up-country_sinclair Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 They only approved a spending authorization for the Department of Homeland Security through 27 February 2015 So, it's acceptable to "violate the Constitution" for 78 days. Good to know. Just out of curiosity, what's the cut off number? 79? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 They only approved a spending authorization for the Department of Homeland Security through 27 February 2015 So, it's acceptable to "violate the Constitution" for 78 days. Good to know. Just out of curiosity, what's the cut off number? 79? Perhaps you can dig deep within your memory bank and come up with some explanation why passing a spending bill is unconstitutional. The House approved the departmental spending budget, not a specific immigrant-amnesty-look-alike spending bill. Haven't you about run out of straws to keep grasping? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 The House approved the departmental spending budget Indeed they did, and within that departmental spending budget is the funding for an Executive Action which our resident Constitutional scholars have determined "violates the Constitution". But apparently if it is only for 78 days, it's not a big deal. And I suppose some leeway should be granted because many of those Republican House members are busy buying new suits for their Christmas party photos with the "Constitutional Violater in Chief" and the First Lady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chuckd Posted December 12, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2014 The House approved the departmental spending budget Indeed they did, and within that departmental spending budget is the funding for an Executive Action which our resident Constitutional scholars have determined "violates the Constitution". But apparently if it is only for 78 days, it's not a big deal. And I suppose some leeway should be granted because many of those Republican House members are busy buying new suits for their Christmas party photos with the "Constitutional Violater in Chief" and the First Lady. I answered that particular festive question yesterday as well. You really need to get some new material. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Obama's not getting off scot free though. Meehan (R-PA) – The amendment prohibits funding to renovate or rebuild the White House bowling alley. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Obama's not getting off scot free though. Meehan (R-PA) – The amendment prohibits funding to renovate or rebuild the White House bowling alley. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote. More "violations of the Constitution" than you can shake a stick at, and the House of Representatives put its foot down on bowling alley renovations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 S. O. S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 It's not a violation of the constitution until the Supreme Court says it's a violation of the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 It's not a violation of the constitution until the Supreme Court says it's a violation of the constitution. Clearly you're unaware that we have some preeminent Constitutional scholars in our midst, and that they have deemed the president's Executive Action to be unconstitutional. Say a prayer for the Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Sen Ted Cruz and his partners in the House had to settle for defunding the bowling alley after Mitch and John told 'em the Pentagon said defunding Air Force One would threaten national security, which it definitely would do. Meanwhile, in other immi news..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) It's not a violation of the constitution until the Supreme Court says it's a violation of the constitution. Clearly you're unaware that we have some preeminent Constitutional scholars in our midst, and that they have deemed the president's Executive Action to be unconstitutional. Say a prayer for the Republic. I know you're just baiting but on the small chance you're not, let me ask you how you think cases get brought before the Supreme Court. Could it be that plaintiffs have judged as individuals (whether rightly or wrongly) that some action is being carried out that is not constitutionally compliant and would like the court to adjudicate ? This is of course after hearings in lower courts. The public is the watch dog. They bring they actions. The court only accepts the cases the public presents if they believe the underlying question has merit. Edited December 12, 2014 by lannarebirth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 This will be the thin end of the wedge I imagine: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/16/3604314/breaking-republican-judge-strikes-down-obamas-immigration-order/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Here is another version of the judicial decision: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal judge rules Obama amnesty order unconstitutional power grab Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Updated: 9:29 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers. The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy. Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress. “President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/judge-finds-obama-amnesty-unconstitutional/#ixzz3M91HXNkF 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post F430murci Posted December 17, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Obama is disgraceful and has zero integrity. Even though I hope no impeachments ever occur because it is a black eye on all of America, I hope he gets to live the disgrace of being impeached as his legacy. _________ MIAMI — The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials. The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration. It was one of several favorable decisions the Obama administration made in recent years involving the Isaías family, which the government of Ecuador accuses of buying protection from Washington and living comfortably in Miami off the profits of a looted bank in Ecuador. The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department. Edited December 17, 2014 by F430murci 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I don't believe Obama will be impeached. He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I don't believe Obama will be impeached. He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency. If given the choice of dumb and smart, deceitful and dangerous for our leader . . . I would chose dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I don't believe Obama will be impeached. He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency. He's also got the insurance policy that they haven't got a clue what to impeach him for, it's all just GOP wind and piss. That's why he and the Dems can just keep goading them about it. Plus he's just got a whole new raft of fans who like Cuban cigars. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I don't believe Obama will be impeached. He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency. He's also got the insurance policy that they haven't got a clue what to impeach him for, it's all just GOP wind and piss. That's why he and the Dems can just keep goading them about it. Plus he's just got a whole new raft of fans who like Cuban cigars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I don't believe Obama will be impeached. He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency. He's also got the insurance policy that they haven't got a clue what to impeach him for, it's all just GOP wind and piss. That's why he and the Dems can just keep goading them about it. Plus he's just got a whole new raft of fans who like Cuban cigars. I swear that pun was unintentional! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) I don't believe Obama will be impeached. He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency. I know this tired joke is popular in the far reaches of the extreme right-wing, but let me ask you this: If Joe Biden were to win the Democratic nomination, which Republican is guaranteed to beat him? Let me help you with that: No one. I can think of a few who I would hope to beat him ( Huntsman, Portman, Bush), but they'd have a hell of a fight on their hands. Biden has tremendous foreign policy experience and is a great retail politician in the same vein as Bill Clinton. Republicans could forget about the electoral votes in Virginia and Pennsylvania; and then how do they get to 270? Hell, he might even be able to take Ohio from Portman. Every VP is the butt of jokes---until they run for president. Then moderate voters reconsider and gauge their actual skills and experience. So, keep yukking it up with the hyper-partisan BS and we'll have another Democrat in the White House in 2016. Edited December 18, 2014 by up-country_sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I don't believe Obama will be impeached. He has the best insurance policy against impeachment he could possibly have. Joe Biden is next in line for the Presidency. I know this tired joke is popular in the far reaches of the extreme right-wing, but let me ask you this: If Joe Biden were to win the Democratic nomination, which Republican is guaranteed to beat him? Let me help you with that: No one. I can think of a few who I would hope to beat him ( Huntsman, Portman, Bush), but they'd have a hell of a fight on their hands. Biden has tremendous foreign policy experience and is a great retail politician in the same vein as Bill Clinton. Republicans could forget about the electoral votes in Virginia and Pennsylvania; and then how do they get to 270? Hell, he might even be able to take Ohio from Portman. Every VP is the butt of jokes---until they run for president. Then moderate voters reconsider and gauge their actual skills and experience. So, keep yukking it up with the hyper-partisan BS and we'll have another Democrat in the White House in 2016. That tired joke is popular on late night television, never mind the "extreme right wing". Biden has more baggage than Hillary Clinton, but in all fairness, he doesn't have to also carry Bill Clinton's baggage as well, so maybe it's a wash. If Hillary decides not to run, the Dem candidate will more than likely be Sen Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), or Pocahontas of Harvard, as she is known in the Indian nation. That little stunt of hers is going to be fun for her to defend. Talk about Yukking it up.... Biden won't even be considered, unless they consider the high speed Amtrak train he had built from Washington to his hometown. I think we're going to see a Republican Governor run for the Presidency. Scott Walker (R-WI) and John Kasich (R-OH) are the two I would like to see run. I'm personally not in favor of any of the Republican Senators running. On another subject, I presume you caught a glimpse of the recent court decision concerning the Obama Memorandum on Immigration? If you either chose to ignore it or missed it completely, check out post #525 and try to catch up. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Here is another version of the judicial decision: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal judge rules Obama amnesty order unconstitutional power grab Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Updated: 9:29 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers. The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy. Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress. “President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/judge-finds-obama-amnesty-unconstitutional/#ixzz3M91HXNkF The judge exploded in a burst or rhetoric that has no effect on Prez Obama's immigration executive action. Prez Obama's immigration action remains legal and it remains constitutional. Meanwhile, the judge has done nothing more than to shoot his political wad against the president and against the executive branch while having no legal or constitutional impact on either. The judge in fact talked the Hispanic immigrant who had been pleading guilty into withdrawing his guilty plea, perhaps because the judge thought the immigrant was not guilty. This federal judge in Pennsylvania, appointed by G.W. Bush on the advice of Republican former Sen Rick Santorum, has made no attempt to stop implementation of the immigration executive action in his jurisdiction. What this judge did do was to take an immigration case before him and suddenly use it to engage in rhetorical political bombast against the president's recent executive action on immigration. Here's what Lyle Denniston at the respected non-partisan National Constitution Center says about the judge and the non-ruling... As it turned out, however, the judge did not really strike down the new Obama policy – at least not in the usual way of judicial nullification of a federal law. The judge did not order the government to abandon plans to enforce the policy, and, in fact, proceeded to write the remainder of his ruling as if the policy were valid. In the binding part of the ruling, Judge Schwab gave the Honduran immigrant a chance to drop his guilty plea and, if he wished, to try to take advantage of the new deferral of deportation that soon would be available for at least some individuals who are in the country illegally. There is a chance, the judge said, that the policy might create an opening in the Honduran’s situation. The ruling, as it stands at this point, does not appear to be a direct constitutional threat to the President’s initiative. That is because the judge’s statements about unconstitutionality may not have been critical to the bottom line of his ruling: the Honduran may get to stay in the U.S., at least for a time http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obama-immigration-policy-already-legal-trouble-110211304.html http://constitutioncenter.org/ This judge and his high profile statement appear to be much ado about nothing. For one thing, as the White House pointed out to the judge from the outset of the case, the defendant was pleading guilty so in the event the court accepted the guilty plea, the immigrant would not qualify under the executive action memo. In short, there is no violation of the constitution that the judge could find to rule on. There is no violation of law that the judge could find to rule on in the immigration executive action. The judge in fact used the president's immigration memo to rehabilitate the immigrant out of his guilty plea so the immigrant might become eligible for the president's stipulations in the executive action. This is a bizarre judge, a strange case, a sudden and unexpected case, a case generated by the far out right sector of American politics and law, and by a judge who all the while gave an immigrant a break.. I'd be interested to see what acrobatic stunts and feats those who support it or that like it might present to defend it. Or whether they would defend it. The judge after all did nothing more about the president's immigration executive action than to flame it all the while applying it to the immigrant before him. The bottom line is that the president's action remains legal and it remains constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) If Hillary decides not to run, the Dem candidate will more than likely be Sen Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), or Pocahontas of Harvard, as she is known in the Indian nation. That little stunt of hers is going to be fun for her to defend. Not a L vs R person but Definitely not a fan of Hillary either...Too much baggage & special interests to service. But from what I have read about Warren & seen her speak on videos during the Economic crisis in 2008 she struck me as a pretty level headed person. ( Can't say I really know all that much about her though just initial impressions from that period) That Pocahontas deal I do not know much about except it had something to do with the college listing her as a minority group due to (her claim?) that she had a great,great grandmother who was Cherokee? If that is the biggest strike against her I would say it is minor in comparison to what some have done to get into better schools via large donations...family name.. etc. Edited December 19, 2014 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 If Hillary decides not to run, the Dem candidate will more than likely be Sen Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), or Pocahontas of Harvard, as she is known in the Indian nation. That little stunt of hers is going to be fun for her to defend. Talk about Yukking it up.... Biden won't even be considered, unless they consider the high speed Amtrak train he had built from Washington to his hometown. Those 5 sentences reveal how impacted and infested your thoughts are by the extreme right wing opinions you consume. Silly ad hominem attacks that have the slightest hint of truth to them but don't hold up to scrutiny. Essentially, they're click bait. Let me guess, were you informed about these "outrages" by an email you received? Anyway, Senator Warren is not more than likely to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. In fact, she has little to no chance of being the nominee . Not only has she repeatedly stated that she is not running, but she would never get the backing of the party's establishment. Furthermore, Wall St. would spend every penny it had to ensure she didn't win. She's essentially the left-wing's version of Senator Rand Paul: a few common sense populist ideas and more than a fair amount of crazy. There are a host of Democrats who would beat her in the primaries, including Vice President Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 she would never get the backing of the party's establishment. Furthermore, Wall St. would spend every penny it had to ensure she didn't win. This pretty much shows what is already known by many. The system is completely co-opted/broken The choices are always predetermined by those that control thru $$$. In the end it seems to many voters just a choice of who is least worse. But to those that place the choices before the voters it matter not all choices lead to the same masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Here is another version of the judicial decision: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal judge rules Obama amnesty order unconstitutional power grab Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Updated: 9:29 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers. The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy. Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress. “President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/judge-finds-obama-amnesty-unconstitutional/#ixzz3M91HXNkF The judge exploded in a burst or rhetoric that has no effect on Prez Obama's immigration executive action. Prez Obama's immigration action remains legal and it remains constitutional. Meanwhile, the judge has done nothing more than to shoot his political wad against the president and against the executive branch while having no legal or constitutional impact on either. The judge in fact talked the Hispanic immigrant who had been pleading guilty into withdrawing his guilty plea, perhaps because the judge thought the immigrant was not guilty. This federal judge in Pennsylvania, appointed by G.W. Bush on the advice of Republican former Sen Rick Santorum, has made no attempt to stop implementation of the immigration executive action in his jurisdiction. What this judge did do was to take an immigration case before him and suddenly use it to engage in rhetorical political bombast against the president's recent executive action on immigration. Here's what Lyle Denniston at the respected non-partisan National Constitution Center says about the judge and the non-ruling... As it turned out, however, the judge did not really strike down the new Obama policy – at least not in the usual way of judicial nullification of a federal law. The judge did not order the government to abandon plans to enforce the policy, and, in fact, proceeded to write the remainder of his ruling as if the policy were valid. In the binding part of the ruling, Judge Schwab gave the Honduran immigrant a chance to drop his guilty plea and, if he wished, to try to take advantage of the new deferral of deportation that soon would be available for at least some individuals who are in the country illegally. There is a chance, the judge said, that the policy might create an opening in the Honduran’s situation. The ruling, as it stands at this point, does not appear to be a direct constitutional threat to the President’s initiative. That is because the judge’s statements about unconstitutionality may not have been critical to the bottom line of his ruling: the Honduran may get to stay in the U.S., at least for a time http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obama-immigration-policy-already-legal-trouble-110211304.html http://constitutioncenter.org/ This judge and his high profile statement appear to be much ado about nothing. For one thing, as the White House pointed out to the judge from the outset of the case, the defendant was pleading guilty so in the event the court accepted the guilty plea, the immigrant would not qualify under the executive action memo. In short, there is no violation of the constitution that the judge could find to rule on. There is no violation of law that the judge could find to rule on in the immigration executive action. The judge in fact used the president's immigration memo to rehabilitate the immigrant out of his guilty plea so the immigrant might become eligible for the president's stipulations in the executive action. This is a bizarre judge, a strange case, a sudden and unexpected case, a case generated by the far out right sector of American politics and law, and by a judge who all the while gave an immigrant a break.. I'd be interested to see what acrobatic stunts and feats those who support it or that like it might present to defend it. Or whether they would defend it. The judge after all did nothing more about the president's immigration executive action than to flame it all the while applying it to the immigrant before him. The bottom line is that the president's action remains legal and it remains constitutional. All this bombastic rhetoric when my original reference to the article said this... "The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy." The expected left wing rhetorical explosion had to occur however. So be it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 If Hillary decides not to run, the Dem candidate will more than likely be Sen Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), or Pocahontas of Harvard, as she is known in the Indian nation. That little stunt of hers is going to be fun for her to defend. Talk about Yukking it up.... Biden won't even be considered, unless they consider the high speed Amtrak train he had built from Washington to his hometown. Those 5 sentences reveal how impacted and infested your thoughts are by the extreme right wing opinions you consume. Silly ad hominem attacks that have the slightest hint of truth to them but don't hold up to scrutiny. Essentially, they're click bait. Let me guess, were you informed about these "outrages" by an email you received? Anyway, Senator Warren is not more than likely to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. In fact, she has little to no chance of being the nominee . Not only has she repeatedly stated that she is not running, but she would never get the backing of the party's establishment. Furthermore, Wall St. would spend every penny it had to ensure she didn't win. She's essentially the left-wing's version of Senator Rand Paul: a few common sense populist ideas and more than a fair amount of crazy. There are a host of Democrats who would beat her in the primaries, including Vice President Biden. "Let me guess, were you informed about these "outrages" by an email you received? " Nope. Thought them up all by myself. It's called original thinking. Something you might want to try. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Here is another version of the judicial decision: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal judge rules Obama amnesty order unconstitutional power grab Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Updated: 9:29 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers. The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy. Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress. “President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/judge-finds-obama-amnesty-unconstitutional/#ixzz3M91HXNkF The judge exploded in a burst or rhetoric that has no effect on Prez Obama's immigration executive action. Prez Obama's immigration action remains legal and it remains constitutional. Meanwhile, the judge has done nothing more than to shoot his political wad against the president and against the executive branch while having no legal or constitutional impact on either. The judge in fact talked the Hispanic immigrant who had been pleading guilty into withdrawing his guilty plea, perhaps because the judge thought the immigrant was not guilty. This federal judge in Pennsylvania, appointed by G.W. Bush on the advice of Republican former Sen Rick Santorum, has made no attempt to stop implementation of the immigration executive action in his jurisdiction. What this judge did do was to take an immigration case before him and suddenly use it to engage in rhetorical political bombast against the president's recent executive action on immigration. Here's what Lyle Denniston at the respected non-partisan National Constitution Center says about the judge and the non-ruling... As it turned out, however, the judge did not really strike down the new Obama policy – at least not in the usual way of judicial nullification of a federal law. The judge did not order the government to abandon plans to enforce the policy, and, in fact, proceeded to write the remainder of his ruling as if the policy were valid. In the binding part of the ruling, Judge Schwab gave the Honduran immigrant a chance to drop his guilty plea and, if he wished, to try to take advantage of the new deferral of deportation that soon would be available for at least some individuals who are in the country illegally. There is a chance, the judge said, that the policy might create an opening in the Honduran’s situation. The ruling, as it stands at this point, does not appear to be a direct constitutional threat to the President’s initiative. That is because the judge’s statements about unconstitutionality may not have been critical to the bottom line of his ruling: the Honduran may get to stay in the U.S., at least for a time http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obama-immigration-policy-already-legal-trouble-110211304.html http://constitutioncenter.org/ This judge and his high profile statement appear to be much ado about nothing. For one thing, as the White House pointed out to the judge from the outset of the case, the defendant was pleading guilty so in the event the court accepted the guilty plea, the immigrant would not qualify under the executive action memo. In short, there is no violation of the constitution that the judge could find to rule on. There is no violation of law that the judge could find to rule on in the immigration executive action. The judge in fact used the president's immigration memo to rehabilitate the immigrant out of his guilty plea so the immigrant might become eligible for the president's stipulations in the executive action. This is a bizarre judge, a strange case, a sudden and unexpected case, a case generated by the far out right sector of American politics and law, and by a judge who all the while gave an immigrant a break.. I'd be interested to see what acrobatic stunts and feats those who support it or that like it might present to defend it. Or whether they would defend it. The judge after all did nothing more about the president's immigration executive action than to flame it all the while applying it to the immigrant before him. The bottom line is that the president's action remains legal and it remains constitutional. All this bombastic rhetoric when my original reference to the article said this... "The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy." The expected left wing rhetorical explosion had to occur however. So be it. The judge talked the immigrant out of his guilty plea and told the immigrant that without a criminal record he could apply for the stipulations of Prez Obama's immigration executive action. The judge's contradictory rhetoric about Prez Obama and his immigrant action is the standard right wing rhetoric that provides no road map other than to a dead end street. Any right winger on the federal bench or elsewhere can parrot the exact words this judge used that in themselves mean nothing in respect of the legality or the constitutionality of the president's action. This case shows how all over the place you guys are on this issue, especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 If Hillary decides not to run, the Dem candidate will more than likely be Sen Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), or Pocahontas of Harvard, as she is known in the Indian nation. That little stunt of hers is going to be fun for her to defend. Talk about Yukking it up.... Biden won't even be considered, unless they consider the high speed Amtrak train he had built from Washington to his hometown. Those 5 sentences reveal how impacted and infested your thoughts are by the extreme right wing opinions you consume. Silly ad hominem attacks that have the slightest hint of truth to them but don't hold up to scrutiny. Essentially, they're click bait. Let me guess, were you informed about these "outrages" by an email you received? Anyway, Senator Warren is not more than likely to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. In fact, she has little to no chance of being the nominee . Not only has she repeatedly stated that she is not running, but she would never get the backing of the party's establishment. Furthermore, Wall St. would spend every penny it had to ensure she didn't win. She's essentially the left-wing's version of Senator Rand Paul: a few common sense populist ideas and more than a fair amount of crazy. There are a host of Democrats who would beat her in the primaries, including Vice President Biden. The quote you reply to simply shows what idle hands lead to when a keyboard and pc are somewhere near by. I confirm you statement that the post claiming Sen Elizabeth Warren would be nominated by the D party if Hillary Clinton were not nominated is unrealistic and I would add that it is idle speculation. For the record and consistent with your post, I would not vote for Sen Warren to be the nominee of my party for president. Hillary is far more qualified as a woman candidate and across the board as a candidate. If not Hillary, which is academic to discuss, then yes former senator and vp Joe Biden for sure (as of this early point of the process). As these things presently stand and going forward, it's Hillary by 100 furlongs and Joe as the backup alternative candidate. Sen Warren speaks for me as my senator but no one I know either here or there thinks she can be nominated or should be nominated for prez. I dunno which is more scary, the thought or the post that states belief in the thought so I'll book it as idle hands at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 If Hillary decides not to run, the Dem candidate will more than likely be Sen Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), or Pocahontas of Harvard, as she is known in the Indian nation. That little stunt of hers is going to be fun for her to defend. Talk about Yukking it up.... Biden won't even be considered, unless they consider the high speed Amtrak train he had built from Washington to his hometown. Those 5 sentences reveal how impacted and infested your thoughts are by the extreme right wing opinions you consume. Silly ad hominem attacks that have the slightest hint of truth to them but don't hold up to scrutiny. Essentially, they're click bait. Let me guess, were you informed about these "outrages" by an email you received? Anyway, Senator Warren is not more than likely to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. In fact, she has little to no chance of being the nominee . Not only has she repeatedly stated that she is not running, but she would never get the backing of the party's establishment. Furthermore, Wall St. would spend every penny it had to ensure she didn't win. She's essentially the left-wing's version of Senator Rand Paul: a few common sense populist ideas and more than a fair amount of crazy. There are a host of Democrats who would beat her in the primaries, including Vice President Biden. She shot her bolt when she said Citibank should be "broken into pieces". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.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