US: GOP leader offers immigration vote to try to resolve impasse

[chuckd]

So Republicans should put a separate bill forward to remove those 4.3 million removable aliens with the idea to REMOVE them NOT threaten the US national security. Yes - No ?

Obviously they would need to actually work out the cost both financially and socially of such an act.. But no problem for Republicans as Latinos etc don't vote for them.. Do they ?

If they are illegal aliens they are not supposed to vote at all...Chicago politics not withstanding.

Why should separate legislation be required when the laws are already on the books?

Enforcing the immigration law is the responsibility of the Executive branch, not Congress.

So why link these two and force the point especially as it in court.. Just crazy that it may effect your nations security at a time like this.. Patriots should defend a nation not hobble it !

"So why link these two.."

Link which two?

Diligently enforcing the laws should keep the bad guys out, not give thousands of them unfettered access.

If you are referring to the State of Texas v. United States law suit, how is that threatening the security of the US?

Just curious, but are you American?

[casualbiker]

So Republicans should put a separate bill forward to remove those 4.3 million removable aliens with the idea to REMOVE them NOT threaten the US national security. Yes - No ?

Obviously they would need to actually work out the cost both financially and socially of such an act.. But no problem for Republicans as Latinos etc don't vote for them.. Do they ?

If they are illegal aliens they are not supposed to vote at all...Chicago politics not withstanding.

Why should separate legislation be required when the laws are already on the books?

Enforcing the immigration law is the responsibility of the Executive branch, not Congress.

So why link these two and force the point especially as it in court.. Just crazy that it may effect your nations security at a time like this.. Patriots should defend a nation not hobble it !

"So why link these two.."

Link which two?

Diligently enforcing the laws should keep the bad guys out, not give thousands of them unfettered access.

If you are referring to the State of Texas v. United States law suit, how is that threatening the security of the US?

Just curious, but are you American?

They are linking the homeland security funding bill with the Obama immigration veto.

The bad guys as you put it are there already. Do you think all Latinos etc are bad guys including the children?

And I was talking about homeland security funding.

And no I'm not American. But what goes on in the States does unfortunately effect us all. If you have meatheads who are willing to weaken their own nations security for browny points. What the <deleted> would they be like on the world stage. I see that you Republican Americans might actually unleash another Bush for President. Don't you think the Bush senior and Bush junior have already done enough damage already.. Although to be fair George W's Bushisms on toilet posters were hilarious!

Here's a great one.

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

If it wasn't for the date you could almost imagine he said it today about the US Senate.

Edited February 26, 2015 by casualbiker

[chuckd]

If they are illegal aliens they are not supposed to vote at all...Chicago politics not withstanding.

Why should separate legislation be required when the laws are already on the books?

Enforcing the immigration law is the responsibility of the Executive branch, not Congress.

So why link these two and force the point especially as it in court.. Just crazy that it may effect your nations security at a time like this.. Patriots should defend a nation not hobble it !

"So why link these two.."

Link which two?

Diligently enforcing the laws should keep the bad guys out, not give thousands of them unfettered access.

If you are referring to the State of Texas v. United States law suit, how is that threatening the security of the US?

Just curious, but are you American?

They are linking the homeland security funding bill with the Obama immigration veto.

The bad guys as you put it are there already. Do you think all Latinos etc are bad guys including the children?

And I was talking about homeland security funding.

And no I'm not American. But what goes on in the States does unfortunately effect us all. If you have meatheads who are willing to weaken their own nations security for browny points. What the <deleted> would they be like on the world stage. I see that you Republican Americans might actually unleash another Bush for President. Don't you think the Bush senior and Bush junior have already done enough damage already.. Although to be fair George W's Bushisms on toilet posters were hilarious!

Here's a great one.

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

If it wasn't for the date you could almost imagine he said it today about the US Senate.

"They are linking the homeland security funding bill with the Obama immigration veto."

The only bill Obama has vetoed lately has been the Keystone Pipeline Bill. It has nothing to do with immigration or Homeland Security.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding for 2015 was only partially funded through 28 February 2015 when the federal government spending bill was approved and signed into law in January. Funding for DHS for this year runs out on 28 February without Congressional and Executive action.

The House has now passed a DHS funding bill for the remainder of the fiscal year in full. That bill is in the Senate where the Democrats are holding it and filibustering the bill to keep it in limbo.

The Democrats are holding it up due to the Republican demand that no government funds are to be utilized in the performance of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson's memorandum extending prosecutorial discretion through his individual DHS agents.

This discretion is simply that the law will not be enforced and immigrants will be under no threat of deportation if they can meet some sort of ever moving requirements that will magically make them eligible for social security, work permits and driver's license. In short, Secretary Johnson has declared unilaterally that no crime has been committed by those that have entered the US and lived in the US illegally for years. They are now on a fast track to citizenship if all of this is approved.

It is not known if President Obama has signed anything to enact this change to the laws. There is no public record of an Executive Order or Executive Memoranda signed by Obama.

The legal action that must have you confused is the State of Texas v. United States and has been filed by the State of Texas, NOT the Republican Congress or Party. Texas has been joined in the suit by the Governor's of 25 other states, all Republican led. The suit was filed appropriately in the Federal court covering the southern district of Texas, where Austin is located.

As a result of the suit, the Federal Judge in Texas has enjoined the federal government from instituting these administrative changes, that effectively change the laws, for the government's failure to follow proper government procedures and laws.

And, that, in a nutshell is where we are. The Democrats in the Senate are holding the budget for the DHS hostage because they don't like the funding language in the bill relating to the immigration changes, even though the Judge has told DHS they cannot proceed with enacting those immigration changes.

Besides all that, Obama has said he will veto the bill even if it is passed if it contains language he doesn't like.

The Judge's opinion on the Texas suit can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States

This ThaiVisa thread beats it to death: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/801126-federal-judge-stalls-obamas-executive-action-on-immigration/

PS: Neither George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush nor Jeb Bush have anything to do with this. If you want to seek answers, editorial comments are not required.

[Publicus]

The present immigration conflict is a part of an immigration continuum that includes both presidents Bush and Prez Reagan before them, and it was Reagan who declared an amnesty only to get butt-burned for it, so no prez has since tried an amnesty of illegal immigrants.

Even under Prez Reagan's failed amnesty attempt, illegal immigrants are always under the threat of deportation. In the case of an undocumented alien, the Immigration and Citizenship Enforcement service (ICE) can deport an illegal immigrant at any time with or without reason, Prez Obama's executive action notwithstanding, and the prez is well aware of the fact.

The 26 states challenging or supporting the suit accepted by the tea party federal judge in Texas are all led by Republicans, so it looks like the Republican party or almost every one of its governors are joined at the political hip which would hardly be unusual in these highly partisan times. The leadership of 24 states see no issue here or choose to only pay lip service to either side of the legal dispute or to neither side. The bottom line is that the Republicans in Congress have failed for several years to produce legislation that would comprehensively reform the immigration and naturalization laws.

It is the opinion of the judge that the DHS, in implementing prosecutorial discretion expressed by Prez Obama, violated the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 which is a new interpretation and understanding of the Act, given that it specifically applies to new laws and the new rules and regulations the Executive writes pursuant to the new laws.

The new legal and the new Constitutional issue is that the APA has never been applied to policy decisions of the executive, such as prosecutorial discretion concerning the existing laws of immigration. The judge's ruling of a new application of the APA to executive actions pertaining to existing statutes and case law is being appealed by the executive so everyone will have to wait to see the outcome of the activist judge's ruling because he is attempting to write new law.

The tea party federal judge in Texas has enjoined the Executive from implementing its new program, which exists within current laws. The Executive is appealing the judge's ruling to the higher courts. So the Congress itself would be unwise to base any new legislation pertaining to the Executive's actions, as it is doing concerning the DHS funding authorization and appropriations, until the matter is settled in the courts. The Congress is of course free to legislate as it likes within the Constitution, but as a matter of judgement and wise policy, it really should wait until the understanding of the law is settled in these matters. What looks like it is law today may not in fact be law tomorrow...or it may still be existing law tomorrow.

Trying to legislate based on subjective legal or Constitutional standards is whimsical and arbitrary and seems to cause more troubles than already exist.

[chuckd]

...and the beat continues.

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

Even under Prez Reagan's failed amnesty attempt, illegal immigrants are always under the threat of deportation. In the case of an undocumented alien, the Immigration and Citizenship Enforcement service (ICE) can deport an illegal immigrant at any time with or without reason, Prez Obama's executive action notwithstanding, and the prez is well aware of the fact.

<<snip>>

But woe be tide any federal employee that doesn't follow the Emperor's dictates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty

7:42 PM, FEB 25, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER

President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.

According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.

Article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

The Prez answers...

[up-country_sinclair]

But woe be tide any federal employee that doesn't follow the Emperor's dictates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty

7:42 PM, FEB 25, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER

President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.

According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.

Article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

The Prez answers...

Not surprisingly, both you and the original article from The Weekly Standard (it has since been updated) failed to include the actual question to, and the answer from President Obama.

MR. DIAZ-BALART: But what are the consequences? Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences

THE PRESIDENT: José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. So I can’t speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally.

The president was asked specifically about consequences and he responded with a completely fair and rational answer. Or perhaps you think that ICE agents should not be required to follow policy? And if they don't, then there shouldn't be consequences?

Time to move on to the inevitable next attempt at fear mongering, because this one has been a complete bust.

[up-country_sinclair]

The US Senate just passed a BIPARTISAN bill to fund the DHS through September. Now Speaker Boehner needs to do the same.

Please put partisan politics aside and keep America safe, Speaker Boehner.

[chuckd]

But woe be tide any federal employee that doesn't follow the Emperor's dictates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty

7:42 PM, FEB 25, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER

President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.

According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.

Article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

The Prez answers...

Not surprisingly, both you and the original article from The Weekly Standard (it has since been updated) failed to include the actual question to, and the answer from President Obama.

MR. DIAZ-BALART: But what are the consequences? Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences

THE PRESIDENT: José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. So I can’t speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally.

The president was asked specifically about consequences and he responded with a completely fair and rational answer. Or perhaps you think that ICE agents should not be required to follow policy? And if they don't, then there shouldn't be consequences?

Time to move on to the inevitable next attempt at fear mongering, because this one has been a complete bust.

You make the following claim:

"Not surprisingly, both you and the original article from The Weekly Standard (it has since been updated) failed to include the actual question to, and the answer from President Obama."

I really didn't think posting the transcript would be necessary since both the question and Obama's response were provided by a YouTube video. Did you bother to watch the video?

Now, what does the word "discretion" imply in the term prosecutorial discretion"?

Secretary Johnson uses the pretext of prosecutorial discretion in issuing his memorandum to DHS upper management.

That "discretion" is allegedly being delegated to each and every individual enforcement officer of the DHS.

However, that individual "discretion" no longer exists when the President then comes out and effectively says if agents fail to follow their instructions, "there will be consequences".

If you can't read between the lines, you are considerably more naive than I thought.

[sdanielmcev]

But woe be tide any federal employee that doesn't follow the Emperor's dictates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty

7:42 PM, FEB 25, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER

President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.

According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.

Article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

The Prez answers...

Not surprisingly, both you and the original article from The Weekly Standard (it has since been updated) failed to include the actual question to, and the answer from President Obama.

MR. DIAZ-BALART: But what are the consequences? Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences

THE PRESIDENT: José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. So I can’t speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally.

The president was asked specifically about consequences and he responded with a completely fair and rational answer. Or perhaps you think that ICE agents should not be required to follow policy? And if they don't, then there shouldn't be consequences?

Time to move on to the inevitable next attempt at fear mongering, because this one has been a complete bust.

However, at the moment, there are 2 conflicting policies. And, since Obamas' order has been legally blocked, any ICE agent has to worry what is the correct procedure. The default is deportation, which has been ruled time and again to be legal.

[up-country_sinclair]

You make the following claim:

"Not surprisingly, both you and the original article from The Weekly Standard (it has since been updated) failed to include the actual question to, and the answer from President Obama."

I really didn't think posting the transcript would be necessary

Of course including the actual question and answer is not necessary when one's agenda is fear mongering:

But woe be tide any federal employee that doesn't follow the Emperor's dictates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty

When one's agenda is fear mongering it's much more effective to refer to the President of the United States as an emperor, and then use one out of context word in quotation marks next to a hyperpartisan, pejorative nickname for an executive action.

It's textbook yellow journalism.

[Chicog]

The US Senate just passed a BIPARTISAN bill to fund the DHS through September. Now Speaker Boehner needs to do the same.

Please put partisan politics aside and keep America safe, Speaker Boehner.

It would make a pleasant change to the usual GOP Blackmail.

[NeverSure]

The US Senate just passed a BIPARTISAN bill to fund the DHS through September. Now Speaker Boehner needs to do the same.

Please put partisan politics aside and keep America safe, Speaker Boehner.

Please put partisan politics aside and keep America safe, Speaker Boehner. Don't fund amnesty for illegal aliens.

[sdanielmcev]

You make the following claim:

"Not surprisingly, both you and the original article from The Weekly Standard (it has since been updated) failed to include the actual question to, and the answer from President Obama."

I really didn't think posting the transcript would be necessary

Of course including the actual question and answer is not necessary when one's agenda is fear mongering:

But woe be tide any federal employee that doesn't follow the Emperor's dictates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty

When one's agenda is fear mongering it's much more effective to refer to the President of the United States as an emperor, and then use one out of context word in quotation marks next to a hyperpartisan, pejorative nickname for an executive action.

It's textbook yellow journalism.

I notice you don't say that to those that agree with you.

[Publicus]

There isn't any amnesty in the president's executive action that is now in the courts and on the way to the Supreme Court eventually.

The tea party federal judge in Texas who ordered the executive action temporarily enjoined/paused said there is no amnesty in it. So the judge made no ruling pertaining to amnesty either way. The judge's order to enjoin the executive branch is about administrative procedure, not amnesty.

The judge's order does not stop amnesty because there isn't any amnesty in the president's executive order.

Illegal immigrants are subject to deportation at any time for the simple and basic reason they are illegal immigrants. Prez Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than both presidents Bush combined.

[up-country_sinclair]

You make the following claim:

"Not surprisingly, both you and the original article from The Weekly Standard (it has since been updated) failed to include the actual question to, and the answer from President Obama."

I really didn't think posting the transcript would be necessary

Of course including the actual question and answer is not necessary when one's agenda is fear mongering:

But woe be tide any federal employee that doesn't follow the Emperor's dictates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty

When one's agenda is fear mongering it's much more effective to refer to the President of the United States as an emperor, and then use one out of context word in quotation marks next to a hyperpartisan, pejorative nickname for an executive action.

It's textbook yellow journalism.

I notice you don't say that to those that agree with you.

You may not have noticed that I took the same position whenever a left-wing hyperpartisans engaged in the same sort of fear mongering against the President George W. Bush. Extremists like those that infest this board are the root cause of the problem in Washington DC.

Back in the 80s, President Reagan and Speaker O'neill had a cordial working relationship; tough legislative battles were fought and won, but at the end of the day, representatives and senators went out for a meal or a drink. I don't know why we can't go back to that. The extremists on both sides of the aisle are small in number but their supposed importance has become outsized due to cable news the Internet.

[chuckd]

"It's textbook yellow journalism."

[chuckd]

A seven day Continuing Resolution has been passed and signed.

Homeland Security is safe for the time being...all 240,000 of them.

[Publicus]

Neither DHS nor the nation are safe.

The Senate yesterday had passed by 68-31 a full funding bill of Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year, which is through September.

Yet the House did not call the bill from the Senate, thus ignoring it.

The House instead tried to pass its bill linking DHS funding to immigration funding which the Republicans and other extremists wrongfully call amnesty. Failing that, the House passed a skimpy 7-day funding resolution of DHS after the Senate did that too then adjourned, rightfully leaving House Republicans mucking about in thier own quicksand.

Democrats in the House voted to kill the linked bill but also to approve the 7-day measure with the promise that next week the House will consider the legislation the Senate passed which fully funds DHS to September, and which puts the president's immigration executive action in a separate bill.

The tea party faction of the House Republicans don't like the DHS full funding bill unless it has the immigration executive action denial of funds that they seek, so this ain't over yet thanks to the tea party group of the House Republicans who own Speaker John Boehner.

The Republicans in control of Congress can't agree with each other never mind with Prez Obama who btw is just standing there handing out rope, reams and reams of rope.

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

Yet the House did not call the bill from the Senate, thus ignoring it.

<<snip>>

So, effectively the House did the same thing to the Senate bill that the Senate did last week to the House bill.

The Republicans will probably fold next week anyway.

Where they made their mistake was tying the immigration language to the DHS funding bill.

They could have, and probably should have, tied it to something like the EPA, Education Department or other such agency's spending bill rather than Homeland Security.

The public wouldn't care if the EPA and/or the Education Department were to be shut down.

There will be other opportunities to accomplish their goal.

[Chicog]

<<snip>>

Yet the House did not call the bill from the Senate, thus ignoring it.

<<snip>>

So, effectively the House did the same thing to the Senate bill that the Senate did last week to the House bill.

The Republicans will probably fold next week anyway.

Where they made their mistake was tying the immigration language to the DHS funding bill.

They could have, and probably should have, tied it to something like the EPA, Education Department or other such agency's spending bill rather than Homeland Security.

The public wouldn't care if the EPA and/or the Education Department were to be shut down.

There will be other opportunities to accomplish their goal.

It doesn't matter where they put it, it will get veto'd and they will have riled the immigrant vote yet more. They really are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Obama is cornered and really has nothing to lose - but of course you could still impeach him.

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

Yet the House did not call the bill from the Senate, thus ignoring it.

<<snip>>

So, effectively the House did the same thing to the Senate bill that the Senate did last week to the House bill.

The Republicans will probably fold next week anyway.

Where they made their mistake was tying the immigration language to the DHS funding bill.

They could have, and probably should have, tied it to something like the EPA, Education Department or other such agency's spending bill rather than Homeland Security.

The public wouldn't care if the EPA and/or the Education Department were to be shut down.

There will be other opportunities to accomplish their goal.

It doesn't matter where they put it, it will get veto'd and they will have riled the immigrant vote yet more. They really are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Obama is cornered and really has nothing to lose - but of course you could still impeach him.

So the EPA gets shut down? What difference do you believe that makes to the average American?

Most of them will probably shrug their shoulders and give a sigh of relief that their electricity bills won't go any higher.

Remember, the Joe Biden insurance policy is still in place.

Edited February 28, 2015 by chuckd

[up-country_sinclair]

The DHS has only been funded for one week. So beginning on Monday morning, this starts all over again.

I'm glad this could be done so "simply" and "without a problem".

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

Yet the House did not call the bill from the Senate, thus ignoring it.

<<snip>>

So, effectively the House did the same thing to the Senate bill that the Senate did last week to the House bill.

The Republicans will probably fold next week anyway.

Where they made their mistake was tying the immigration language to the DHS funding bill.

They could have, and probably should have, tied it to something like the EPA, Education Department or other such agency's spending bill rather than Homeland Security.

The public wouldn't care if the EPA and/or the Education Department were to be shut down.

There will be other opportunities to accomplish their goal.

The Republicans will probably fold next week anyway. Where they made their mistake was

...in trying to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, same as the Republicans made a huge mistake to shut down the whole of the government to try to defund Obamacare. Trying to shut down EPA or Education or anything is just plain off center to Americans.

Republicans keep trying to load up funding bills with non-germane items that belong alone or somewhere else -- or just don't belong at all -- to tie the country and government into knots. This approach screws people, it doesn't help them...or anyone.

This reality never occurs to the Republicans in Congress or around the country because they just don't think sensibly and can't reason their way out of the plastic bag they keep pulling down over their heads.

Where they made their mistake was to try to approach government and governing in these nutcake ways.

Poll Confirms the Republican Immigration Shutdown Plan Is Their Worst Idea Ever

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/poll-gop-immigration-shutdown-worst-idea-ever.html

[Publicus]

Abolish the fillibuster!

The Republican Senate majority should kill the Senates traditional 60-vote filibuster, and gain a huge advantage over the rule-breaking, lawless Democratic Party, says syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Ive been radicalized. By Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Goodbye moderation and sweet reason, he wrote in his weekly column.

In the fourth quarter of his presidency, Obama unbound is abusing presidential authority at will to secure a legacy on everything from environmental regulation to immigration, the laws of which he would unilaterally suspend, Krauthammer wrote.

And the 46 Senate Democrats are using the filibuster rules to block the GOPs 54-seat majority to paralyze the GOPs pushback.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/22/krauthammer-end-filibuster-to-block-obamas-amnesty-grab/

You mean ban the filibuster that the Republicans used successfully so many times before the 2014 by term elections when they were in the minority? Ha! Be careful, I remember when Republicans acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms. The next President that stood a good chance of being elected to a 3rd term was Dwight David Eisenhower, sorry Ike, your party pushed the term limits. While I agree that a 2 term limit was a good idea, sometimes you need to think things out.

Clean bill for Homeland Security funding. Then address immigration in a clean bill. Don't make me remind folks that the Congress had several years already to address this issue. Cut the BS politics and get on with arguing, debating the merits of each issue in separately addressed legislation proposals.

" acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms."? Since when are amendments passed by Congress? They're ratified by the states.

An proposed amendment to the Constitution has a two-track sequence and course.

1) First, approval by a two-thirds vote of each House of the Congress is required, i.e, the Senate must approve the proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote; the House must approve it by a two-thirds vote; only if this occurs, the Congress forwards the proposed Amendment to the states......

2) Secondly, to become an amendment, three-quarters of the states must vote to concur with the Congress to approve the proposed Amendment.

If the requirements in the Constitution of the two-track sequence and course are met, the Amendment is adopted as a part of the Constitution.

No homework today because the teacher feels generous.

[Chicog]

So the EPA gets shut down? What difference do you believe that makes to the average American?

Not much, but why is that particularly relevant? Why do they have to try and use blackmail?

Why can't they just try passing the bill that it would seem would have Bipartisan support?

Oh, I forgot. Boehner is the teabaggers bitch.

[Ulysses G.]

It does not have a lot to do with Boehner. The Republicans want to stop Obama's unconstitutional action and are not going to just ignore it. They will do anything they can to stop it and rightly.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

So the EPA gets shut down? What difference do you believe that makes to the average American?

Not much, but why is that particularly relevant? Why do they have to try and use blackmail?

Why can't they just try passing the bill that it would seem would have Bipartisan support?

Oh, I forgot. Boehner is the teabaggers bitch.

It doesn't have anything to do with Boehner's alleged allegiances to anybody.

It has everything to do with Obama's veto powers and lacking enough votes to override a veto.

Google might help you understand. It helped me with the "P".

[up-country_sinclair]

It does not have a lot to do with Boehner.

He's fighting for his political life.

He suffered a humiliating defeat on the floor over the weekend, and his closest allies are concerned about a leadership coup.

Sure, this "doesn't have a lot to do with Boehner".

I would like to recommend that you consider doing something/anything to improve your political acumen, because it's becoming ever more clear that you don't really have a grasp on US politics.

The Republicans want to stop Obama's unconstitutional action and are not going to just ignore it. They will do anything they can to stop it and rightly.

Your world renowned Constitutional bona-fides notwithstanding, the Federal judge in Texas already put a block on the executive actions on immigration. Why isn't that enough for the hyperpartisans? Why do they need to cripple the Speaker of the House and put the entire nation at risk?

[Paulc01]

Abolish the fillibuster!

The Republican Senate majority should kill the Senates traditional 60-vote filibuster, and gain a huge advantage over the rule-breaking, lawless Democratic Party, says syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Ive been radicalized. By Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Goodbye moderation and sweet reason, he wrote in his weekly column.

In the fourth quarter of his presidency, Obama unbound is abusing presidential authority at will to secure a legacy on everything from environmental regulation to immigration, the laws of which he would unilaterally suspend, Krauthammer wrote.

And the 46 Senate Democrats are using the filibuster rules to block the GOPs 54-seat majority to paralyze the GOPs pushback.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/22/krauthammer-end-filibuster-to-block-obamas-amnesty-grab/

You mean ban the filibuster that the Republicans used successfully so many times before the 2014 by term elections when they were in the minority? Ha! Be careful, I remember when Republicans acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms. The next President that stood a good chance of being elected to a 3rd term was Dwight David Eisenhower, sorry Ike, your party pushed the term limits. While I agree that a 2 term limit was a good idea, sometimes you need to think things out.

Clean bill for Homeland Security funding. Then address immigration in a clean bill. Don't make me remind folks that the Congress had several years already to address this issue. Cut the BS politics and get on with arguing, debating the merits of each issue in separately addressed legislation proposals.

" acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms."? Since when are amendments passed by Congress? They're ratified by the states.

An proposed amendment to the Constitution has a two-track sequence and course.

1) First, approval by a two-thirds vote of each House of the Congress is required, i.e, the Senate must approve the proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote; the House must approve it by a two-thirds vote; only if this occurs, the Congress forwards the proposed Amendment to the states......

2) Secondly, to become an amendment, three-quarters of the states must vote to concur with the Congress to approve the proposed Amendment.

If the requirements in the Constitution of the two-track sequence and course are met, the Amendment is adopted as a part of the Constitution.

No homework today because the teacher feels generous.

Are you John Edwards in disguise? Been wondering what happened to you.