After Senate defeats DREAM Act, Obama enacts it anyway by Executive Order

[Little-Acorn]

Last December, a bill to let illegal aliens stay in the U.S. if they were enrolled in school, serving in the military, or etc., was voted down by the Senate.

Last Friday, the Obama administration decided it was OK to enact it anyway, and issued orders that Immigration officers should no longer deport illegal aliens who were enrolled or enlisted.

Am I the only one who finds this act by Obama, astounding? I've seen no mention of it in any mainstream news service or publication. I had to dig pretty hard to find it on the Internet, and didn't try to post anything about it until I found it in a fairly reputable source.

Frankly, when I first heard about it, I thought it must be a joke, maybe an article found in The Onion... though it isn't particularly funny, unlike their usual publications. Now I'm just standing here with my mouth open.

Somebody help me out here. Isn't the Presiden't job "to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed." ? Isn't that his WHOLE job?

Did I miss the part where it turned into "to decide which laws of the United States shall be executed and which shall not be" ?

My cartoon-watching kids would call this "morphing". But that's because they watch cartoons.

What on Earth has Barack Obama been watching, that gave him the idea he can tell the Border Patrol NOT to enforce immigration law???

Defunding them is one thing (as many Presidents have done). Failing to send officers to do the job is another (which those same Presidents have done).

But ACTIVELY TELLING THEM TO NOT BUST ILLEGALS because they have enrolled in school or whatever???

Please, somebody wake me up and tell me I'm just having a bad dream here.

Please?

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110620/pl_dailycaller/whitehouseloosensborderrulesfor2012_1

White House loosens border rules for 2012

Mon Jun 20, 6:28 pm ET

President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters without alienating the populous at large, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.

The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

“They’re pushing the [immigration] agents to be even more lax, to go further in not enforcing the law,” said Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state. “At a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and looking for work, this is more bad news coming from the Obama administration… [if the administration] really cared about putting Americans back to work, it would be vigorously enforcing the law,” he said.

“We think it is an excellent step,” said Laura Vasquez, at the Hispanic-advocacy group, La Raza, which pushed for the policies, and which is working with other groups to register Hispanics to vote in 2012. “What’s very important is how the prosecutorial discretion memo is implemented” on the streets, she said.

The Hispanic vote could be crucial in the 2012 election, because the Obama campaign hopes to offset its declining poll ratings by registering new Hispanic voters in crucial swing states, such as Virginia and North Carolina.

To boost the Hispanic vote, the administration has enlisted support from Hispanic media figures, appointed an experienced Hispanic political operative to run the political side of the Obama reelection campaign, and has maintained close ties to Hispanic advocacy groups, including La Raza. For example, La Raza’s former senior vice president and lobbyist, Cecilia Munoz, was hired by the Obama administration as director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009.

On Friday, officials at ICE announced several new administrative changes to immigration enforcement.

The primary document was the six-page “prosecutorial discretion” memo, which provided new reasons for officials to not deport illegal immigrants.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Gaffer]

He's going to "rule" as he pleases and congress be damned. And there are not enough congress thingies with the balls to stand up to him.

[Little-Acorn]

IIRC, the purpose of Executive Orders, is for the President to use in enforcing the laws that Congress passes (and the Pres signs). I thought one of the restrictions on them, was that he can't issue one unless it's specifically for a law COngress has already passed. If Congress has enacted a new tax, for example, the President can issue Executive Orders creating agencies to collect that tax.

He's not suppose to issue EOs to do things that Congress hasn't provided for - things that there aren't any actual Federal laws letting him do.

But how about about issuing an EO to do something after Congress has SPECIFICALLY VOTED AGAINST it? And has in the past specifically passed laws forbidding it (such as laws forbidding illegal aliens from staying in the country) - laws that are still in force?

Help me out here. It's been a rough week for me, and I'm tired, and can't recall.

Has any President in history, ever done this?

[fj1200]

Has any President in history, ever done this?

I'm sure the answer is multiple times. It sounds like you're right though:

U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the Executive branch manage the operations within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

I would imagine the discretion is allowed for somewhere in some law especially if he's directing operations within an agency.

[revelarts]

OBAMA,
"Power , Unlimited POOOWERRRrrrr!"

Executive orders the prez puts into operation for existing laws are fine, it's could be considered part of his duties but he's got ZERO constitution right to MAKE CRAP UP.

Kings, Chiefs, Gang leaders, dictators, despots and Potentates, have that kind of power, not U.S. Presidents.

that's the way it's suppose to be anyway.

http://origin-www.congress.org/news/2010/05/24/are_executive_orders_constitutional

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/separationofpowers.htm

[fj1200]

... but he's got ZERO constitution right to MAKE CRAP UP.

True, but is that the case here? It may suck and you don't like the outcome but the failure would be in the law passed by Congress. Congress has delegated far too much IMO.

[Gaffer]

True, but is that the case here? It may suck and you don't like the outcome but the failure would be in the law passed by Congress. Congress has delegated far too much IMO.

Congress didn't pass the law. That's the part that bites. I agree about congress delegating too much.

[Kathianne]

Congress didn't pass the law. That's the part that bites. I agree about congress delegating too much.

Nor do they seem in the mood to demand powers back. Not regarding their power to declare and fund war; not their power to raise the debt ceiling or fund non-essential services, until presented with a passable budget. Not to block anything a president wants, if (s)he does end games around their power of legislation.

[fj1200]

Congress didn't pass the law.

I have to believe that they linked to an earlier law or operational basis in the determination. But I accept the possibility of being wrong here.

[Missileman]

There is one provision in the DREAM act that I am totally in favor of. If someone who already has a green card serves 2-years in the US military, they should be granted citizenship. Frankly, I can't believe this isn't law already.

[PostmodernProphet]

it is....
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/milcitizens.htm

[Gunny]

Last December, a bill to let illegal aliens stay in the U.S. if they were enrolled in school, serving in the military, or etc., was voted down by the Senate.

Last Friday, the Obama administration decided it was OK to enact it anyway, and issued orders that Immigration officers should no longer deport illegal aliens who were enrolled or enlisted.

Am I the only one who finds this act by Obama, astounding? I've seen no mention of it in any mainstream news service or publication. I had to dig pretty hard to find it on the Internet, and didn't try to post anything about it until I found it in a fairly reputable source.

Frankly, when I first heard about it, I thought it must be a joke, maybe an article found in The Onion... though it isn't particularly funny, unlike their usual publications. Now I'm just standing here with my mouth open.

Somebody help me out here. Isn't the Presiden't job "to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed." ? Isn't that his WHOLE job?

Did I miss the part where it turned into "to decide which laws of the United States shall be executed and which shall not be" ?

My cartoon-watching kids would call this "morphing". But that's because they watch cartoons.

What on Earth has Barack Obama been watching, that gave him the idea he can tell the Border Patrol NOT to enforce immigration law???

Defunding them is one thing (as many Presidents have done). Failing to send officers to do the job is another (which those same Presidents have done).

But ACTIVELY TELLING THEM TO NOT BUST ILLEGALS because they have enrolled in school or whatever???

Please, somebody wake me up and tell me I'm just having a bad dream here.

Please?

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110620/pl_dailycaller/whitehouseloosensborderrulesfor2012_1

White House loosens border rules for 2012

Mon Jun 20, 6:28 pm ET

President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters without alienating the populous at large, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.

The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

“They’re pushing the [immigration] agents to be even more lax, to go further in not enforcing the law,” said Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state. “At a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and looking for work, this is more bad news coming from the Obama administration… [if the administration] really cared about putting Americans back to work, it would be vigorously enforcing the law,” he said.

“We think it is an excellent step,” said Laura Vasquez, at the Hispanic-advocacy group, La Raza, which pushed for the policies, and which is working with other groups to register Hispanics to vote in 2012. “What’s very important is how the prosecutorial discretion memo is implemented” on the streets, she said.

The Hispanic vote could be crucial in the 2012 election, because the Obama campaign hopes to offset its declining poll ratings by registering new Hispanic voters in crucial swing states, such as Virginia and North Carolina.

To boost the Hispanic vote, the administration has enlisted support from Hispanic media figures, appointed an experienced Hispanic political operative to run the political side of the Obama reelection campaign, and has maintained close ties to Hispanic advocacy groups, including La Raza. For example, La Raza’s former senior vice president and lobbyist, Cecilia Munoz, was hired by the Obama administration as director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009.

On Friday, officials at ICE announced several new administrative changes to immigration enforcement.

The primary document was the six-page “prosecutorial discretion” memo, which provided new reasons for officials to not deport illegal immigrants.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

Wait until he figures out a way to allow them to register to vote.

Absurd.

[KSigMason]

As a soldier I find it unsettling that an illegal alien, who shares no loyalty to my country, is allowed to join. As a student of history, seeing this illegalization in our military I am seeing America become Rome 2.0.

[Missileman]

As a soldier I find it unsettling that an illegal alien, who shares no loyalty to my country, is allowed to join. As a student of history, seeing this illegalization in our military I am seeing America become Rome 2.0.

Illegal aliens aren't allowed to join the military.

[revelarts]

As a soldier I find it unsettling that an illegal alien, who shares no loyalty to my country, is allowed to join. As a student of history, seeing this illegalization in our military I am seeing America become Rome 2.0.

YEP.


Illegal aliens aren't allowed to join the military.


yes they are

...Legal illegals vs. illegal illegals


...Over the next decade, the military commissioned a number of studies on the relationship between race and ethnicity and the “propensity to enlist.” For example, the Youth Attitude Tracking Survey, conducted between 1975 and 1999 and published by the Defense Technical Information Center, found a correlation between the rising educational achievement of blacks and lower enlistment rates; and between the low educational achievement of Latinos (particularly if their first language was not English) and rising enlistment rates. As Latinos became a more important source of recruits, the Pentagon hired market research firms to design advertising campaigns that addressed the issues they cared most about—pride in family, children in school and citizenship....

....The recruitment of illegal immigrants is particularly intense in Los Angeles, where 75 percent of the high school students are Latino. “A lot of our students are undocumented,” says Arlene Inouye, a teacher at Garfield High School in East Los Angeles, “and it’s common knowledge that recruiters offer green cards.” Inouye is the coordinator and founder of the Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools (CAMS), a counter-recruitment organization that educates teenagers about deceptive recruiting practices. “The practice is pretty widespread all over the nation,” she says, “especially in California and Texas. … The recruiters tell them, ‘you’ll be helping your family.’ “
Inouye referred me to Salvador Garcia, a student whose father had been deported, and who had been approached by a recruiter when he was a freshman at Garfield (He is now a senior). Garcia says the recruiter told him: “If you need papers, come and fight for us and we can get you some, and then you’ll never have to mess with immigration.” When he told the recruiter that he was born in this country, the recruiter responded, “Do you have anybody in your family that needs a green card, needs papers?” Salvador told him that his father, who had entered the country illegally from Mexico, had recently been deported. “If you join the military you can get your father back,” the recruiter said. “It’s not a problem, we can get him his papers and nobody will ever bother him again.” Salvador almost signed the enlistment form right then, but says he was stopped by the realization of “how it’s all connected—the war and Mexico and immigration.” He is now active in the counter-recruitment movement.

Recruiters in other parts of the country are making the same promises. In Chicago, for example, Jorge, whose entire family was illegal, joined the military because a high school recruiter promised that he and every member of his family would get a green card. Jorge actually did get a green card while he was in Iraq, but he became so angry and disillusioned when the military did nothing for his family that he went AWOL.

He is now back in Chicago, where a counter-recruitment activist named Juan Torres, whose only son was killed in Afghanistan, is working on getting him discharged from the military....
..

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3271/illegal_immigrants_uncle_sam_wants_you/

Just look it up there's plenty out there.

[Gunny]

Illegal aliens aren't allowed to join the military.

Must be semantics day for you, huh? You know what he meant.

Foreign immigrants with work visas most certainly ARE allowed to join the military providing they meet all the physical, mental and paperwork criteria.

The payoff being US citizenship in the end.

That isn't quite the same as the President of the US telling law enforcement to not enforce immigration laws, now is it?

[Missileman]

YEP.




yes they are


http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3271/illegal_immigrants_uncle_sam_wants_you/

Just look it up there's plenty out there.

If they have green cards, they're not illegal aliens.

[Missileman]

Must be semantics day for you, huh? You know what he meant.

Foreign immigrants with work visas most certainly ARE allowed to join the military providing they meet all the physical, mental and paperwork criteria.

The payoff being US citizenship in the end.

That isn't quite the same as the President of the US telling law enforcement to not enforce immigration laws, now is it?

I assume he meant exactly what he wrote, illegal aliens.

And you need to put your stiffy away, slick...we're on the same side on this issue, something you might have been able to figure out if you'd read my first post in this thread.

[PostmodernProphet]

Foreign immigrants with work visas most certainly ARE allowed to join the military providing they meet all the physical, mental and paperwork criteria.

???....someone with a work visa that meets all the paperwork criteria would not be an illegal alien......

[revelarts]

If they have green cards, they're not illegal aliens.

Read it Again.
They recruit illegals and give them green cards after the fact. or as part of the the package for Enlisting.

Why are you in denial about this?

[Missileman]

Read it Again.
They recruit illegals and give them green cards after the fact. or as part of the the package for Enlisting.

Why are you in denial about this?

It can't be after the fact. They have to have the green card and an SS# to enlist. If they're taking normally non-productive elements and turning them into tax-paying public servants, I have no problem with it.

[PostmodernProphet]

Read it Again.
They recruit illegals and give them green cards after the fact. or as part of the the package for Enlisting.

Why are you in denial about this?

once they have a green card they aren't illegal......they have to have the green card to enlist......therefore illegals can't enlist......no one is in denial, you are just wrong.....

[revelarts]

If they weren't enlisting they would be illegal,
therefore they are illegal
UNLESS they enlist,
some are in denial.

If they do not qualify, THEY DON"T get the GREEN CARD.

not quite a chicken or the egg came 1st here.
!st they are Illegal with no docs living in the U.S..
Talks to a recruiter who says "I can fix it, IF you enlist".

what am i missing here?

[Missileman]

If they weren't enlisting they would be illegal,
therefore they are illegal
UNLESS they enlist,
some are in denial.

They are no longer illegal once they've gotten a green card and SS#. That they are actually contributing something instead of leeching makes it more than okay in my book.

[TheShadowKNows]

Last December, a bill to let illegal aliens stay in the U.S. if they were enrolled in school, serving in the military, or etc., was voted down by the Senate.

Last Friday, the Obama administration decided it was OK to enact it anyway, and issued orders that Immigration officers should no longer deport illegal aliens who were enrolled or enlisted.

Am I the only one who finds this act by Obama, astounding? I've seen no mention of it in any mainstream news service or publication. I had to dig pretty hard to find it on the Internet, and didn't try to post anything about it until I found it in a fairly reputable source.

Frankly, when I first heard about it, I thought it must be a joke, maybe an article found in The Onion... though it isn't particularly funny, unlike their usual publications. Now I'm just standing here with my mouth open.

Somebody help me out here. Isn't the Presiden't job "to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed." ? Isn't that his WHOLE job?

Did I miss the part where it turned into "to decide which laws of the United States shall be executed and which shall not be" ?

My cartoon-watching kids would call this "morphing". But that's because they watch cartoons.

What on Earth has Barack Obama been watching, that gave him the idea he can tell the Border Patrol NOT to enforce immigration law???

Defunding them is one thing (as many Presidents have done). Failing to send officers to do the job is another (which those same Presidents have done).

But ACTIVELY TELLING THEM TO NOT BUST ILLEGALS because they have enrolled in school or whatever???

Please, somebody wake me up and tell me I'm just having a bad dream here.

Please?

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110620/pl_dailycaller/whitehouseloosensborderrulesfor2012_1

White House loosens border rules for 2012

Mon Jun 20, 6:28 pm ET

President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters without alienating the populous at large, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.

The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

“They’re pushing the [immigration] agents to be even more lax, to go further in not enforcing the law,” said Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state. “At a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and looking for work, this is more bad news coming from the Obama administration… [if the administration] really cared about putting Americans back to work, it would be vigorously enforcing the law,” he said.

“We think it is an excellent step,” said Laura Vasquez, at the Hispanic-advocacy group, La Raza, which pushed for the policies, and which is working with other groups to register Hispanics to vote in 2012. “What’s very important is how the prosecutorial discretion memo is implemented” on the streets, she said.

The Hispanic vote could be crucial in the 2012 election, because the Obama campaign hopes to offset its declining poll ratings by registering new Hispanic voters in crucial swing states, such as Virginia and North Carolina.

To boost the Hispanic vote, the administration has enlisted support from Hispanic media figures, appointed an experienced Hispanic political operative to run the political side of the Obama reelection campaign, and has maintained close ties to Hispanic advocacy groups, including La Raza. For example, La Raza’s former senior vice president and lobbyist, Cecilia Munoz, was hired by the Obama administration as director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009.

On Friday, officials at ICE announced several new administrative changes to immigration enforcement.

The primary document was the six-page “prosecutorial discretion” memo, which provided new reasons for officials to not deport illegal immigrants.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

There is not now, nor has there ever been legitimate evidence of our system being flawed to the point of warranting the severe maligning of it's content by a cheap ghetto street hustler.
If my summation of bam bams qualifications offend your sensibilities then maybe you are part of the problem. As the intentions of this agenda driven "Carpetbagger" should be obvious to everyone at this juncture, and denial of same will only manifest into more carnage laid upon our great Republic.
At the core of voters reluctance to react accordingly to the insidious behavior bammy has displayed throughout his tenure as President, is a prevalent layer of "White Guilt". Harboring people who live in abject fear of having the finger of racism pointed at them.
While those that have remained in an objective and rational perspective, would have conclude that the time for talk of IMPEACHMENT is not only of the essence, but of a great necessity in salvaging the economic, cultural, and moral foundations of the American way of life as we have come to know it.
While somewhere between the influences of his birth father ( Sortero ), Saul Alinsky, and currently George Soros, his mind has been concertedly "warped" against Capitalism. With the resulting anger that has infested his psyche, is the very dear price the electorate of the U.S. is paying, and will continue to pay until his departure.
As I alluded to above, you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. While Impeachment is neither radical or immoral, but at this time a necessity.

[logroller]

I would imagine the discretion is allowed for somewhere in some law especially if he's directing operations within an agency.


Congress didn't pass the law. That's the part that bites. I agree about congress delegating too much.


I have to believe that they linked to an earlier law or operational basis in the determination. But I accept the possibility of being wrong here.

Ur right FJ, there absolutely are laws about immigration enforcement. Rulemaking within agencies is influenced by the CIC. The likelihood the directive is intended to garner political support from a class of people whose family history stems from illegal immigration to the country is abhorrent and disgusting; not that the current administration minds the laws of this country anyways, but it isn't illegal.

[PostmodernProphet]

what am i missing here?

first, the fact it has to be fixed......if illegals could enlist, the recruiter wouldn't have to get them a work visa.....second, the fact that once they have the green card, they aren't illegal any more......third, if they've risked life for this country, why shouldn't they be allowed citizenship?.....

[revelarts]

first, the fact it has to be fixed......if illegals could enlist, the recruiter wouldn't have to get them a work visa.....second, the fact that once they have the green card, they aren't illegal any more......third, if they've risked life for this country, why shouldn't they be allowed citizenship?.....

Your both using the conclusion to justify the means, fine.
Why can't others use other conclusions, Tax payers, cheap workers?

But by your criteria if they don't pass the physical but were willing should they still get citizenship?

[Kathianne]

Your both using the conclusion to justify the means, fine.
Why can't others use other conclusions, Tax payers, cheap workers?

But by your criteria if they don't pass the physical but were willing should they still get citizenship?

To your last point, no he wasn't. He said, 'risked', not 'willing to risk.'

How would tax payers or cheap workers, (whatever that is), fit the description of joining the military?

[revelarts]

To your last point, no he wasn't. He said, 'risked', not 'willing to risk.'
so no green cards for the willing.



How would tax payers or cheap workers, (whatever that is), fit the description of joining the military?

no that's not joining the military, it's just other ways to benefit the country.

[Kathianne]

...



no that's not joining the military, it's just other ways to benefit the country.

No one is suggesting the giving of green cards for that, much less citizenship. Of course those 'paying taxes' are not doing so in the sense of you or I, indeed they are doing it under someone else's ID number.

I loathe illegals, not as individuals, but as a symbol of the failure of our government to protect us and our basic rights. However, failure or not, it's been happening for decades and many of those were brought here as children, not aware of their illegality. If they choose to go for a quick path to citizenship? I :clap: Those that want instead to pick up trash in blighted areas, seeing some sort of comparison? Send them back.

[PostmodernProphet]

Your both using the conclusion to justify the means, fine.
Why can't others use other conclusions, Tax payers, cheap workers?

But by your criteria if they don't pass the physical but were willing should they still get citizenship?

/shrugs.....and you've been caught lying to justify your argument......you made the claim that illegals could join the military........you've been shown that isn't true, but because you don't want to admit you were wrong you keep pretending you haven't seen what we've posted.....

two separate issues.......should people who have served a term in our military, honorably, be eligible for citizenship?......that is a matter of opinion.....my opinion is yes, yours is no.......

CAN a person who is an illegal get into the military?......that is not a question of opinion, it is a question of fact.....they cannot......the opinion you have about citizenship does not change that fact......

[fj1200]

...Impeachment is neither radical or immoral, but at this time a necessity.

Can you detail his high crimes and/or misdemeanors?

[revelarts]

/shrugs.....and you've been caught lying to justify your argument......you made the claim that illegals could join the military........you've been shown that isn't true, but because you don't want to admit you were wrong you keep pretending you haven't seen what we've posted.....

two separate issues.......should people who have served a term in our military, honorably, be eligible for citizenship?......that is a matter of opinion.....my opinion is yes, yours is no.......

CAN a person who is an illegal get into the military?......that is not a question of opinion, it is a question of fact.....they cannot......the opinion you have about citizenship does not change that fact......

:laugh:

[TheShadowKNows]

Can you detail his high crimes and/or misdemeanors?
You can start with his meeting with Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona. In so "ordering" her to cease and desist the States efforts to protect their sovereignty against the carnage imued by illegal aliens.
Although carefully executed through morally justifiable, and legal means wherever and whenever appropriately deemed accountable by the Arizona State legislature, and the majority of it's citizenry.
While he made promises of "Appointing" a panel of ACADEMICS to study the problem. A problem that was immediate in substance, devastating in effect, and demoralizing in nature. In other words, "HE DID NOTHING"!
While predictably in his ineffectiveness allowing felonious crimes to prevail to such an extent, that his absence in "leadership" as the Commander in Chief of the United States, was/is a criminal act of the highest proportions.
Now "Run" with that contention for a while ( if there aren't too many BIG words in it for you ), and be sure that you come back with a plethora of leftist gobbledygook. While semantically dissecting the essence of the subject with ostensibly asinine precedents set in the recesses of Juris Prudence. In so allowing the issue to become confused beyond the limitations of my sphincter muscle, and everyone's patience.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[fj1200]

You can start with his meeting with Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona. In so "ordering" her to cease and desist the States efforts to protect their sovereignty against the carnage imued by illegal aliens.

Do you mean his lawsuit against AZ or some other actual crime? Because filing a lawsuit and having a difference of opinion aren't criminal.


While predictably in his ineffectiveness allowing felonious crimes to prevail to such an extent, that his absence in "leadership" as the Commander in Chief of the United States, was/is a criminal act of the highest proportions.

Incompetence is a crime now? I thought that's what elections are for.


Now...

Should I wait for someone else to be able to debate your "argument" now or will you attempt more deflection away from your own inabilities?

[TheShadowKNows]

Do you mean his lawsuit against AZ or some other actual crime? Because filing a lawsuit and having a difference of opinion aren't criminal.



Incompetence is a crime now? I thought that's what elections are for.



Should I wait for someone else to be able to debate your "argument" now or will you attempt more deflection away from your own inabilities?

Congratulations SFB's, you just broke the World's indoor record for returning to the scene of the crime with a "Plethora of Gobbledygook". You're even stupid for a liberal, as in doing exactly what I predicted you would do.
Lets keep it simple "Simon", forget all of the meaningless rhetoric that you have indulged in in the past. I am not going to allow you to set the tone of a debate with me. As I stated earlier ( but probably used too many BIG words ), he is blatantly guilty of "Negligence", and criminal negligence at that, and that is punishable under the law.
Whereby it is not up to me to prove anything beyond that FACT at this point in time, but your responsibility to prove otherwise.
Where if you cannot present a substantially reasonable response, ( listen to me, expecting rational discourse from a lib ) you would be better off going back to your daily circle jerk. As I am not in the habit of beating up on children.
PS: Accusing me of your obvious failings isn't fooling anyone, not even your lib friends.

[fj1200]

I am not going to allow you to set the tone of a debate with me.

If you were to actually engage in debate it would be the first time so I guess it IS up to me to set the tone.


As I stated earlier ( but probably used too many BIG words ), he is blatantly guilty of "Negligence", and criminal negligence at that, and that is punishable under the law.

Then it should be fairly easy for you to prove your accusations.


Whereby it is not up to me to prove anything beyond that FACT at this point in time, but your responsibility to prove otherwise.

Let me get this straight; you are acting as accuser against the POTUS and wishing a prosecutor to bring impeachment charges and it's up to ME to prove innocence??? Innocent until PROVEN guilty tsk...


Where if you cannot present a substantially reasonable response, ( listen to me, expecting rational discourse from a lib )...

I'm a lib? :laugh: You can't even discern my political persuasion based on my postings here so there is no chance that you could ever prove your case against the POTUS. :laugh:

[TheShadowKNows]

If you were to actually engage in debate it would be the first time so I guess it IS up to me to set the tone.



Then it should be fairly easy for you to prove your accusations.



Let me get this straight; you are acting as accuser against the POTUS and wishing a prosecutor to bring impeachment charges and it's up to ME to prove innocence??? Innocent until PROVEN guilty tsk...



I'm a lib? :laugh: You can't even discern my political persuasion based on my postings here so there is no chance that you could ever prove your case against the POTUS. :laugh:

I really don't care if your a Bolshevik, you "smell" like a lib, and thats good enough for me.
Now would you care to cease avoiding the question I proposed to you, about a hundred and fifty years ago. "What makes you think, after the FACT of omission in fulfilling his designated duties in providing the security of the citizenry proven in a time of crisis, is NOT subject to opening an investigation into possible criminal behavior ostensibly leading to Impeachment"?
Please take this opportunity to rise above yourself, and momentarily put your overinflated ego in your back pocket, by taking the high road for once in your life, and act as an adult and answer the question.
Trust me when I tell you, that they'll be another circle jerk tomorrow, and you'll be able to make up for lost time.

[fj1200]

I really don't care if your a Bolshevik, you "smell" like a lib, and thats good enough for me.

So anyone who doesn't buy into your crap is a lib? It seems you like to revel in ignorance.


Now would you care to cease avoiding the question I proposed to you, about a hundred and fifty years ago. "What makes you think, after the FACT of omission in fulfilling his designated duties in providing the security of the citizenry proven in a time of crisis, is NOT subject to opening an investigation into possible criminal behavior ostensibly leading to Impeachment"?

I have asked many questions back and you've avoided answering each and every one of them so here's another one; Have you supported impeachment proceedings against every POTUS for the past 150 years because I'm pretty sure they would all meet your criteria? You've still failed to detail his "high crimes and/or misdemeanors."


... and answer the question.

BTW, you asked a question? If so it was easy to miss with you using all those big words that you don't understand. I'll go back and see if I can find that question you supposedly asked.

[TheShadowKNows]

So anyone who doesn't buy into your crap is a lib? It seems you like to revel in ignorance.



I have asked many questions back and you've avoided answering each and every one of them so here's another one; Have you supported impeachment proceedings against every POTUS for the past 150 years because I'm pretty sure they would all meet your criteria? You've still failed to detail his "high crimes and/or misdemeanors."



BTW, you asked a question? If so it was easy to miss with you using all those big words that you don't understand. I'll go back and see if I can find that question you supposedly asked.

As you are obviously a member in good standing with the "Pseudos" who think they are running this board. I would like to be the first to tell you all that you don't know S**T from SHINOLA. While thinking that you have cleverly avoided my direct question by answering me with a question, and accusing me of YOUR INCOMPETENCE in not being able to answer a direct answer. Has only gone to prove how limited your ability to win a argument is ( another word is STUPID ).
Not only have you proven, beyond a shadow, what a total ignoramous that you are, but also how completely gutless, and immature.
Now get off of your lofty ego ( maybe it's your nose bleeds that are distracting you from comprehension ), and answer the question you have been avoiding. While if you choose to run n' hide this time, you may as well have your daily circle jerk with the principal forum a** wipes Gaffer, and Kathianne. Because you lost this battle, no matter what your meglomania dictates as reality.
HAVE A NICE DAY
PS: regardless of your political ideology, you really should be flying under the liberal banner. Your just too damn dumb to be anything else.

[fj1200]

As you are obviously a member in good standing with the "Pseudos" who think they are running this board. I would like to be the first to tell you all that you don't know SHIT from SHINOLA.

Well, I do know S' from having read your posts and I do know Shinola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinola) so you would be wrong again. You must be used to it with it happening so much.


While thinking that you have cleverly avoided my direct question by answering me with a question, and accusing me of your incompetence in not being able to answer a direct answer. Has only gone to prove how limited your ability to win a argument is ( another word is STUPID ).

I did cleverly avoid answering your question because you have not-so-cleverly avoided answering mine so you could avoid being proven as a hack. I believe that they would call that engaging in the dialectic, at least that's how I inform you that I reject the premise of your "question."

I could however, for the sake of argument answer Yes, opening an investigation would be called for but that is answered under the premise that your accusations have actually been proven which of course goes back to the earlier questions I have posed to you.


Not only have you proven, beyond a shadow, what a total ignoramous that you are, but also how completely gutless, and immature.

Let's measure those two qualities by the number of questions that have NOT been answered. I think I'm ahead about 10-0 (answered your question above). Now, what are the "high crimes and/or misdemeanors" that deserve impeachment? Oops, 11-0.


Now get off of your lofty ego ( maybe it's your nose bleeds that are distracting you from comprehension ), and answer the question you have been avoiding.

I'm not trying to "win a battle" I'm just trying to have a conversation and drag from you, kicking and screaming apparently, more detail of your accusations.


PS: regardless of your political ideology, you really should be flying under the liberal banner. Your just too damn dumb to be anything else.

You've proven my posit, thank you.

[TheShadowKNows]

Well, I do know S' from having read your posts and I do know Shinola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinola) so you would be wrong again. You must be used to it with it happening so much.



I did cleverly avoid answering your question because you have not-so-cleverly avoided answering mine so you could avoid being proven as a hack. I believe that they would call that engaging in the dialectic, at least that's how I inform you that I reject the premise of your "question."

I could however, for the sake of argument answer Yes, opening an investigation would be called for but that is answered under the premise that your accusations have actually been proven which of course goes back to the earlier questions I have posed to you.



Let's measure those two qualities by the number of questions that have NOT been answered. I think I'm ahead about 10-0 (answered your question above). Now, what are the "high crimes and/or misdemeanors" that deserve impeachment? Oops, 11-0.



I'm not trying to "win a battle" I'm just trying to have a conversation and drag from you, kicking and screaming apparently, more detail of your accusations.



You've proven my posit, thank you.

Does your nurse know that you are off the grounds? I tried to "extort" anything of any sound reasoning out of your inane ramblings, but the best I could come up with is that you are in the throes of a Nervous Breakdown, probably because your daily supply of drugs has exhausted itself ( I'm really starting to worry about you ).
Just so that you might be aware, as you have made another in a long line of misinterpretations ( blunders to your illiterate cheering section ). That being that my ACCUSATIONS as you call them, are not accusations but FACTS. While if you took your head out of your A** for 5 minutes, and attempted to "smell the Roses", you would find that what I stated regarding bam bams major indescretions are on RECORD.
Now you can continue to play head games with your scrambled semantics of assumptions, conjecture, preconceived ideas, outright lies, and demagoguery. But in the final analysis you are only making a fool of yourself, as there is no substance to your demeaning and unfounded rhetoric. Which will become a glaring profile of your transparent childish rants, pronounced incompetence, and megalomanic predisposition.
Other than what I stated above, you're doing great!

[fj1200]

Just so that you might be aware, as you have made another in a long line of misinterpretations ( blunders to your illiterate cheering section ). That being that my ACCUSATIONS as you call them, are not accusations but FACTS. ... you would find that what I stated regarding bam bams major indescretions are on RECORD.

Amidst all your blithering ramblings of nonsense and deflections of your incompetence I notice that you still have not answered any of my questions or provided more detail on your accusations... uh, I mean facts. :rolleyes:

BTW, thank you for at least having the courtesy to star out your course language. With your help we can make this a better place for clean, honest discourse.

[J.T]

Michelle Malkin noted in a recent article (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/23/the-threat-of-illegal-alien-amnesty-by-executive-order/) “NumbersUSA posted a letter on Monday from GOP Sen. Grassley and seven other Republican Senators challenging the White House on rumors of illegal alien-amnesty-by-executive order… This administration has accomplished its major policy agenda items through force, fiat, and fraud. Immigration will be no different. More to the point, as I’ve reported many times and in-depth in my blog posts, columns, and books, open-borders activists and open-borders politicians have accomplished illegal alien amnesty-by-special order with almost no grass-roots resistance for years.”
A link to a government website (http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf) appears to confirm that there was an executive order, which incorporates ideas from the illegal alien “Dream Act” which patriots have been fighting against for years.

...


Imagine the president deciding one day that espionage was no longer a crime. Imagine the president giving orders that any future spies “need not be prosecuted”. If the president tells law enforcement officials to not enforce the law, he is effectively promoting criminal behavior. Both Barack Obama and George W. Bush should be brought up on criminal charges for giving secret orders to the Border Patrol that have allowed a flood of illegal aliens across our border. source (http://www.davidduke.com/general/obama-tells-border-patrol-that-deporting-certain-illegal-aliens-is-not-necessary_24096.html)

[Nukeman]

source (http://www.davidduke.com/general/obama-tells-border-patrol-that-deporting-certain-illegal-aliens-is-not-necessary_24096.html)

I believe this is already a thread. Also are you going to actually post comments or are you just feeding news stories any one of us can get off of Drudge???

I for one hate when post are made solely to give a news feed.. Really its a discussion board, at least discuss WHAT YOUR POSTING!!!!!!!!!!!:poke:

[TheShadowKNows]

Amidst all your blithering ramblings of nonsense and deflections of your incompetence I notice that you still have not answered any of my questions or provided more detail on your accusations... uh, I mean facts. :rolleyes:

BTW, thank you for at least having the courtesy to star out your course language. With your help we can make this a better place for clean, honest discourse.

O.K. SFB's lets try this one on for size. From 1933 to 1999 their remained a law in place to "protect" the nations economy from the repercussions of the reckless investment a banking institution could engage in. Primarily by setting limits on the degree of speculation of a "commercial" bank, to insure solvency, as being positioned to being integral to our Nations economy. While "Investment" banks were, to a larger degree, given more latitude and that law was titled the "Glass Speagel act" of 1933.
While during the Clinton administration it was repealed, while Wild Bill was slightly distracted with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
That brings us to the present where most, if not all of our economic problems, are proven to center around "Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae". Displaying greed as only Capitalists can do, while finding it immpossible to "walk away" from a very lucrative windfall inspired by the Banking Institutions who Lent the money to the Mortage Companies to issue the infamous "Liars Mortages" ( relatively lower income citizens who could barely afford the payments at it's lowest rate, and just walked away from the rising rates ).
While as everyone knows the "Adjustable Rate Mortgages" started going up and up, and finally reached Critical mass for the lower middle income people who could no longer afford them. Citing a collateral effect on the entire industry, and several other entities who were directly, or indirectly connected to housing.
Thus allowing Bam Bam to run on a platform of Reform, expounding on the "crisis" while selling his interpretation that it was much worse than it actually was. ( BTW Franklin Raines was the head honcho in controling the government oversight agency in charge of policing the fiasco, a close ally of Bam Bam's, who also walked away with 100 million $'s )
The bottom line is, and this will be the "Readers Digest" version of events. Is that the problems created with Freddie Mac could not have evolved ( or pretended to have evolved ) to "epic economic proportions" if the " Glass Speagell" act had still been in place. If only because the commercial banks would have been prohibited from involvement, among other reasons. ( Barney Frank was the laison between Lenders and Mortgage houses, and was receiving kickbacks for "influencing" loans to subsidize the "No Dock" mortages.
While the House has a bill in progress to reinstate the Law titled #1489, and has 20 supporters as of last count. When asked as to his opinion of the "Return to Prudent Banking Act" , bammy was quoted as saying "It will be the END of my Presidency". As what exactly he meant by the dynamics of that comment, is open to interpretation. But my guess is that it has something to do with NOT being able to bankrupt the Country when the safeguards are in place, systematically undermining the much sought after ultimate "Government Control" ( shades of George Soros ) of every aspect of our lives. ( possibly leading to internal investigations by the House of misconduct in office )
I know that you're going to "nitpick" my post with semantical rants, while citing one moot point after another. But as a whole I stand by the basic assumptions of the above offering. While if you had any brains you would also.

[fj1200]

I know that you're going to "nitpick" my post with semantical rants, while citing one moot point after another. But as a whole I stand by the basic assumptions of the above offering. While if you had any brains you would also.

No because it's filled with reams of financial ignorance based on anti-capitalist populist dogma. It also has nothing to do with your original posit from your first post in this thread. So, should we go back to those "high crimes and/or misdemeanors"?

BTW, The Federal Reserve is the institution most at fault for the "bubble" conditions, throw in some FASB MTM and you get... well, you know.

[TheShadowKNows]

No because it's filled with reams of financial ignorance based on anti-capitalist populist dogma. It also has nothing to do with your original posit from your first post in this thread. So, should we go back to those "high crimes and/or misdemeanors"?

BTW, The Federal Reserve is the institution most at fault for the "bubble" conditions, throw in some FASB MTM and you get... well, you know.

I like the way you "danced" around my last post, with pseudo demagoguery, unverified assumptions, baseless accusations, and academic unrealities. Then, in a desperate attempt to hide from another issue that you do not understand, you once more attempt to confuse same.
By changing the point back to your incessant ramblings of "high crimes and misdemeanors". After I have told you on several previous threads, that the EVIDENCE that I presented on the issue of Bam Bam's negligence involving Arizona's sovereignty, should be enough of a "smoking gun" for the R's to begin proceedings towards possible Impeachment.
If realize that at this point you are trying to save face among the rest of your "Lobotomy for Lunch Bunch" ( metaphorically looking up to the CURB ). But your feeble attempts are quite a bit more than pathetic, as you are only digging your grave deeper, while redefining the word Fool.
If for no other reason than you are consistently redundant with rhetoric that is baseless, senseless, and frankly quite boring ( which blatantly denotes a severe gap in your education ).
I'm really sorry Mortimer, but you are in a no win situation no matter how many kudos you get from the gas house gang. They only used you as a sacrificial lamb anyway, knowing full well that they are outclassed ( incompetent, but not as incompetent as you ). Allowing the dumbest of the dumb to, "fall on the sword".
Bottom line is that you should take this as an opportunity to get off of your childish manufactured ego, and GROW UP.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[fj1200]

I like the way you "danced" around my last post...

I didn't dance around it at all, I essentially called you ignorant on your deflection subject du jour.


By changing the point back to your incessant ramblings of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Call me crazy thinking you should be able to document said charges being the constitutional basis for impeachment and all. :rolleyes:


EVIDENCE that I presented on the issue of Bam Bam's negligence involving Arizona's sovereignty...

As far as your EVIDENCE, it was weak which is why I inquired further. Any response, relevant response, mildly relevant even, response to my query?

[TheShadowKNows]

I didn't dance around it at all, I essentially called you ignorant on your deflection subject du jour.



Call me crazy thinking you should be able to document said charges being the constitutional basis for impeachment and all. :rolleyes:



As far as your EVIDENCE, it was weak which is why I inquired further. Any response, relevant response, mildly relevant even, response to my query?

You're getting more delusional by the minute, now you're a Constitutional lawyer, while by anyones standards Grossly overpaid. It is not for me, you, or your psychiatrist to "determine" whether or not Bammy is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It is determined by a legal process of judicial inquiry. But maybe you never heard of the legalities of "Due Process" in the NUT HOUSE.
While the "charges" ( transcript of actions taken that you can't seem to find should be available at several different sources, including Google, Wickipedia, Dogpile, ETC.). Just type in Bam Bam's dictatorial to Gov. Jan Brewers defense for the questioning of Aliens entering Arizona, and the punishment prescribed by established State laws based on Constitutional precedents in dealing with Illegals.
I know theres no doubt too many big words for you in the above. But get your Mommy to help you, or you're going to continue this excellerated slide into oblivion.
Also take my advise Mortimer, as your situation is becoming more embarrassing by the minute. First get a good Psychiatrist, as the one you have ain't worth the remanents of one of your circle jerks. Next find a Priest with a plethora of patience, time, and an "unusual" penchant for heterosexuality.
Lastly get a girl friend, and I dearly hope I don't have to go into detail on this one. It'll do wonders for your disposition, in ways that you won't understand until after the encounter.( puberty is a Bitch )
Thats your homework, call me in the morning, and do let me know how you made out.

[Kathianne]

I didn't dance around it at all, I essentially called you ignorant on your deflection subject du jour.



Call me crazy thinking you should be able to document said charges being the constitutional basis for impeachment and all. :rolleyes:



As far as your EVIDENCE, it was weak which is why I inquired further. Any response, relevant response, mildly relevant even, response to my query?

Weak? You understate.

[fj1200]

... now you're a Constitutional lawyer...

Nope, just a matter of understanding what I read. Your tenuous grasp of spelling, punctuation, grammar, (not to mention quoting) etc. makes me concerned for your abilities to reach that nirvana.


It is not for me... to "determine" whether or not Bammy is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It is determined by a legal process of judicial inquiry.

God I hope not because charges are generally brought up by people with orders of magnitude more than the modicum of intelligence that you were blessed with.


While the "charges" ( transcript of actions taken that you can't seem to find should be available at several different sources, including Google, Wickipedia, Dogpile, ETC.). Just type in...

I have no intention of "typing in" anything, you opened up this rat hole so it should be easy for you to link up something that would provide some evidence.


Thats your homework, call me in the morning, and do let me know how you made out.

Your local community college called, they would like you to return your associates degree in psychoanalysis. It's not working for you.

[fj1200]

Weak? You understate.

:laugh: Who me?

[Kathianne]

:laugh: Who me?

you sir are the only one I can see playing with this troll. Can we please allow it to die? He's taken to making posts on my page. Really embarrassing to have him up there. Yet, if I delete, give credence to his nonsense.

So what say you? Ignore the troll? :trolls:

[fj1200]

Ignore the troll?

What troll? ;)

[TheShadowKNows]

Nope, just a matter of understanding what I read. Your tenuous grasp of spelling, punctuation, grammar, (not to mention quoting) etc. makes me concerned for your abilities to reach that nirvana.



God I hope not because charges are generally brought up by people with orders of magnitude more than the modicum of intelligence that you were blessed with.



I have no intention of "typing in" anything, you opened up this rat hole so it should be easy for you to link up something that would provide some evidence.



Your local community college called, they would like you to return your associates degree in psychoanalysis. It's not working for you.

Your inability to understand what I am conveying to you has little to do with my ability to communicate, but everything to do with the serious gap in your education ( BTW congratulations on "graduating" to the word Nirvana, and almost in the right context ).
While my intelligence may be of some question when conversing with those of higher learning, and no doubt dealing with those incapable of pure geometric logic, it was never a problem with mature, rational and sane ADULTS.
While your asking for "evidence" may impress your lobotimized supporters, it carries no weight in the world of reality. As what I stated was clear enough for a 3rd. grader to interpret, but after leaving you in a perpetual quandry, it appears that I am going to be forced to lower the bar once more. ( I do hope that you make an effort to see a shrink soon )
I have a confession to make. That being that I have not been doing the analysis of you by myself. You see I have a pet monkey who graduated the Fiegilstomperhagen University of higher learning in Austria. He majored in Psychoanalysis, and has a practice which includes corporate exectuives, movie stars, politicians, and forum wannabees.
When I ran your profile by him he responded with, "Paranoid schizophrenia ( I diagnosed that one ), early senile dementia ( Ya' coulda' fooled me ), a strong Mother fixation ( naughty naughty ), an even stronger hatred of birth Father ( if he can be found ), erratic suicidal tendencies ( we can only hope ), low self esteem ( no s**t ), sexual inadequacies ( like we had to dig for that ), and a Partridge in a Pear Tree ( Xmas will be here before you know it ).
I hope the above info gives you something to work with Mortimer, because you are as far removed from reality as it gets!
HAVE A NICE DAY

[LuvRPgrl]

Last December, a bill to let illegal aliens stay in the U.S. if they were enrolled in school, serving in the military, or etc., was voted down by the Senate.

Last Friday, the Obama administration decided it was OK to enact it anyway, and issued orders that Immigration officers should no longer deport illegal aliens who were enrolled or enlisted.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

This is another example of how the COTUS no longer is our basis for laws, that the supreme court and the administrations get around it by passing rules and regulations, not laws. They use federally created agencies to carry out these regulations, and if states resist, then they punish the states by refusing to give money back from the people they got it from in the first place.

[revelarts]

This is another example of how the COTUS no longer is our basis for laws, that the supreme court and the administrations get around it by passing rules and regulations, not laws. They use federally created agencies to carry out these regulations, and if states resist, then they punish the states by refusing to give money back from the people they got it from in the first place.
That's knocking the sugar coating off of it and getting down to the very
sad reality is that today's prez is a soft dictator. He projects his power under the cover of the constitution and his Bloated excutive branch. But when he want to do something outside of those constraints no one seriously questions them on it. A few will make "unconsistutional" noises. but for the most part the congress critters and judges usually try to find an excuse to allow the latest Royal command. After that the "president" has been set and the next royal command along that line comes down the congress and courts run for the cover excuse "well a previous president did it". Courts add "they can't check or second guess the pres 'in a time of war'". The Media parrot the excuses, and the people who agree with the latest Royal command poopoo the people who cry an unconstitutional foul.
And the president collects more power at will. Obama is not even asking the congress to rubber stamp at this point.
FJ you wrote "You have to believe" that the prez has some legal basis, the facts show the truth to be otherwise.
We're just lying to ourselves if we act as if the president has any real check at this point.
And Obama knows it.

[LuvRPgrl]

IIRC, the purpose of Executive Orders, is for the President to use in enforcing the laws that Congress passes (and the Pres signs). I thought one of the restrictions on them, was that he can't issue one unless it's specifically for a law COngress has already passed. If Congress has enacted a new tax, for example, the President can issue Executive Orders creating agencies to collect that tax.

He's not suppose to issue EOs to do things that Congress hasn't provided for - things that there aren't any actual Federal laws letting him do.

But how about about issuing an EO to do something after Congress has SPECIFICALLY VOTED AGAINST it? And has in the past specifically passed laws forbidding it (such as laws forbidding illegal aliens from staying in the country) - laws that are still in force?

Help me out here. It's been a rough week for me, and I'm tired, and can't recall.

Has any President in history, ever done this?

Yea, others have done it. Nixon created the EPA,

and a little off tack, the feds also skirt the COTUS by commiting "double jeopardy" simply by filing a federal offense against someone already acquitted at the state, or lower level

[fj1200]

FJ you wrote "You have to believe" that the prez has some legal basis, the facts show the truth to be otherwise.

They do? Where so? I also said "I accept the possibility of being wrong here." Aren't EO's subject to being challenged? Where's the legal action? I'm sure there are enough people to get worked up about this that would/could make the legal challenge.