to release undocumented or convicted aliens due to a conflation of budget reductions, court decisions pertaining to the 1996 laws (evidence presented in secret to a judge and no attorneys present), detention-focused laws, inadequate facilities and the like. In both instances, ICE is responsible to ensure all aliens released in this manner adhere to the conditions of release that ICE assigns according to the applicable laws and that scheduled deportations are carried out. Released alien convicts are clamped with electronic GPS monitoring devices and are also monitored by the federal Alternatives to Detention Program. Anyone can (and will) produce reports of grotesque horrors committed by aliens convicted of homicide and much else that will be true. However, many undocumented aliens under suspicion are either being investigated, are investigated but not charged, or are charged but not tried, tried but not convicted. Some are indeed convicted of serious crimes, while others are convicted based on their status as aliens which in most instances would probably be fine . It is also the case that the Supreme Court has said the government generally cannot hold immigrants for more than six months if it has no prospect of deporting them. To save money and due to inadequate facilities, among other "administrative" reasons, ICE freed some otherwise 'clean record' detainees before the six-month clock ran out. Funding questions originate in the Congress. "We had been asking for some time whether we would have enough money to sustain the level of detention we had, and we didn't get an answer," the former head of ICE's detention operation, Gary Mead said. "When we did get an answer, it was that we had to start releasing people today." Following is a small portion of an article I received this morning. WARNING - Editorial containing conservative comments From the article: "According to the report, 30,862 illegal immigrant criminals were released into the U.S. instead of being deported back to their home countries. Now they're free to commit more crimes against Americans. That's close to par with the 36,007 illegal aliens with criminal records who were released into America in 2013. Those criminals, by the way, shared 88,000 crimes among themselves, including murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, major drug crimes and auto theft, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121014-730002-if-obamas-priority-is-enforcement-why-are-so-many-illegal-immigrant-criminals-not-being-deported.htm#ixzz3LYAs0rv2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Regardless of your spin on words, whatever he signed or however he decided to take this action, it is in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states...he (The President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Why then, pray tell, are we not in the middle of a full blown constitutional crisis? Why is congress getting ready to go home for the holidays? Why are Republicans going to the White House to have their photos taken with the president and first lady at the annual Christmas party? How can this be if the president has "violated the Constitution"? Simple: because the hyper-partisans have been suckered by the radio and internet provocateurs who rile them up time and time again with pejorative phrasing, half-truths and blatant misinformation. When are they going to learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Following is a small portion of an article I received this morning. Red flag # 1 Is there a better indication of click bait than getting an email prompting you to click? WARNING - Editorial containing conservative comments Red Flag # 2 I honestly have no idea if this was included in the email or you wrote it. Either way, it says a lot. according to the Center for Immigration Studies. You guessed it--Red Flag # 3. The Center for Immigration Studies? Really? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post lannarebirth Posted December 11, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2014 Not to be overly argumentative, but, what exactly did he say in the video I provided? Did he say..."I took action to change the law"? Or did he say..."I took an action to change the application of the law"? Regardless of your spin on words, whatever he signed or however he decided to take this action, it is in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states...he (The President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Spin away. I think a pretty good argument could be made that the presidents actions also violate the 14th Amendment which provides equal protection of the law to all citizens. The president arbitrarily deciding to enforce some laws and not others could put other third parties at risk they would not have if the law had been faithfully applied. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Following is a small portion of an article I received this morning. Red flag # 1 Is there a better indication of click bait than getting an email prompting you to click? WARNING - Editorial containing conservative comments Red Flag # 2 I honestly have no idea if this was included in the email or you wrote it. Either way, it says a lot. according to the Center for Immigration Studies. You guessed it--Red Flag # 3. The Center for Immigration Studies? Really? Why don't you try attacking the ICE report itself rather than the source reporting it? I have twice provided a link to the 2014 draft report from ICE which is quoted in my article. I'm presuming you haven't spent a lot of time studying the draft to intelligently comment on its content. Do the research yourself. The WARNING was my own addition to the post. I know how many progressive liberal heads explode when they receive uncomfortable news that conflicts with their never ending liberal philosophy. Just trying to take care of folks like yourself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I think some of you guys need to cut back in the Chang! It's no wonder some members are so angry with these ridiculous posts! If this is addressed to me, let it be known I haven't had a drink in something like 6 months, but your suggestion is appreciated none the less. My last drink was one glass of beer at a Thai funeral in Isaan, and that was merely to be polite. If you are addressing my post as ridiculous, I might offer a nicety offered by ThaiVisa. It is called the "report" button and can be found at the lower left corner of each and every post. If you find my post as being ridiculous to the point of being offensive, then please report it. Angry and anonymous posters are hardly upsetting to me. Cheers. The report button is for posts that break the rules. I find a lot of things ridiculous to the point of being offensive, but they aren't against the rules. But, yes, there is a report button, just try not to abuse it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Eventually we'll take our political system back from the lunatic fringe, but unfortunately I don't think it will be soon. I use to think so.......... But a few good chances went by & I saw how it works & how they get shut out & demonized. Where others are allowed plausible deniability <sic> for transgressions far far worse...Those whose hearts & minds were in the right place ( meaning as the designers of America intended) these are swept aside over trivialities. So as much as I hate to be a defeatists I gave up...Left I imagine a reset of sorts world wide...maybe in our life ...maybe not But it will not be pretty & I cannot honestly say it won't be well deserved. But something will remain it always does & hopefully that something learned how not to be from all of this. Edited December 11, 2014 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundman Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Stop bickering please or your posts will disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Unbelievably the Republicans are trying to roll back a part of Dodd-Frank that stops Wall Street using taxpayer money to gamble on derivatives. Are these people insane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Unbelievably the Republicans are trying to roll back a part of Dodd-Frank that stops Wall Street using taxpayer money to gamble on derivatives. Are these people insane? I have no problem at all if they repeal the whole of Dodd-Frank if at the same time they reinstate Glass-Steagall. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 I have no problem at all if they repeal the whole of Dodd-Frank if at the same time they reinstate Glass-Steagall. Which is (reinstate Glass-Steagall) probably what they should have done initially Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 As I said when they took the Senate, get ready for another burst of Boom (fueled by the GOP deregulating for their paymasters), bankers raping the economy and tanking it and Joe Public picking up the tab again after the inevitable Bust. I would say they never learn, but they steal without conscience and then just sit counting their money until they get a chance to do it again, so they've fairly mastered the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Not to be overly argumentative, but, what exactly did he say in the video I provided? Did he say..."I took action to change the law"? Or did he say..."I took an action to change the application of the law"? Regardless of your spin on words, whatever he signed or however he decided to take this action, it is in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states...he (The President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Spin away. I think a pretty good argument could be made that the presidents actions also violate the 14th Amendment which provides equal protection of the law to all citizens. The president arbitrarily deciding to enforce some laws and not others could put other third parties at risk they would not have if the law had been faithfully applied. Everybody and his mother in law has an opinion and point of view but the guy who I quote below, Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California, Irvine School of Law, which gives him some authenticity in the discourse we aspire to in these parts. I respect that you have an opinion and I disagree with your pov and the sources you've cited so far. Another poster also quoted here even cited the blowhard US Senator Jeff Sessions who is a Republican from Alabama (see below). The following quote points out how and why Prez Obama's executive action and the ruling of the Supreme Court most directly related to it are consistent in the absolute. Quote Obama Has the Law—and Reagan—on His Side on Immigration Pres Obama has issued an executive action to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens. Republicans, including Speaker of the House John Boehner and new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have threatened reprisals against the action. But one thing is clear: The president has the constitutional authority to decide to not proceed with deportations. It has always been within the president’s discretion to decide whether to have the Department of Justice enforce a particular law. As the Supreme Court declared in United States v. Nixon, “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” http://www.newrepubl...t-will-be-legal The Supreme Court said nothing about the 14th Amendment. That might be because the 14th Amendment was adopted (in 1868) to allow persons of African descent to become full US citizens. Indeed, the Supreme Court in 2012 shredded the anti-immigration laws of Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Utah, which in particular had enacted state law that would have reversed this principle for immigrants. The Court ruled also that it is not illegal for an "unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or to do work" and that a "warrantless" arrest of an unauthorized alien is illegal. Whereas with all due respect, your opinions are your opinions but the Court's rulings are final. Edited December 12, 2014 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 The Republican controlled House of Representatives just passed a bill which funds President Obama's Executive Action on Immigration. Our resident Constitutional scholars have made it clear in no uncertain terms that this Executive Action violates the US Constitution. Can the Republic be saved? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 The Republican controlled House of Representatives just passed a bill which funds President Obama's Executive Action on Immigration. Our resident Constitutional scholars have made it clear in no uncertain terms that this Executive Action violates the US Constitution. Can the Republic be saved? I answered this silliness somewhere on this forum yesterday. The House approved a spending authorization for the government to continue operating rather than forcing a government shutdown. They only approved a spending authorization for the Department of Homeland Security through 27 February 2015, where the spending request will have to be passed yet again for that particular department. ICE spending comes under Homeland Security. The issue is far from over. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now