Reid, Pelosi and Obama
#1
A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Quote:Obama’s Own Words Refute His Stand on Immigration Authority
By Jan C. Ting

November 18, 2014

The most effective critic of President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty is President Obama himself:

March 28, 2011, interview with Univision: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

In other contexts, President Obama has made clear that his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional.

July 25, 2011, speech to La Raza: “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

Sept. 28, 2011, Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

June 16, 2013, interview with Univision: Interviewer: "If this bill failed on the House of Representatives, will you, can you actually use your executive power to legalize these 11 million people?" President Obama: "Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative."

Nov. 25, 2013, Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

President Obama knows his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Though he once taught constitutional law at a law school, he now seems determined to act illegally and unconstitutionally anyway. Could it be because so many of his Democratic allies, who voted for his amnesty bill, were defeated or replaced in the Nov. 4 election by Republicans?

The Constitution lets us govern ourselves through our elected representatives and a deliberative process, not through an imperial president.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...-authority
Reply
#2
(11-19-2014, 01:10 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Quote:Obama’s Own Words Refute His Stand on Immigration Authority
By Jan C. Ting

November 18, 2014

The most effective critic of President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty is President Obama himself:

March 28, 2011, interview with Univision: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

In other contexts, President Obama has made clear that his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional.

July 25, 2011, speech to La Raza: “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

Sept. 28, 2011, Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

June 16, 2013, interview with Univision: Interviewer: "If this bill failed on the House of Representatives, will you, can you actually use your executive power to legalize these 11 million people?" President Obama: "Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative."

Nov. 25, 2013, Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

President Obama knows his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Though he once taught constitutional law at a law school, he now seems determined to act illegally and unconstitutionally anyway. Could it be because so many of his Democratic allies, who voted for his amnesty bill, were defeated or replaced in the Nov. 4 election by Republicans?

The Constitution lets us govern ourselves through our elected representatives and a deliberative process, not through an imperial president.
http://www.nytimes...-authority

Hmm.... the "paper of record", isn't it? The only paper on Earth that Wonky swears is nothing but the truth? Laughing
Reply
#3
(11-19-2014, 02:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 01:10 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Quote:Obama’s Own Words Refute His Stand on Immigration Authority
By Jan C. Ting

November 18, 2014

The most effective critic of President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty is President Obama himself:

March 28, 2011, interview with Univision: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

In other contexts, President Obama has made clear that his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional.

July 25, 2011, speech to La Raza: “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

Sept. 28, 2011, Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

June 16, 2013, interview with Univision: Interviewer: "If this bill failed on the House of Representatives, will you, can you actually use your executive power to legalize these 11 million people?" President Obama: "Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative."

Nov. 25, 2013, Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

President Obama knows his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Though he once taught constitutional law at a law school, he now seems determined to act illegally and unconstitutionally anyway. Could it be because so many of his Democratic allies, who voted for his amnesty bill, were defeated or replaced in the Nov. 4 election by Republicans?

The Constitution lets us govern ourselves through our elected representatives and a deliberative process, not through an imperial president.
http://www.nytimes...-authority

Hmm.... the "paper of record", isn't it? The only paper on Earth that Wonky swears is nothing but the truth? Laughing

Yep. The NYT is their holy grail so I thought that article would catch their eye. Can't complain it is a right wing rag.
Reply
#4
(11-19-2014, 02:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 01:10 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Quote:Obama’s Own Words Refute His Stand on Immigration Authority
By Jan C. Ting

November 18, 2014

The most effective critic of President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty is President Obama himself:

March 28, 2011, interview with Univision: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

In other contexts, President Obama has made clear that his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional.

July 25, 2011, speech to La Raza: “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

Sept. 28, 2011, Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

June 16, 2013, interview with Univision: Interviewer: "If this bill failed on the House of Representatives, will you, can you actually use your executive power to legalize these 11 million people?" President Obama: "Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative."

Nov. 25, 2013, Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

President Obama knows his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Though he once taught constitutional law at a law school, he now seems determined to act illegally and unconstitutionally anyway. Could it be because so many of his Democratic allies, who voted for his amnesty bill, were defeated or replaced in the Nov. 4 election by Republicans?

The Constitution lets us govern ourselves through our elected representatives and a deliberative process, not through an imperial president.
http://www.nytimes...-authority

Hmm.... the "paper of record", isn't it? The only paper on Earth that Wonky swears is nothing but the truth? Laughing

Yes, it's "The Paper of Record".
Was then.
Is now.
However, notice this is not a journalist reporting events or covering a speech.
It's from the OPINON pages.
For what it's worth, I agree with some of it.

But don't post opinion as fact and except us to see it as news, if in fact that is how it was presented.
Being clear: I have no objection to opinion things being posted to support a view. It just has to be clear that it was not "news".
Reply
#5
(11-19-2014, 04:22 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 02:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 01:10 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Quote:Obama’s Own Words Refute His Stand on Immigration Authority
By Jan C. Ting

November 18, 2014

The most effective critic of President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty is President Obama himself:

March 28, 2011, interview with Univision: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

In other contexts, President Obama has made clear that his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional.

July 25, 2011, speech to La Raza: “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

Sept. 28, 2011, Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

June 16, 2013, interview with Univision: Interviewer: "If this bill failed on the House of Representatives, will you, can you actually use your executive power to legalize these 11 million people?" President Obama: "Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative."

Nov. 25, 2013, Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

President Obama knows his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Though he once taught constitutional law at a law school, he now seems determined to act illegally and unconstitutionally anyway. Could it be because so many of his Democratic allies, who voted for his amnesty bill, were defeated or replaced in the Nov. 4 election by Republicans?

The Constitution lets us govern ourselves through our elected representatives and a deliberative process, not through an imperial president.
http://www.nytimes...-authority

Hmm.... the "paper of record", isn't it? The only paper on Earth that Wonky swears is nothing but the truth? Laughing

Yes, it's "The Paper of Record".
Was then.
Is now.
However, notice this is not a journalist reporting events or covering a speech.
It's from the OPINON pages.
For what it's worth, I agree with some of it.

But don't post opinion as fact and except us to see it as news, if in fact that is how it was presented.
Being clear: I have no objection to opinion things being posted to support a view. It just has to be clear that it was not "news".

No Wonk it's over. We were wrong about Obama. Obama and company were not trying to make things better for Americans, they were scamming us. Can't you see that?

When politicians do things that improve things for Americans it's wrong. It's the creep of socialism. Obama wants us all to be dependent on the government. OMG, I can't believe I couldn't see that. Imagine how much better things would have been with Mitt Romney as president. SadSad
Reply
#6
(11-19-2014, 05:30 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 04:22 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 02:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 01:10 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Quote:Obama’s Own Words Refute His Stand on Immigration Authority
By Jan C. Ting

November 18, 2014

The most effective critic of President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty is President Obama himself:

March 28, 2011, interview with Univision: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

In other contexts, President Obama has made clear that his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional.

July 25, 2011, speech to La Raza: “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

Sept. 28, 2011, Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

June 16, 2013, interview with Univision: Interviewer: "If this bill failed on the House of Representatives, will you, can you actually use your executive power to legalize these 11 million people?" President Obama: "Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative."

Nov. 25, 2013, Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

President Obama knows his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Though he once taught constitutional law at a law school, he now seems determined to act illegally and unconstitutionally anyway. Could it be because so many of his Democratic allies, who voted for his amnesty bill, were defeated or replaced in the Nov. 4 election by Republicans?

The Constitution lets us govern ourselves through our elected representatives and a deliberative process, not through an imperial president.
http://www.nytimes...-authority

Hmm.... the "paper of record", isn't it? The only paper on Earth that Wonky swears is nothing but the truth? Laughing

Yes, it's "The Paper of Record".
Was then.
Is now.
However, notice this is not a journalist reporting events or covering a speech.
It's from the OPINON pages.
For what it's worth, I agree with some of it.

But don't post opinion as fact and except us to see it as news, if in fact that is how it was presented.
Being clear: I have no objection to opinion things being posted to support a view. It just has to be clear that it was not "news".

No Wonk it's over. We were wrong about Obama. Obama and company were not trying to make things better for Americans, they were scamming us. Can't you see that?

When politicians do things that improve things for Americans it's wrong. It's the creep of socialism. Obama wants us all to be dependent on the government. OMG, I can't believe I couldn't see that. Imagine how much better things would have been with Mitt Romney as president. SadSad

Laughing Yeah, Mitt would have sold off the Defense Department, (saving us trillions of dollars) and reinvested it in Venture Capitol so we could make the Wall Street bankers even richer.

But the "hope and change" I expected from president Obama was a watered down version of what I hoped for. This president simply does not "get" the politics of Washington and the necessary building of relationships with congress, including members of his own party.
I don't doubt his ethics as has been suggested by some in the posts above and in previous comments. I see him as very intelligent, introspective, and I admire his caution in foreign affairs. His signature goal of providing affordable health care for all the people of this country speaks to his vision, and I have no doubt that in time his ACA will be "ironed out" and history will see it as a major accomplishment akin to our Social Security program.
This is a good man, if not the most effective president ever.
When we remember the mess he had handed to him the day he took office, we can only marvel at his ability to "carry on" in the face of the almost total lack of cooperation he had from this "loyal opposition".

Yes. We did the right thing in electing this man. He might have been a more effective political leader, engaged more with his own party, but he has steered a course effectively and remained "the adult in town" while the events tore at his office.

And still a couple of years to go. He will continue to be clear headed, even keeled, and making good decisions that will pass the test of time. And the congress will continue to fight his every move for progressive programs.

We can only hope that somehow this logjam in the congress improves. Time will tell, but it's hard to be optimistic.
Reply
#7
(11-19-2014, 05:30 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 04:22 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 02:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 01:10 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Quote:Obama’s Own Words Refute His Stand on Immigration Authority
By Jan C. Ting

November 18, 2014

The most effective critic of President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty is President Obama himself:

March 28, 2011, interview with Univision: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.... There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

In other contexts, President Obama has made clear that his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional.

July 25, 2011, speech to La Raza: “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

Sept. 28, 2011, Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

June 16, 2013, interview with Univision: Interviewer: "If this bill failed on the House of Representatives, will you, can you actually use your executive power to legalize these 11 million people?" President Obama: "Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative."

Nov. 25, 2013, Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

President Obama knows his proposed executive immigration amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Though he once taught constitutional law at a law school, he now seems determined to act illegally and unconstitutionally anyway. Could it be because so many of his Democratic allies, who voted for his amnesty bill, were defeated or replaced in the Nov. 4 election by Republicans?

The Constitution lets us govern ourselves through our elected representatives and a deliberative process, not through an imperial president.
http://www.nytimes...-authority

Hmm.... the "paper of record", isn't it? The only paper on Earth that Wonky swears is nothing but the truth? Laughing

Yes, it's "The Paper of Record".
Was then.
Is now.
However, notice this is not a journalist reporting events or covering a speech.
It's from the OPINON pages.
For what it's worth, I agree with some of it.

But don't post opinion as fact and except us to see it as news, if in fact that is how it was presented.
Being clear: I have no objection to opinion things being posted to support a view. It just has to be clear that it was not "news".

No Wonk it's over. We were wrong about Obama. Obama and company were not trying to make things better for Americans, they were scamming us. Can't you see that?

When politicians do things that improve things for Americans it's wrong. It's the creep of socialism. Obama wants us all to be dependent on the government. OMG, I can't believe I couldn't see that. Imagine how much better things would have been with Mitt Romney as president. SadSad

Since when did ILLEGAL ALLIENS become Americans? 70% of your fellow Americans do not support what Obama is about to do. As he stated in his own words he does not have the legal authority to do this. That authority lies with Congress. It's right there in black and white in the Constitution if you would bother to read it.
Reply
#8
(11-19-2014, 06:11 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 05:30 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 04:22 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 02:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 01:10 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: A lot has happened the last few days. Reid went on the Senate floor yesterday and asked that when the Republicans take over the Senate next January they allow amendments be allowed to bills, something that Reid unilaterally prohibited when he ran the Senate with a Soviet style iron fist. Reid is the perfect example that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He thought that he and his party were going to be in control forever and shut out the minority party. Well paybacks are a bitch Harry.

Which brings me to Pelosi, the madhatter from the left coast. The champion of woman's rights denied a pregnant minority disabled vet from voting during the recent House Minority leadership caucuses. Jon Stewart took her to town over her hypocrisy:

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Pelosi for ‘Politically Craven’ Move Against Duckworth


Which brings me to our self professed Constitution scholar-in-Chief Barry Obama. As Barack has said repeatedly words matter. They reminded us of Barack's, the constitutional adjunct professor, own words.

Hmm.... the "paper of record", isn't it? The only paper on Earth that Wonky swears is nothing but the truth? Laughing

Yes, it's "The Paper of Record".
Was then.
Is now.
However, notice this is not a journalist reporting events or covering a speech.
It's from the OPINON pages.
For what it's worth, I agree with some of it.

But don't post opinion as fact and except us to see it as news, if in fact that is how it was presented.
Being clear: I have no objection to opinion things being posted to support a view. It just has to be clear that it was not "news".

No Wonk it's over. We were wrong about Obama. Obama and company were not trying to make things better for Americans, they were scamming us. Can't you see that?

When politicians do things that improve things for Americans it's wrong. It's the creep of socialism. Obama wants us all to be dependent on the government. OMG, I can't believe I couldn't see that. Imagine how much better things would have been with Mitt Romney as president. SadSad

Since when did ILLEGAL ALLIENS become Americans? 70% of your fellow Americans do not support what Obama is about to do. As he stated in his own words he does not have the legal authority to do this. That authority lies with Congress. It's right there in black and white in the Constitution if you would bother to read it.

He has the constitutional power to defer enforcement of certain aspects of immigration law. Don't believe it? Watch.
Reply
#9
There's a difference between reading the New York Times and cherry picking from it.

The story quoted here comes from a long standing feature of the NYT called "Room For Debate", in which a controversial issue is debated by experts. The opinion (rightly identified as such by Wonky) quoted here is just one of six opinions about the topic, Constitutional Limits of Presidential Action on Immigration. Why looky here, here's another one.

As recently as 2012 in Arizona v. U.S., the Supreme Court recognized that that executive discretion over when and how to prosecute immigration cases is an inherent constitutional power, lending the strongest support to the propriety of President Obama’s proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...recognized

Doggone it, that opinion lies in direct conflict with the other one. I wouldn't call it fair and balanced, but I would applaud it for being comprehensive and complete.

Fit to print indeed.
Reply
#10
Lest you wonder how the NYTimes Editorial Board weighs in, just read today's editorial.

President Obama says he will speak to the nation on Thursday night about making major changes to immigration policy, including shielding several million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. He intends to do this under executive authority, because he has given up waiting for Congress to act.

The result will not be ideal, but no broad executive action on immigration was ever going to be. Only Congress can create an immigration system that rescues workers and families from unjust laws and creates legal pathways to citizenship. The best Mr. Obama can offer is a reprieve to people trapped by Congress’s failures — temporary permission to live and work without fear.

But respite for as many as four million to five million people, according to some estimates, should be cause for relief and celebration. The reasons given by Mr. Obama and his aides are sound and well within the law. The executive branch has limited means to deport all 11 million people living here without authorization. It should focus on expelling serious and violent criminals, and not waste money and effort on breaking up families, and deporting those who contribute to society and whose ties to this country are deep and permanent.

Details have not been announced, but it seems that Mr. Obama’s plan will protect the parents of citizens and legal permanent residents, and a larger portion of the young people called Dreamers, who came here when they were children. Other, smaller groups may qualify as well.

Mr. Obama should draw the circle of inclusion as large as possible — up to the eight million or so who might have qualified under an ambitious bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. But Mr. Obama, who wants to bolster his actions against legal attack, seems unlikely to include parents whose children lack citizenship or green cards. Tens of thousands of families will surely be disheartened by this exclusion and other politically motivated shortcomings — the plan is expected to bar recipients from health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, for example. Some immigrant advocacy groups have already denounced the plan as too cautious and too small.

The backlash on the right, too, is well underway, with Republican lawmakers condemning what they see as a tyrannical usurpation of congressional authority by “Emperor” Obama. They fail to mention, though, that new priorities will put the vast deportation machinery to better use against serious criminals, terrorists and security threats, which should be the goal of any sane law-enforcement regime. Nor did they ever complain when Mr. Obama aggressively used his executive authority to ramp up deportations to an unprecedented peak of 400,000 a year.

It has been the immigration system’s retreat from sanity, of course, that made Mr. Obama’s new plan necessary. Years were wasted, and countless families broken, while Mr. Obama clung to a futile strategy of luring Republicans toward a legislative deal. He has been his own worst enemy — over the years he stressed his executive impotence, telling advocates that he could not change the system on his own. This may have suited his legislative strategy, but it was not true.

It’s good that Mr. Obama has finally turned the page. He plans to lead a rally in Las Vegas on Friday at a high school where he outlined his immigration agenda in January 2013. Legislative solutions are a dim hope for some future day when the Republican fever breaks. But until then, here we are.

This initiative cannot be allowed to fail for lack of support from those who accept the need for progress on immigration, however incremental. Courageous immigrant advocates, led by day laborers, Dreamers and others, have pressed a reluctant president to acknowledge the urgency of their cause — and to do something about it. The only proper motion now is forward.

The right will falsely label Mr. Obama’s actions lawless. They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status quo.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/opinio...inion&_r=0

I do agree with SFL about one thing -- things are gonna get mighty interesting in DC for the next 18 months or so. After four years of stalemate, it is Game On. On this side you've got a Republican Congress that HAS to govern, and on that side you've got a President who never has to run again. Oh boy. Charlie Brown is done trying to kick the football. He grabbed it. And he's running.
Reply
#11
(11-19-2014, 08:27 PM)MarkM Wrote: Lest you wonder how the NYTimes Editorial Board weighs in, just read today's editorial.

President Obama says he will speak to the nation on Thursday night about making major changes to immigration policy, including shielding several million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. He intends to do this under executive authority, because he has given up waiting for Congress to act.

The result will not be ideal, but no broad executive action on immigration was ever going to be. Only Congress can create an immigration system that rescues workers and families from unjust laws and creates legal pathways to citizenship. The best Mr. Obama can offer is a reprieve to people trapped by Congress’s failures — temporary permission to live and work without fear.

But respite for as many as four million to five million people, according to some estimates, should be cause for relief and celebration. The reasons given by Mr. Obama and his aides are sound and well within the law. The executive branch has limited means to deport all 11 million people living here without authorization. It should focus on expelling serious and violent criminals, and not waste money and effort on breaking up families, and deporting those who contribute to society and whose ties to this country are deep and permanent.

Details have not been announced, but it seems that Mr. Obama’s plan will protect the parents of citizens and legal permanent residents, and a larger portion of the young people called Dreamers, who came here when they were children. Other, smaller groups may qualify as well.

Mr. Obama should draw the circle of inclusion as large as possible — up to the eight million or so who might have qualified under an ambitious bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. But Mr. Obama, who wants to bolster his actions against legal attack, seems unlikely to include parents whose children lack citizenship or green cards. Tens of thousands of families will surely be disheartened by this exclusion and other politically motivated shortcomings — the plan is expected to bar recipients from health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, for example. Some immigrant advocacy groups have already denounced the plan as too cautious and too small.

The backlash on the right, too, is well underway, with Republican lawmakers condemning what they see as a tyrannical usurpation of congressional authority by “Emperor” Obama. They fail to mention, though, that new priorities will put the vast deportation machinery to better use against serious criminals, terrorists and security threats, which should be the goal of any sane law-enforcement regime. Nor did they ever complain when Mr. Obama aggressively used his executive authority to ramp up deportations to an unprecedented peak of 400,000 a year.

It has been the immigration system’s retreat from sanity, of course, that made Mr. Obama’s new plan necessary. Years were wasted, and countless families broken, while Mr. Obama clung to a futile strategy of luring Republicans toward a legislative deal. He has been his own worst enemy — over the years he stressed his executive impotence, telling advocates that he could not change the system on his own. This may have suited his legislative strategy, but it was not true.

It’s good that Mr. Obama has finally turned the page. He plans to lead a rally in Las Vegas on Friday at a high school where he outlined his immigration agenda in January 2013. Legislative solutions are a dim hope for some future day when the Republican fever breaks. But until then, here we are.

This initiative cannot be allowed to fail for lack of support from those who accept the need for progress on immigration, however incremental. Courageous immigrant advocates, led by day laborers, Dreamers and others, have pressed a reluctant president to acknowledge the urgency of their cause — and to do something about it. The only proper motion now is forward.

The right will falsely label Mr. Obama’s actions lawless. They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status quo.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/opinio...inion&_r=0

I do agree with SFL about one thing -- things are gonna get mighty interesting in DC for the next 18 months or so. After four years of stalemate, it is Game On. On this side you've got a Republican Congress that HAS to govern, and on that side you've got a President who never has to run again. Oh boy. Charlie Brown is done trying to kick the football. He grabbed it. And he's running.

Thank you Mark for that post. Tomorrow will be an interesting day.
Reply
#12
(11-19-2014, 08:36 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:27 PM)MarkM Wrote: Lest you wonder how the NYTimes Editorial Board weighs in, just read today's editorial.

President Obama says he will speak to the nation on Thursday night about making major changes to immigration policy, including shielding several million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. He intends to do this under executive authority, because he has given up waiting for Congress to act.

The result will not be ideal, but no broad executive action on immigration was ever going to be. Only Congress can create an immigration system that rescues workers and families from unjust laws and creates legal pathways to citizenship. The best Mr. Obama can offer is a reprieve to people trapped by Congress’s failures — temporary permission to live and work without fear.

But respite for as many as four million to five million people, according to some estimates, should be cause for relief and celebration. The reasons given by Mr. Obama and his aides are sound and well within the law. The executive branch has limited means to deport all 11 million people living here without authorization. It should focus on expelling serious and violent criminals, and not waste money and effort on breaking up families, and deporting those who contribute to society and whose ties to this country are deep and permanent.

Details have not been announced, but it seems that Mr. Obama’s plan will protect the parents of citizens and legal permanent residents, and a larger portion of the young people called Dreamers, who came here when they were children. Other, smaller groups may qualify as well.

Mr. Obama should draw the circle of inclusion as large as possible — up to the eight million or so who might have qualified under an ambitious bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. But Mr. Obama, who wants to bolster his actions against legal attack, seems unlikely to include parents whose children lack citizenship or green cards. Tens of thousands of families will surely be disheartened by this exclusion and other politically motivated shortcomings — the plan is expected to bar recipients from health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, for example. Some immigrant advocacy groups have already denounced the plan as too cautious and too small.

The backlash on the right, too, is well underway, with Republican lawmakers condemning what they see as a tyrannical usurpation of congressional authority by “Emperor” Obama. They fail to mention, though, that new priorities will put the vast deportation machinery to better use against serious criminals, terrorists and security threats, which should be the goal of any sane law-enforcement regime. Nor did they ever complain when Mr. Obama aggressively used his executive authority to ramp up deportations to an unprecedented peak of 400,000 a year.

It has been the immigration system’s retreat from sanity, of course, that made Mr. Obama’s new plan necessary. Years were wasted, and countless families broken, while Mr. Obama clung to a futile strategy of luring Republicans toward a legislative deal. He has been his own worst enemy — over the years he stressed his executive impotence, telling advocates that he could not change the system on his own. This may have suited his legislative strategy, but it was not true.

It’s good that Mr. Obama has finally turned the page. He plans to lead a rally in Las Vegas on Friday at a high school where he outlined his immigration agenda in January 2013. Legislative solutions are a dim hope for some future day when the Republican fever breaks. But until then, here we are.

This initiative cannot be allowed to fail for lack of support from those who accept the need for progress on immigration, however incremental. Courageous immigrant advocates, led by day laborers, Dreamers and others, have pressed a reluctant president to acknowledge the urgency of their cause — and to do something about it. The only proper motion now is forward.

The right will falsely label Mr. Obama’s actions lawless. They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status quo.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/opinio...inion&_r=0

I do agree with SFL about one thing -- things are gonna get mighty interesting in DC for the next 18 months or so. After four years of stalemate, it is Game On. On this side you've got a Republican Congress that HAS to govern, and on that side you've got a President who never has to run again. Oh boy. Charlie Brown is done trying to kick the football. He grabbed it. And he's running.

Thank you Mark for that post. Tomorrow will be an interesting day.

And may I please add my thanks also Mark.
You are fast becoming a real asset to this space.
Now, if we could only get you to stop wearing lacy underwear. Razz
Reply
#13
(11-19-2014, 09:43 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:36 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:27 PM)MarkM Wrote: Lest you wonder how the NYTimes Editorial Board weighs in, just read today's editorial.

President Obama says he will speak to the nation on Thursday night about making major changes to immigration policy, including shielding several million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. He intends to do this under executive authority, because he has given up waiting for Congress to act.

The result will not be ideal, but no broad executive action on immigration was ever going to be. Only Congress can create an immigration system that rescues workers and families from unjust laws and creates legal pathways to citizenship. The best Mr. Obama can offer is a reprieve to people trapped by Congress’s failures — temporary permission to live and work without fear.

But respite for as many as four million to five million people, according to some estimates, should be cause for relief and celebration. The reasons given by Mr. Obama and his aides are sound and well within the law. The executive branch has limited means to deport all 11 million people living here without authorization. It should focus on expelling serious and violent criminals, and not waste money and effort on breaking up families, and deporting those who contribute to society and whose ties to this country are deep and permanent.

Details have not been announced, but it seems that Mr. Obama’s plan will protect the parents of citizens and legal permanent residents, and a larger portion of the young people called Dreamers, who came here when they were children. Other, smaller groups may qualify as well.

Mr. Obama should draw the circle of inclusion as large as possible — up to the eight million or so who might have qualified under an ambitious bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. But Mr. Obama, who wants to bolster his actions against legal attack, seems unlikely to include parents whose children lack citizenship or green cards. Tens of thousands of families will surely be disheartened by this exclusion and other politically motivated shortcomings — the plan is expected to bar recipients from health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, for example. Some immigrant advocacy groups have already denounced the plan as too cautious and too small.

The backlash on the right, too, is well underway, with Republican lawmakers condemning what they see as a tyrannical usurpation of congressional authority by “Emperor” Obama. They fail to mention, though, that new priorities will put the vast deportation machinery to better use against serious criminals, terrorists and security threats, which should be the goal of any sane law-enforcement regime. Nor did they ever complain when Mr. Obama aggressively used his executive authority to ramp up deportations to an unprecedented peak of 400,000 a year.

It has been the immigration system’s retreat from sanity, of course, that made Mr. Obama’s new plan necessary. Years were wasted, and countless families broken, while Mr. Obama clung to a futile strategy of luring Republicans toward a legislative deal. He has been his own worst enemy — over the years he stressed his executive impotence, telling advocates that he could not change the system on his own. This may have suited his legislative strategy, but it was not true.

It’s good that Mr. Obama has finally turned the page. He plans to lead a rally in Las Vegas on Friday at a high school where he outlined his immigration agenda in January 2013. Legislative solutions are a dim hope for some future day when the Republican fever breaks. But until then, here we are.

This initiative cannot be allowed to fail for lack of support from those who accept the need for progress on immigration, however incremental. Courageous immigrant advocates, led by day laborers, Dreamers and others, have pressed a reluctant president to acknowledge the urgency of their cause — and to do something about it. The only proper motion now is forward.

The right will falsely label Mr. Obama’s actions lawless. They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status quo.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/opinio...inion&_r=0

I do agree with SFL about one thing -- things are gonna get mighty interesting in DC for the next 18 months or so. After four years of stalemate, it is Game On. On this side you've got a Republican Congress that HAS to govern, and on that side you've got a President who never has to run again. Oh boy. Charlie Brown is done trying to kick the football. He grabbed it. And he's running.

Thank you Mark for that post. Tomorrow will be an interesting day.

And may I please add my thanks also Mark.
You are fast becoming a real asset to this space.
Now, if we could only get you to stop wearing lacy underwear. Razz

Hey, helps me type faster.

Wink
Reply
#14
BAZINGA!!!


(damn, just that much too slow! Cool )
Reply
#15
(11-19-2014, 09:57 PM)Cuzz Wrote: BAZINGA!!!


(damn, just that much too slow! Cool )

LaughingLaughingLaughing I think you are both crazy.
Reply
#16
The part of this debate that saddens me the most is the fact that we are discussing the rewarding of illegal behavior. Many of these southern undocumented workers are not the best and brightest. they are the uneducated huddled masses. I'm pissed about the fact that we are giving these people a leg up over our own.

There is talk of raising the minimum wage, You want higher wages decrease your labor pool. Give our own dropouts a chance to do something, to make a living. Not cave to the corporate interests keeping our wages artificially low do to a steady stream of replacement illegals.

Democrats for the working man . My ass .. The politicians are there only for their own benefit and prestige.

Oh, I forgot all of the American children will be college graduates demanding higher and higher salaries , therefore we need a steady supply of the noble brown man to do our toil.
Cesar Chavez had no use for illegals . He got it .


I know dismissed as a racist conservative . Nope just how I see it. You the supporters of this policy are screwing the average american worker more than you are helping him. Giving the poor a subsistence does nothing for ones self worth.

Why was Michael Brown not working ? You want to decrease inner city tensions , give a man something to look back at and say I did that.(not a crime either).
Reply
#17
(11-20-2014, 06:10 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: The part of this debate that saddens me the most is the fact that we are discussing the rewarding of illegal behavior. Many of these southern undocumented workers are not the best and brightest. they are the uneducated huddled masses. I'm pissed about the fact that we are giving these people a leg up over our own.

There is talk of raising the minimum wage, You want higher wages decrease your labor pool. Give our own dropouts a chance to do something, to make a living. Not cave to the corporate interests keeping our wages artificially low do to a steady stream of replacement illegals.

Democrats for the working man . My ass .. The politicians are there only for their own benefit and prestige.

Oh, I forgot all of the American children will be college graduates demanding higher and higher salaries , therefore we need a steady supply of the noble brown man to do our toil.
Cesar Chavez had no use for illegals . He got it .


I know dismissed as a racist conservative . Nope just how I see it. You the supporters of this policy are screwing the average american worker more than you are helping him. Giving the poor a subsistence does nothing for ones self worth.

Why was Michael Brown not working ? You want to decrease inner city tensions , give a man something to look back at and say I did that.(not a crime either).

Agreed.
Reply
#18
(11-20-2014, 06:10 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: The part of this debate that saddens me the most is the fact that we are discussing the rewarding of illegal behavior. Many of these southern undocumented workers are not the best and brightest. they are the uneducated huddled masses. I'm pissed about the fact that we are giving these people a leg up over our own.

There is talk of raising the minimum wage, You want higher wages decrease your labor pool. Give our own dropouts a chance to do something, to make a living. Not cave to the corporate interests keeping our wages artificially low do to a steady stream of replacement illegals.

Democrats for the working man . My ass .. The politicians are there only for their own benefit and prestige.

Oh, I forgot all of the American children will be college graduates demanding higher and higher salaries , therefore we need a steady supply of the noble brown man to do our toil.
Cesar Chavez had no use for illegals . He got it .


I know dismissed as a racist conservative . Nope just how I see it. You the supporters of this policy are screwing the average american worker more than you are helping him. Giving the poor a subsistence does nothing for ones self worth.

Why was Michael Brown not working ? You want to decrease inner city tensions , give a man something to look back at and say I did that.(not a crime either).

There are some facts that you must be overlooking. First, not deporting the undocumented parents of mostly young Mexican Americans doesn't change their legal status. It is not amnesty, none of those folks will get a green card, qualify for social service benefits, get to vote, or be able to earn a path to citizenship. It just keeps some families together.

Have you read up on who applies to work on farms? I have. Unemployed white and black Americans will not do that work. Currently farmers don't have enough workers to pick the crops especially in states like Georgia. Illegal immigrants won't go there, fruit and vegetables have rotted in the fields, so farmers stop planting and loose the ability to make a living. Cool huh?

The job market has improved and is continuing to improve. It has little to do with immigration because nothing has changed there. Wake up; the illegal immigrants are not taking our jobs. Anyway, no one in their right mind believes that the US can deport 11 million illegal immigrants. I don't consider most conservatives to be in there right mind, still, I am curious. What do you think is a workable solution to the immigration problem?
Reply
#19
22 times that Obama has acknowledge that he does not have the authority to do what he is about to do tonight. He is acting like this is a banana republic and he is emperor and the have no constitution:

Quote: 1. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

2. “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)

3. “Comprehensive reform, that’s how we’re going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it’s going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

4. “[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. … I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

5. “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)

6. “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I’m president, I’m not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That’s what the Executive Branch means. I can’t just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

7. “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

8. “I can’t solve this problem by myself. … [W]e’re going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can’t do it by myself. We’re going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I’m confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)

9. “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)

10. “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That’s what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)

11. “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

12. “So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can’t ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)

13. “Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)

14. “We are a nation of immigrants. … But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)

15. “I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)

16. “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)

17. “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” (2/14/13)

18. “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)

19. “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they’ve allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can’t do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option. … What I’ve said is there is a there’s a path to get this done, and that’s through Congress.” (9/17/13)

20. “[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)

21. “I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)

22. “I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)


[Image: th?id=HN.608029857508560102&w=294&h=185&...=1&pid=1.7]
Reply
#20
(11-20-2014, 10:21 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: 22 times that Obama has acknowledge that he does not have the authority to do what he is about to do tonight. He is acting like this is a banana republic and he is emperor and the have no constitution:

Quote:Posted by cletus1 - Today 07:08 AM

What do you think is a workable solution to the immigration problem?

Smiling
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)