Obama's executive actions could open a door for successors

[webfact]

Obama's executive actions could open a door for successors
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

WASHINGTON (AP) — While the White House has condemned Donald Trump's call for a ban on Muslim immigrants as "disqualifying" and "toxic," President Barack Obama may have only himself to blame if a President Trump ever succeeds in putting his plan, or some version of it, into action.

In his efforts to work around Congress, Obama has made the aggressive use of executive power, particularly on immigration, an increasingly effective and politically accepted presidential tool. While legal scholars are divided on whether Obama has accelerated or merely continued a drift of power toward the executive branch, there's little debate that he's paved a path for his successor.

Depending on who that is, many Obama backers could rue the day they cheered his "pen-and-phone" campaign to get past Republican opposition in Congress. The unilateral steps he took to raise environmental standards, tighten gun control measures and ease the threat of deportation for millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, may serve as precedent for moves they won't cheer.

"Democrats have been remarkably shortsighted in embracing of this type of uber-presidency," said Jonathon Turley, a George Washington University law professor. Although Turley represents House Republicans in a challenge to Obama's health care law, he says he agrees with the policies Obama has enacted in some other actions.

"Unfortunately I think the bill will come due for many Democrats," Turley said. "In a future administration, they will hear the same arguments played back to them as they watch a different president go after a different set of priorities."

Peter Spiro, an expert on immigration and constitutional law at Temple University, doesn't believe Obama has overstepped his constitutional bounds. But he does think he's given future presidents political cover, particularly in the area of immigration.

"The next president would say, 'Well, look, President Obama was a strong defender of this and I'm just following in his footsteps,'" he said.

To be sure, the verdict is still out on how much Obama's presidency may have tipped the scales in the balance of powers between the courts, the executive and Congress. Some court challenges are undecided, most notably one contesting his second major immigration action granting temporary reprieve to millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Meanwhile, the White House has yet to decide whether to go ahead on two significant executive actions prompted by opposition in Congress — one that would expand background checks on gun sales and another that would close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and move detainees to U.S. soil.

How such actions, particularly the latter, would play out in the courts and court of public opinion would be important factors in how Obama's record is judged by history and his successor.

Experts view Obama's influence as considerable when it comes to war powers, particularly his case for killing American suspects of terrorism on foreign soil. But a paradox is evident on immigration issues — where he has very publicly seized the broad authority given to the executive and where the gap between his policies and his potential Republican successors is wide.

In 2012 and 2014, after long maintaining he did not have such authority, Obama ordered federal immigration authorities not to deport certain groups of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. The administration asked immigrants to apply for a temporary new legal status. The White House said it was using its prosecutorial discretion — the power to determine how limited resources should be used to enforce the law.

That power has been used by all presidents on a broad range of issues, but rarely has a president called a news conference to announce it or created a formal system to use it, said Hiroshi Motomura, a University of California at Los Angeles professor and expert in immigration law.

"Every president has different priorities, but Obama has actually changed things by being more systematized and transparent and that's what led to critics and the legal challenge," Motomura said.

A future president might take the same principle into another arena, Turley argued, choosing not to enforce pollution regulation against some businesses or temporarily granting some taxpayers a reprieve.

If not a full ban on Muslim visitors, as Trump proposed, prosecutorial discretion might be used to argue for prioritizing deportation of Muslim immigrants. A president might place visitors from Muslim countries under special screening or ask them to register, moves that would have some recent precedent.

Whether such executive moves would survive a lawsuit is far from clear. In the wake of Trump's proposed ban, many legal scholars lambasted the idea but didn't label it impossible.

Congress already has granted broad authority for the president to bar "any class of aliens" entry into the United States if he determines it would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." While some argue barring entry based on religion would be discriminatory, precisely how constitutional and legal protections against discrimination apply to a foreign national is unclear.

These murky legal questions don't always rule the day in presidential politics, noted Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor.

"The Supreme Court very rarely issues rulings on presidential power. It tends to try to duck cases where somebody tries to say the president doesn't have the power to do something," said Posner, who has written on the rise of executive power in "The Executive Unbound."

"When a president tries to do something, they tend to rely on a previous action from another president. It's a particularly powerful argument if the president is from another party and a particularly powerful argument if Congress did not object to what the president tried to do. Sort of like a court relies on a precedent — but not judicial precedent, political precedent."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-11

[ggt]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

[Usernames]

In other words, Trump's immigration ban is not only constitutional but also has precedent.

[Pinot]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

It's always interesting to see the hate Obama generates in wingnuttia. He's black you know.

One more year of him and then HRC takes over. They really really hate Hillary too.

[Publicus]

The following are the laws to include the cites of the laws and from the Constitution and the body of case law decided by SCOTUS provided by the Executive Branch in support of its Executive Action in respect of immigration, which was mentioned in the OP.

The legal and constitutional authority for the Department of Homeland Security to defer deportation of some 4 million specified undocumented immigrants is provided in the memorandum of DHS issuing its order to defer deportation of these certain immigrants only.

This issue is now before SCOTUS. The core issue is that POTUS has legal and constitutional authority to take the action. POTUS did not overstep his bounds, either on a statutory basis or based in the Constitution and SCOTUS case law on immigration.

The right wing and the 26 Republican governors suing the United States over this issue are wrong and empty headed in their claims, which are entirely political and not based in either statutory law or the Constitution.

I have edited and extracted from the DHS Memorandum which issues the immigration order. The record needs to be set straight so the right wing and other Republicans will need to face facts rather than simply state their stale rhetoric.

(U.S.C refers to the Code of Laws of the United States, i.e,. United States Code.

"Title" refers to the specific code. Title 8 for instance refers to all the laws pertaining to immigration and naturalisation of citizenship for foreigners who apply to become citizens. It is standard that Title 8 simply appears as "8 U.S.C. Section xxxx"

C.F.R. refers to the official daily publication, the Code of Federal Regulations. This is where the federal government publishes for all to see and comment on proposed rules and regulations to enforce laws enacted by the congress, as authorised by the congress. Final rules and regulations are ultimately published here.

The symbol § refers to the Section of the law being cited.

Pub. L. refers to an enacted law of the United States, i.e., Public Law No. xxx)

The Department of Homeland Security’s Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”), as amended, Title 8 United States Code [of laws] §§ 1101 et seq.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)((i) and (a)(9)©(i)(I)

Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations. § 274a.12©(14)

Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations. § 109.1((7) (1982).

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1182.

“Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1227); see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (providing that “[a]ny alien . . . in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien” falls within one or more classes of deportable aliens); see also

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (listing classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas or be admitted to the United States). See id. § 1229a (governing removal proceedings); see also id. §§ 1225((1)(A), 1228( (setting out expedited removal procedures for certain arriving aliens and certain aliens convicted of aggravated felonies).

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135,

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, § 402(5), 116 Stat. 2135, 2178 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 202(5)).

Title 6 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq

Pub. L. No. 107-296, §§ 403, 442, 451, 471, 116 Stat. 2135, 2178, 2193, 2195, 2205; 69 Fed. Reg. 60938, 60938 (Oct. 13, 2004);

75 Fed. Reg. 12445, 12445 (Mar. 16, 2010).

8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); asylum, id. § 1158((1)(A); and cancellation of removal, id. § 1229b.

AUTHORITY IN THE CONSTITUTION

To include rulings of the Supreme Court

U.S. Constitution. Article. II, § 3,.

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) In Chaney, the Court considered and rejected a challenge, concluding that an agency’s decision not to initiate enforcement proceedings is presumptively immune from judicial review.

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012).

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996)

Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985))).

See 470 U.S. at 832. The Court explained that, while Congress may “provide[] guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers,” in the absence of such “legislative direction,” an agency’s non-enforcement determination is, much like a prosecutor’s decision.

United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950) pertaining to Title 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3)

Reno v. American.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 483–84 (1999) (describing deferred action). regulations promulgated pursuant to authority delegated by Congress, see Title 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(3), 1324a(h)(3)

Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 374 n.1 (2005)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587– 88 (1952).

Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007)

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983))).

470 U.S. at 833 n.4 (quoting Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159, 1162 (District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals 1973) (en banc)); [en banc means all the judges of the appeals court sat on the case, which is rare because it can put up to 20 judges in the one courtroom]

Kenney v. Glickman, 96 F.3d 1118, 1123 (U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1996); see also Crowley Caribbean Transp., Inc. v. Peña, 37 F.3d 671, 676–77 (District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. 1994).

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 313 (1993)

The Department of Homeland Security’s Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf

Edited December 11, 2015 by Publicus

[geriatrickid]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

Why make childish unfounded statements?

Obama doesn't have the Supreme Court in his back pocket. You forget that the great legal scholar Clarence Thomas is on the bench. He always sides with the what can be considered the most right wing of positions. Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito are hardly backers of Obama. The Roberts Court is considered a conservative court. What's your point on the Justice Department? Are you aware that the DOJ is subject to laws put in place by Congress? Your statement brings to mind the complaints George Wallace and Lester Maddox made when the SCOTUS rulings on desegregation were delivered. All that's missing is Wallace's famous words "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever".

[h90]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

It's always interesting to see the hate Obama generates in wingnuttia. He's black you know.

One more year of him and then HRC takes over. They really really hate Hillary too.

I thought Bush was the worst president ever

Than Obama came and I thought he is the worst

Than Hillary will come.....

Black, or white, left or right that are people I wouldn't even hire as delivery person for a Pizza restaurant....

[wwest5829]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

Funny

[Publicus]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

Ridiculous.

In the year 2000 election of the president the nine justices of the Supreme Court got two votes. One vote for each justice occurred in the voting precinct of the local community. The second vote occurred sitting as SCOTUS in Bush v Gore. Four justices got to vote twice for Gore, five justices got to vote twice for Bush. The rest is history, a truly unfortunate and pathetic history.

As to DoJ, a lawyer has to move heaven and earth to get in to the Justice Department. The standards are higher than any other standard applied to a lawyer in any aspect of the legal profession. A lawyer who got hauled in for marijuana in high school is excluded from serving in DoJ.

A lawyer whose family member was convicted on a certain category of charges is excluded from work at DoJ. A lawyer in the bottom half of his law school graduating class does indeed have to move heaven and earth which still might not be enough to get through the door. It is tougher to get into DoJ than it is to qualify for a license to practice law before SCOTUS. (Not just any lawyer can walk in and present a case to SCOTUS.) Once in DoJ, a lawyer who even remotely suggests some kind of political influence in his actions is an absolute goner.

DoJ lawyers are upright and tough and the FBI is even more severe about it in their professional work. SCOTUS and DoJ are two places at which no one can afford to get out of order. The attorney general has to be more pure than Caesar's wife.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

It's always interesting to see the hate Obama generates in wingnuttia. He's black you know.

One more year of him and then HRC takes over. They really really hate Hillary too.

I thought Bush was the worst president ever

Than Obama came and I thought he is the worst

Than Hillary will come.....

Black, or white, left or right that are people I wouldn't even hire as delivery person for a Pizza restaurant....

The theory may well need some revision cause the Godfather Pizza guy Herman Cain couldn't make it either. His 2012 Republican candidacy was short lived and half baked indeed.

So perhaps it's best to leave the pizza business out of the discussion.

Right wing Republican black guys especially.

[facthailand]

Unless declared by Congress, wars by many past presidents, right back to the end of WWII, were/are illegal. That makes those presidents de facto war criminals.

Obama is a special case because he's more of a mad-dog hawk than any of the rest. The Peace Prize laureate is warring on at least seven Muslim countries.

Right, they hate us for our freedoms...

[h90]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

It's always interesting to see the hate Obama generates in wingnuttia. He's black you know.

One more year of him and then HRC takes over. They really really hate Hillary too.

I thought Bush was the worst president ever

Than Obama came and I thought he is the worst

Than Hillary will come.....

Black, or white, left or right that are people I wouldn't even hire as delivery person for a Pizza restaurant....

The theory may well need some revision cause the Godfather Pizza guy Herman Cain couldn't make it either. His 2012 Republican candidacy was short lived and half baked indeed.

So perhaps it's best to leave the pizza business out of the discussion.

Right wing Republican black guys especially.

I complete forgot about him......I admit the Pizza example is biased.....there would be one competent......

But seriously:

Bush: Plain silly, started unnecessary wars

Obama: very doubtful agenda, lies half the time

Hillary: Lies all the time and is crazy

Trump: is crazy

That can't be the leadership of the strongest country and military, or?

[h90]

Unless declared by Congress, wars by many past presidents, right back to the end of WWII, were/are illegal. That makes those presidents de facto war criminals.

Obama is a special case because he's more of a mad-dog hawk than any of the rest. The Peace Prize laureate is warring on at least seven Muslim countries.

Right, they hate us for our freedoms...

Don't forget the doubtful attack on the former friends in Afghanistan and the Saddams weapons of mass destruction (including photos). Iraq at least is also good for a sentence for war criminals.

[chuckd]

Unless declared by Congress, wars by many past presidents, right back to the end of WWII, were/are illegal. That makes those presidents de facto war criminals.

Obama is a special case because he's more of a mad-dog hawk than any of the rest. The Peace Prize laureate is warring on at least seven Muslim countries.

Right, they hate us for our freedoms...

Don't forget the doubtful attack on the former friends in Afghanistan and the Saddams weapons of mass destruction (including photos). Iraq at least is also good for a sentence for war criminals.

I'm assuming you are including all those politicians that voted for the Iraq War Resolution would be included in the war crimes charges.

Democrats and Republicans alike?

[riceyummm]

If by Executive Actions they mean Executive Orders, consider this:

[chuckd]

Executive actions also include Presidential Memorandum and Executive Agreements. Obama is way ahead of whoever is in second place.

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

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

1:16 p.m. EST December 17, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He's used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

[bgChiangMai]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

SCOTUS is certainly not in Obama's back pocket and the Justice Dept. is an independent agency, but the hatred and propaganda Obama's alleged executive actions seem to instill in some is completely unwarranted. This is a listing of executive orders issued by recent past presidents affirmed not only by Snopes.com, but by numerous official sources if one takes the trouble to look.

Name Number claimed: Actual number:

Theodore Roosevelt 3 1,081

Franklin Roosevelt 11 3,522

Harry Truman 5 907

Dwight Eisenhower 2 484

John Kennedy 4 214

Lyndon Johnson 4 325

Richard Nixon 1 346

Gerald Ford 3 169

Jimmy Carter 3 320

Ronald Reagan 5 381

George H.W. Bush 3 166

Bill Clinton 15 364

George W. Bush 62 291

Barack Obama 923 147

Of course, since Pres. Obama has not finished his second term, the above number represents only his first term. Now well into his second term, President Obama has issued a total of 223 executive orders overall.

Edited December 11, 2015 by bgChiangMai

[chuckd]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

SCOTUS is certainly not in Obama's back pocket and the Justice Dept. is an independent agency, but the hatred and propaganda Obama's alleged executive actions seem to instill in some is completely unwarranted. This is a listing of executive orders issued by recent past presidents affirmed not only by Snopes.com, but by numerous official sources if one takes the trouble to look.

Name Number claimed: Actual number:

Theodore Roosevelt 3 1,081

Franklin Roosevelt 11 3,522

Harry Truman 5 907

Dwight Eisenhower 2 484

John Kennedy 4 214

Lyndon Johnson 4 325

Richard Nixon 1 346

Gerald Ford 3 169

Jimmy Carter 3 320

Ronald Reagan 5 381

George H.W. Bush 3 166

Bill Clinton 15 364

George W. Bush 62 291

Barack Obama 923 147

Of course, since Pres. Obama has not finished his second term, the above number represents only his first term. Now well into his second term, President Obama has issued a total of 223 executive orders overall.

Now read the post immediately preceding yours.

[Steely Dan]

Trump has been absolutely brilliant in exposing the abuses of Obama, he has done it by adopting polar opposite positions with the implicit threat of bypassing controls on his office, much I'm the same way as Obama has.

[Publicus]

Prez Obama's immigration Executive Action memo by the Department of Homeland Security to defer deportation of 4 million specified undocumented aliens is supported thoroughly in law, rules and regulations, the Constitution.

There's no reason to believe that 99% of Prez Obama's Executive Orders or Executive Action Memoranda are out of bounds either legally or constitutionally.

One cherry picked judge here or there has made noises but SCOTUS has not taken a case that charges Prez Obama with overstepping his bounds in these respects.

The present immigration case before SCOTUS is based in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 which is both a novel claim and is in dispute, which is why SCOTUS accepted it. SCOTUS did not have to accept the case. It could have let the lower court rulings against POTUS stand as they are.

Texas Denied 30-Day Extension in Supreme Court Immigration Case

The Obama Administration won a small but significant battle on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Texas’ request for an extra 30 days to respond to the White House’s petition for review of a controversial immigration case.

Texas, which leads a 26-state coalition that has already blocked the program twice in lower courts, was instead given eight days, or until Dec. 29, to respond. The 30-day extension originally sought could have pushed a final decision by the high court into 2017.

The administration appealed to the nation's high court, and Texas requested the 30-day extension. The Obama administration objected, saying a lengthy delay would push any eventual ruling so late into — or even beyond — Obama's last term that it would effectively doom the proposal.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/01/texas-denied-30-day-request-respond-obamas-immigra/

[Publicus]

Unless declared by Congress, wars by many past presidents, right back to the end of WWII, were/are illegal. That makes those presidents de facto war criminals.

Obama is a special case because he's more of a mad-dog hawk than any of the rest. The Peace Prize laureate is warring on at least seven Muslim countries.

Right, they hate us for our freedoms...

Take it to the Supreme Court plse thx.

Won't get through the door.

[Pinot]

Trump has been absolutely brilliant in exposing the abuses of Obama, he has done it by adopting polar opposite positions with the implicit threat of bypassing controls on his office, much I'm the same way as Obama has.

"Trump" and "brilliant" in the same sentence? Good for you.

Trump has about 25% of the voting Republicans at this point. He can spout anything out of that pie hole of his at this point and that 25% is still going to love him. Trump's problem is, he's nowhere to go but down. It's going to be very difficult to build further support.

I think he'll fold long before the convention but let's just say he winds with the nomination. Does anyone think (outside of wingnuttia) that Trump will be able to get unaffiliated voters or Democrats to cross over? How bigoted is America? He's got no ideas other than the crazy xenophobia. Come on, Trump is toast.

It will be a election beating like no other in history, taking the Republican party with it.

Beaten like a ginger stepchild

Beaten like a rented mule

Beaten like a dead horse

Beating like a dog

Beaten like a thief

Beaten like a drum

Beaten like a rented goalie

Beaten like a burukenge

Beat bad by Hillary or any breathing Democrat.

The alternatives to Trump are just as stupid and less popular with the uneducated, fearful, lunatic base.

Republicans are screwed and it's all of their own doing

[Pinot]

The reason President Obama, a self-proclaimed Constitutional Legal Scholar, can get away with dictating policy by executive order...is that he knows that if the Congress cries foul and takes him to court...he has the Justice Dept. and Supreme Court in his back pocket and does not fear his rulings being overturned...

Obama would love to play the victim and get political mileage out of a battle with Congress...Congress knows this also...and are just biding their time until America's first elected authoritarian leader leaves office.

Good bye and good riddance...

And hello Hillary Clinton

Obama has the supreme court in his back pocket? Okay, fine.

Always enjoy hearing new news from wingnuttia.