Obama immigration executive order watch party

[bilby]

So either we can put your current interest in this down to purely partisan motives; Or you can direct us to the record of your arguments against the Bush administration when he was doing this...

My motivations are irrelevant. You actually are trying to attack a poster's character (his motives) rather attacking his argument? Sorry bilby, that tired old ad hom dodge was discredited at FRDB many years ago.

Your motivations are directly relevant, if you hold people to a moral standard based not on their actions, but on whether or not you share their political beliefs.

If Obama is wrong to do something, and this moral failing is the big deal you claim it to be, then you would have made a similar fuss when other Presidents, from the other side of politics, did the same thing.

If you did not, then this shows that you don't actually care about the morality of Obama's actions; you just want to have a go at him personally; or because he is your political opponent.

'It's a scandal if they do it, but it's a trivial issue when we do it' is a pathetic and immoral stance to take; and all the evidence is that this is exactly your position in this case.

Your whole argument is an ad-hominem dressed up as moral outrage. It might fly with other partisan hacks, but it doesn't fool anyone who doesn't look at the world through partisan blinkers.

 

[maxparrish]

My motivations are irrelevant. You actually are trying to attack a poster's character (his motives) rather attacking his argument? Sorry bilby, that tired old ad hom dodge was discredited at FRDB many years ago.

Your motivations are directly relevant, if you hold people to a moral standard based not on their actions, but on whether or not you share their political beliefs.

If Obama is wrong to do something, and this moral failing is the big deal you claim it to be, then you would have made a similar fuss when other Presidents, from the other side of politics, did the same thing.

You've become totally irrational. Since when does someone's moral or legal wrongfulness determined by a critic's own motivations? You are effectively supporting the absurd notion that IF maxparrish sincerely criticized Bush THEN Obama's actions are "A BIG DEAL" for our country BUT if maxparrish did not then IT CAN'T be a concern for our 310,000,000 citizens.

Now isn't that palpably stupid, bilby?

Your "argument" is based on a strawman; the op issue is not on the motivations or sincerity of maxparrish's political position's; nor is it on the sincerity or motivations of bilby coming up with a lame red herring to protect Obama - it is on the truth of the immoral and/or unlawful behavior of Obama.

It does not matter if Ming the Magnificent or Mother Theresa notes the immoral or unlawful behavior Richard Nixon, the fact is that his actions were immoral and unlawful, and he got what he earned.

If you did not, then this shows that you don't actually care about the morality of Obama's actions; you just want to have a go at him personally; or because he is your political opponent.

As I said, my motives are irrelevant to the question of Obama's abundant guilt. And while my motivations are BOTH deeply principled and on political concerns, they are not the op subject - Obama is.

'It's a scandal if they do it, but it's a trivial issue when we do it' is a pathetic and immoral stance to take; and all the evidence is that this is exactly your position in this case.

My position is that Obama, by his own words, chose a deeply immoral and deeply offensive seizure of legislative power. Your position is NOT to prove otherwise, but to dodge with a transparent ploy of putting maxparrish on trial - sorry, won't sell.

Your whole argument is an ad-hominem dressed up as moral outrage. It might fly with other partisan hacks, but it doesn't fool anyone who doesn't look at the world through partisan blinkers.

You mean you can't show my argument to be wrong, I GET IT!

You have reminded me of a thread I have thought of starting. What is it with the left and their constant reliance basing their "argument" on attacking a critics sincerity rather than the actual argument? For example, I think you are sincere, even if I do think your stances to be blindingly stupid.

 

[maxparrish]

Obama, in his own words, was elected as Emperor.

“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)"

“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)

“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)

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....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. (3/16/14)

Obama has already admitted one would have to be Emperor to ignore the law - he has already demonstrated his own actions to be lawless. And he has already demonstrated that he is a prolific liar and enemy of the Republic...the only thing he has failed to do (unlike Hitler or Chavez) is bother to ask Congress for the power to decree new laws.

But as he can't be impeached, and he would not get permission from Congress, why bother? No?

 

[bilby]

Your motivations are directly relevant, if you hold people to a moral standard based not on their actions, but on whether or not you share their political beliefs.

If Obama is wrong to do something, and this moral failing is the big deal you claim it to be, then you would have made a similar fuss when other Presidents, from the other side of politics, did the same thing.

You've become totally irrational. Since when does someone's moral or legal wrongfulness determined by a critic's own motivations? You are effectively supporting the absurd notion that IF maxparrish sincerely criticized Bush THEN Obama's actions are "A BIG DEAL" for our country BUT if maxparrish did not then IT CAN'T be a concern for our 310,000,000 citizens.

Now isn't that palpably stupid, bilby?

Your "argument" is based on a strawman; the op issue is not on the motivations or sincerity of maxparrish's political position's; nor is it on the sincerity or motivations of bilby coming up with a lame red herring to protect Obama - it is on the truth of the immoral and/or unlawful behavior of Obama.

It does not matter if Ming the Magnificent or Mother Theresa notes the immoral or unlawful behavior Richard Nixon, the fact is that his actions were immoral and unlawful, and he got what he earned.

If you did not, then this shows that you don't actually care about the morality of Obama's actions; you just want to have a go at him personally; or because he is your political opponent.

As I said, my motives are irrelevant to the question of Obama's abundant guilt. And while my motivations are BOTH deeply principled and on political concerns, they are not the op subject - Obama is.

'It's a scandal if they do it, but it's a trivial issue when we do it' is a pathetic and immoral stance to take; and all the evidence is that this is exactly your position in this case.

My position is that Obama, by his own words, chose a deeply immoral and deeply offensive seizure of legislative power. Your position is NOT to prove otherwise, but to dodge with a transparent ploy of putting maxparrish on trial - sorry, won't sell.

Your whole argument is an ad-hominem dressed up as moral outrage. It might fly with other partisan hacks, but it doesn't fool anyone who doesn't look at the world through partisan blinkers.

You mean you can't show my argument to be wrong, I GET IT!

You have reminded me of a thread I have thought of starting. What is it with the left and their constant reliance basing their "argument" on attacking a critics sincerity rather than the actual argument? For example, I think you are sincere, even if I do think your stances to be blindingly stupid.

This is really simple, Max.

Obama's behaviour is NOT deeply offensive to you.

This is proven by your failure to show the slightest offense at identical behaviour by other presidents.

Therefore your position that his behaviour is offensive is a falsehood. You are not telling the truth; so your argument is void and should be ignored.

It is not your motivation, but your honesty that is in question. Your motivation is relevant as an indicator of the reasons behind your dishonesty.

You are seeking to influence the political positions of your audience through a cavalier disregard for the truth. This is not uncommon, but it is reprehensible - and I argue against it whenever I see it, regardless of who is doing it, or of their political objectives.

 

[maxparrish]

...Therefore your position that his behaviour is offensive is a falsehood. You are not telling the truth; so your argument is void and should be ignored.

It is not your motivation, but your honesty that is in question. Your motivation is relevant as an indicator of the reasons behind your dishonesty.

You are seeking to influence the political positions of your audience through a cavalier disregard for the truth. This is not uncommon, but it is reprehensible - and I argue against it whenever I see it, regardless of who is doing it, or of their political objectives.

You still don't get it, do you? If you want to make my sincerity an issue, feel free to in another thread. But my sincerity CANNOT determine the truth or falsehood of Obama's immoral and/or unlawful actions - no matter how many times you try to derail the op to save Obama. We both know the rule - attack the argument, not the source or poster.

When you decide to do so, rather than dodge with ad hom judgement of "my honesty", you will have returned to the purpose of this discussion board. Till then, you remain out of bounds.

You are seeking to influence the political positions of your audience through a cavalier disregard for the truth. This is not uncommon, but it is reprehensible - and I argue against it whenever I see it, regardless of who is doing it, or of their political objectives.

Prove it. Prove that my Obama's quotes are wrong or false. Prove that I am disregarding some "truth" that will sanitize Obama's actions.

Can't, right?

 

[bilby]

You've become totally irrational. Since when does someone's moral or legal wrongfulness determined by a critic's own motivations? You are effectively supporting the absurd notion that IF maxparrish sincerely criticized Bush THEN Obama's actions are "A BIG DEAL" for our country BUT if maxparrish did not then IT CAN'T be a concern for our 310,000,000 citizens.

Now isn't that palpably stupid, bilby?

Your "argument" is based on a strawman; the op issue is not on the motivations or sincerity of maxparrish's political position's; nor is it on the sincerity or motivations of bilby coming up with a lame red herring to protect Obama - it is on the truth of the immoral and/or unlawful behavior of Obama.

It does not matter if Ming the Magnificent or Mother Theresa notes the immoral or unlawful behavior Richard Nixon, the fact is that his actions were immoral and unlawful, and he got what he earned.

If you did not, then this shows that you don't actually care about the morality of Obama's actions; you just want to have a go at him personally; or because he is your political opponent.

As I said, my motives are irrelevant to the question of Obama's abundant guilt. And while my motivations are BOTH deeply principled and on political concerns, they are not the op subject - Obama is.

'It's a scandal if they do it, but it's a trivial issue when we do it' is a pathetic and immoral stance to take; and all the evidence is that this is exactly your position in this case.

My position is that Obama, by his own words, chose a deeply immoral and deeply offensive seizure of legislative power. Your position is NOT to prove otherwise, but to dodge with a transparent ploy of putting maxparrish on trial - sorry, won't sell.

Your whole argument is an ad-hominem dressed up as moral outrage. It might fly with other partisan hacks, but it doesn't fool anyone who doesn't look at the world through partisan blinkers.

You mean you can't show my argument to be wrong, I GET IT!

You have reminded me of a thread I have thought of starting. What is it with the left and their constant reliance basing their "argument" on attacking a critics sincerity rather than the actual argument? For example, I think you are sincere, even if I do think your stances to be blindingly stupid.

This is really simple, Max.

Obama's behaviour is NOT deeply offensive to you.

This is proven by your failure to show the slightest offense at identical behaviour by other presidents.

Therefore your position that his behaviour is offensive is a falsehood. You are not telling the truth; so your argument is void and should be ignored.

It is not your motivation, but your honesty that is in question. Your motivation is relevant as an indicator of the reasons behind your dishonesty.

You are seeking to influence the political positions of your audience through a cavalier disregard for the truth. This is not uncommon, but it is reprehensible - and I argue against it whenever I see it, regardless of who is doing it, or of their political objectives.

You still don't get it, do you? If you want to make my sincerity an issue, feel free to in another thread. But my sincerity CANNOT determine the truth or falsehood of Obama's immoral and/or unlawful actions - no matter how many times you try to derail the op to save Obama. We both know the rule - attack the argument, not the source or poster.

When you decide to do so, rather than dodge with ad hom judgement of me, you will have returned to the purpose of this discussion board. Till then, you remain out of bounds.

You are seeking to influence the political positions of your audience through a cavalier disregard for the truth. This is not uncommon, but it is reprehensible - and I argue against it whenever I see it, regardless of who is doing it, or of their political objectives.

Prove it. Prove that my Obama's quotes are wrong or false.

Can't, right?

It doesn't matter whether they are false. It matters whether they are atypical for Presidents in general. They are not.

Precedent is important in law. Obama is doing nothing unprecedented.

 

[ksen]

“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)"

“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)

“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)

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....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. (3/16/14)

Obama has already admitted one would have to be Emperor to ignore the law - he has already demonstrated his own actions to be lawless. And he has already demonstrated that he is a prolific liar and enemy of the Republic...the only thing he has failed to do (unlike Hitler or Chavez) is bother to ask Congress for the power to decree new laws.

But as he can't be impeached, and he would not get permission from Congress, why bother? No?

Well, it's a good thing obama didn't actually do those things then. :whew:

 

[maxparrish]

You've become totally irrational. Since when does someone's moral or legal wrongfulness determined by a critic's own motivations? You are effectively supporting the absurd notion that IF maxparrish sincerely criticized Bush THEN Obama's actions are "A BIG DEAL" for our country BUT if maxparrish did not then IT CAN'T be a concern for our 310,000,000 citizens.

Now isn't that palpably stupid, bilby?

Your "argument" is based on a strawman; the op issue is not on the motivations or sincerity of maxparrish's political position's; nor is it on the sincerity or motivations of bilby coming up with a lame red herring to protect Obama - it is on the truth of the immoral and/or unlawful behavior of Obama.

It does not matter if Ming the Magnificent or Mother Theresa notes the immoral or unlawful behavior Richard Nixon, the fact is that his actions were immoral and unlawful, and he got what he earned.

If you did not, then this shows that you don't actually care about the morality of Obama's actions; you just want to have a go at him personally; or because he is your political opponent.

As I said, my motives are irrelevant to the question of Obama's abundant guilt. And while my motivations are BOTH deeply principled and on political concerns, they are not the op subject - Obama is.

'It's a scandal if they do it, but it's a trivial issue when we do it' is a pathetic and immoral stance to take; and all the evidence is that this is exactly your position in this case.

My position is that Obama, by his own words, chose a deeply immoral and deeply offensive seizure of legislative power. Your position is NOT to prove otherwise, but to dodge with a transparent ploy of putting maxparrish on trial - sorry, won't sell.

Your whole argument is an ad-hominem dressed up as moral outrage. It might fly with other partisan hacks, but it doesn't fool anyone who doesn't look at the world through partisan blinkers.

You mean you can't show my argument to be wrong, I GET IT!

You have reminded me of a thread I have thought of starting. What is it with the left and their constant reliance basing their "argument" on attacking a critics sincerity rather than the actual argument? For example, I think you are sincere, even if I do think your stances to be blindingly stupid.

This is really simple, Max.

Obama's behaviour is NOT deeply offensive to you.

This is proven by your failure to show the slightest offense at identical behaviour by other presidents.

Therefore your position that his behaviour is offensive is a falsehood. You are not telling the truth; so your argument is void and should be ignored.

It is not your motivation, but your honesty that is in question. Your motivation is relevant as an indicator of the reasons behind your dishonesty.

You are seeking to influence the political positions of your audience through a cavalier disregard for the truth. This is not uncommon, but it is reprehensible - and I argue against it whenever I see it, regardless of who is doing it, or of their political objectives.

You still don't get it, do you? If you want to make my sincerity an issue, feel free to in another thread. But my sincerity CANNOT determine the truth or falsehood of Obama's immoral and/or unlawful actions - no matter how many times you try to derail the op to save Obama. We both know the rule - attack the argument, not the source or poster.

When you decide to do so, rather than dodge with ad hom judgement of me, you will have returned to the purpose of this discussion board. Till then, you remain out of bounds.

You are seeking to influence the political positions of your audience through a cavalier disregard for the truth. This is not uncommon, but it is reprehensible - and I argue against it whenever I see it, regardless of who is doing it, or of their political objectives.

Prove it. Prove that my Obama's quotes are wrong or false.

Can't, right?

It doesn't matter whether they are false. It matters whether they are atypical for Presidents in general. They are not.

Precedent is important in law. Obama is doing nothing unprecedented.

So the previous party line was "Bush was unlawful too" and I was told that was a precedent. When I explained unlawful activities are not precedents, the new talking point is Obama is not doing anything "a typical" for Presidents in general and that Obama is doing nothing unprecedented.

Then how do you account for the fact that Obama himself, 20-25 times, claimed that he could not take such action without doing something that "an Emperor" would do?

How many President's have refused to faithfully execute the immigration law for 5,000,000 miscreants, over the strident objection of Congress and the majority of the wishes of the American people?

I didn't know this was "typical".

 

[Ford]

But my sincerity CANNOT determine the truth or falsehood of Obama's immoral and/or unlawful actions

You are not really in a position to determine whether Obama's actions are unlawful. You're merely up in arms because he said one thing earlier and acted differently when presented with the present situation. People - even Presidents - do this all the time...change their position when presented with new information.

We both know the rule - attack the argument, not the source or poster.

Your argument is weak. You've latched onto a previous quote from Obama, and now that he has acted contrary to his previously stated position you have presented that as evidence that he has broken the law in a heinous and immoral fashion. Basically your argument boils down to "Obama once said he's not a dictator, but now that he's taken executive action on the topic he was speaking about at the time, he is therefore a dictator and has clearly broken the law."

Yet changing a policy position is not illegal. Statements made by Presidents do not generally carry the force of law. By your reasoning, George Bush 41 would have been committing an immoral and illegal act by reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge.


In order for your characterizations of Obama's actions (as illegal, unconstitutional, <edited>, etc.) to hold any water whatsoever you'd have to demonstrate not mere hypocrisy on his part, but actual law-breaking. From what I've read on the topic over the past few days, even conservative legal scholars concede that the President is well within the bounds of his legal authority to carry out the executive actions he has announce that he will take.

Prove that my Obama's quotes are wrong or false.

The quotes are irrelevant. In order to establish as you called it "Obama's abundant guilt," you have to actually establish his guilt. You have to establish that he broke the law. So far you've only established that he reversed his position and - again - that is not illegal in the slightest.

 

[ImGod]

I don't understand why the Congress thinks it's impotent. Based on the constitution they can pass legislation. Just do it.

 

[maxparrish]

You are not really in a position to determine whether Obama's actions are unlawful. You're merely up in arms because he said one thing earlier and acted differently when presented with the present situation. People - even Presidents - do this all the time...change their position when presented with new information.

I am in a position to give an opinion as to whether or not, based on my own readings and moral-political philosophy on whether or not his actions are immoral or lawful or constitutional or a betrayal of the principles of democratic governance in a republic.

And I am "up in arms", as are millions of Americans, because Obama's outrageous and unprecedented abuse of power is obvious: he has sworn an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and, contrary to his own recognition of his responsibility in NOT ONE, BUT 22 or more statements he has decided he is no longer bounded by such concerns. When asked how he can justify his current actions in light of his prior statements he (as you might expect) he had the gall (and disrespect) to deny that he changed his position.

How a Constitutional law school instructor could "discover" new information (that he denies he discovered) is a curiosity, but clearly from his prior statements he knew he was at the limits or beyond the limits of responsible power with his DREAM 'act'. He said that he did it anyway because "it was the right thing to do" (i.e. ignore the law, and do what he decides is "right").

Your argument is weak. You've latched onto a previous quote from Obama, and now that he has acted contrary to his previously stated position you have presented that as evidence that he has broken the law in a heinous and immoral fashion. Basically your argument boils down to "Obama once said he's not a dictator, but now that he's taken executive action on the topic he was speaking about at the time, he is therefore a dictator and has clearly broken the law.

Yet changing a policy position is not illegal. Statements made by Presidents do not generally carry the force of law. By your reasoning, George Bush 41 would have been committing an immoral and illegal act by reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge.

In order for your characterizations of Obama's actions (as illegal, unconstitutional, <edited>, etc.) to hold any water whatsoever you'd have to demonstrate not mere hypocrisy on his part, but actual law-breaking. From what I've read on the topic over the past few days, even conservative legal scholars concede that the President is well within the bounds of his legal authority to carry out the executive actions he has announce that he will take. ...

The quotes are irrelevant. In order to establish as you called it "Obama's abundant guilt," you have to actually establish his guilt. You have to establish that he broke the law. So far you've only established that he reversed his position and - again - that is not illegal in the slightest.

I hoped that my comments were precise in what they did and did not say. As you might note, my outrage is over his immoral, offensive, and/or unlawful actions. I am not explicitly stating that his actions were, in a technical sense, lawful or unlawful. In other words, I don't know if the combination of current Constitutional doctrine and the statutory language of immigration law makes his action "unlawful" (that is why I used "or").

So at this point I am not making a narrow legal argument, I am making a fundamentally moral and constitutional argument. One does not have to break the law to be dictatorial. After all, Adolph Hitler, Cesar Chavez, and Indra Gandhi were "lawful" in their executive actions because they had been explicitly given the power to decree laws (the first two by legislatures, the last by the India Constitution). None the less, most would agree that they were effectively tyrants (some longer than others). In other words, a tyranny created by "the law" is still a tyranny and no technical argument can expiate its offense to republican and democratic forms of government.

Moreover, what is or should be Constitutional is a deeper question. Crabbed legalism from bad law cannot deny a fundamental principle of Constitutional construction: the US is a republic with three branches, each with explicit powers and boundaries. Of the three ONLY Congress makes law. The executive is charged with faithfully executing that law. PERIOD. That bad precedent and Congressional passiveness (along with the Court's dereliction of duty) has gradually given unconstitutional legislative powers to executive agencies, does not make it Constitutional. And now we have the glaring contradiction of "prosecutorial discretion" for individuals and small groups turning into a wholesale refusal to faithfully execute law we are in uncharted territory, not seen (perhaps) since FDR's and Andrew Jackson's "executive orders" to force American citizens into captivity.

The White House claims it has “prosecutorial discretion” in which illegal immigrants it deports and the authority to gran work permits to those it is legalizing. If so, why stop at half? You see, there is no agreed limit upon prosecutorial discretion because no President has attempted to be a Coyote in Chief, someone who harbors and protects millions of law breakers. The precedent is as dangerous as it is obvious. If a President has such power, then any future President has the power to not enforce corporate income taxes (wave prosecution), or chose not prosecute corporate, business, or housing discrimination, or any other sector or group it choses. In other words, taken to the extreme this "principle" essentially veto's laws, long after they were approved by Congress and signed by a President.

There is, of course, a Constitutional remedy for such "high crimes", impeachment. But Democrats, who used to hate the imperial Presidency are suddenly attracted to 'Dear Leader' run government. And no impeachment is possible.

None the less, there will be repercussions...not only in the next two years, but in future Presidents.

 

[Ford]

I am not explicitly stating that his actions were, in a technical sense, lawful or unlawful.

Well you did state that his actions were enough to justify him being murdered.

 

[maxparrish]

I am not explicitly stating that his actions were, in a technical sense, lawful or unlawful.

Well you did state that his actions were enough to justify him being murdered.

As a matter of political philosophical principle, a ruler does not have to break the law to warrant resistance, including violent resistance (see prior examples of legal tyrants). As the Declaration of Independence recognizes, when the King's usurpation and abuses of power become intolerable the people have a right to violently resist. Should anyone do so, he has "earned violent resistance" only in the sense that he knowingly went over the boundaries and is creating a Constitutional crisis.

That is different than saying that a particular person would be morally justified in doing so OR that it ought to be done by anyone.

A few more points:

Since the beginning of the 20th century it has been recognized that Congress has a "plenary power" (full and complete) over immigration. Because of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the concept is that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/214/320/case.html

And in 1996, Congress passed a law which requires federal immigration agents to deport illegal immigrants, with only a few exceptions. The text is mandatory. Regardless of prior prosecutorial discretion the law was clear. Obama is effectively telling federal employees to break that law because he is repealing a law by an executive order.

As Obama has frequently threatened, “Where Congress won’t act, I will.”, are we to expect him to start rewriting other laws he does not like? Or to make law where Congress has declined or refused to do so?

Given his personality and sense of unlimited power, this crisis is only the beginning.

 

[Wiploc]

“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)"

Lets say we've got eleven million illegal residents, and Congress has allocated money enough to deport 400,000 a year. (I think I read those numbers somewhere.) Congress instructed the president, since, clearly, the illegals can't be exported all at once, to set priorities as to which ones should be focused on. The president, according to Congress, should decide who gets deported now, and whose deportation is to be deferred.

Obama has, therefore, decided that certain people can be deferred: those who
- have been here for five years,
- have children here covered by the Dream Act, and
- who register and pay taxes and stay out of trouble.

This is not thwarting or challenging Congress; it is complying with the instructions of Congress.

Maybe the president shouldn't have the power of discretion over deportation, but I'm skeptical. I don't think this was Obama's subject on 3/31/08. If you can substantiate that Obama was on that subject, then maybe you'll have a point.

“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)

The weird thing is that he said it is tempting to change laws on his own. Very weird.

But the president following the instructions Congress by setting deportation priorities is not changing a law. It is complying with a law---which is how our system works, is how democracy functions; is how our Constitution is written.

So, once again, you have an Obama quote which doesn't contradict or disparage what Obama is doing today.

“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)

Once again, there's nothing damning about this. He's still the president. He's still not an emperor. His job is still to execute the laws. Congress still hasn't fixed the broken system. He still has to enforce the laws that are in place. Some of the results will still be tragic.

All he's done is offer a little clarity, saying, in effect: "I can only deport so many people a year, and this particular group deserves to know that (so long as they register and pay taxes and stay out of trouble) they aren't first in line."

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....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. (3/16/14)

He is still constrained. Unless Congress passes a new law, this delay is just a temporary delay. It is not permanent. It is not a road to citizenship. Those changes will take an act of Congress. All Obama can do is say to a particular group of people, in effect, "You may still be deported eventually, but you are not the focus of our efforts. If you register so that you'll be at risk of being more easily identified when a Republican president assumes what maxparrish would call the powers of an emperor, then you don't have to worry about being deported right away so long as you pay taxes and stay out of trouble."

Obama has already admitted one would have to be Emperor to ignore the law

He's not ignoring any law. Congress is the one that says he can only deport a small percentage of illegals in a given year. Congress is the one that instructed the president to prioritize what groups should be deported. Obama is just going along with what Congress said.

- he has already demonstrated his own actions to be lawless.

You made that up, right?

And he has already demonstrated that he is a prolific liar

I assume he's a liar. Ever since Teflon Ronald Reagan, politicians have quit being embarrassed about that. But you haven't demonstrated that he's a liar in this post.

and enemy of the Republic...

Again, you're just making that up.

the only thing he has failed to do (unlike Hitler or Chavez) is bother to ask Congress for the power to decree new laws.

You're saying that Obama has never asked Congress to fix immigration law? You can say that and call Obama a liar?

But as he can't be impeached, and he would not get permission from Congress, why bother? No?

Why couldn't he be impeached? The Republicans hate him, and they're in charge of the impeaching body.

In any case, none of your quotations support your thesis.

 

[laughing dog]

Why couldn't he be impeached? The Republicans hate him, and they're in charge of the impeaching body.

The House could pass an impeachment, but the Senate is where trial occurs. A successful impeachment requires a 2/3 vote and the Republicans are not even close to that number in the Senate. Add in the last impeachment (Clinton) backfired on the Republicans, and it is doubtful they will try it again. Besides, why impeach him when you can spend 2 more years demonizing him?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Agreed fully!

The W Admin leaked the identity of a NOC-List CIA Agent, that was completely legal. One guy went to jail simply because he lied to investigators. So that was Constitutional.

The W Admin exaggerated (kindly put) evidence of the threat of attacks from Iraq, which in conjunction with a poorly run occupation, led to the maiming or death of 10,000 US Troops, and countless Iraqis. But really that is legal because they really thought they were right.

All those Executive Orders and Signing Statements by W, completely Constitutional...ish.

When W promised not to touch the Social Security surplus and then didn't in order to finance a deficit tax cut, completely Constitutional!

Oh gee, another 'what about Bush' red herring?

Actually it is a post that is trying to point out the oddity that is this hyper-whining about Constitutionalism that is actually creating little harm verses actual Presidential acts that created serious harm.

 

[maxparrish]

Lets say we've got eleven million illegal residents, and Congress has allocated money enough to deport 400,000 a year. (I think I read those numbers somewhere.) Congress instructed the president, since, clearly, the illegals can't be exported all at once, to set priorities as to which ones should be focused on. The president, according to Congress, should decide who gets deported now, and whose deportation is to be deferred.

Obama has, therefore, decided that certain people can be deferred: those who
- have been here for five years,
- have children here covered by the Dream Act, and
- who register and pay taxes and stay out of trouble.

This is not thwarting or challenging Congress; it is complying with the instructions of Congress.

"Let's say" someone is fishing for an ex post facto rationalization for the Obama shamnesty, what better way than to speculate on how the poor President, sold by the left as being a "Deporter in Chief" (wink, wink) , is dialing back his efforts, reluctently shielding 1/2 of all illegals from deportation because of unspecified funding shortages. And, in fact, the rationalization goes, his actions are what Congress wants.

As a matter of protocol, I usually find it more productive to reply to actual quoted positions of Obama, than argue against a poster's reaching for a speculative rationalization. That said, the rationale is so full of holes I couldn't let the swiss cheese logic pass.

Obama, like every prior President, has already exercised the choice of who to focus on for deportation. And like every President, he has also had the choice to demand his Democratic Congress, and/or Democratic Senate to focus on much greater funding for more border security and more deportation agents. And Presidents have done their prioritizing without feeling compelled by 'budgets" to deliver "cant wait to legalize" and give green cards to 5 million illegals.

Think about it, that makes about as much sense as the FBI declaring 1/2 the mafia are now granted a legal protection because they want everyone in America to know they will be busy on the other half.

In any event, we already know that Obama has not spend the last year threatening to shield 5 million illegals from deportation IF Congress did not significantly fund greater border security and deportation agents. That was not his goal. His threats were that unless Congress gives him the "comprehensive immigration reform" he wants, he would do the reforming himself; i.e. he would impose his goal of legalizing 5 million illegals.

Finally, claiming that Obama is only responding to Congressional instructions to give shamnesty is bullocks. You'd have to be deaf and blind to not know Congress has expressed its fierce opposition to the shamnesty, not only by most Republicans in the House and Senate, but also by many moderate Democrats. Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Al Franken (D-MN), each came out publicly against the president’s executive action. Democratic Reps. Ron Barber (D-AZ), Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), and Cheri Bustos (D-IL) also came out publicly against it as well.

Heck, prior to the shamnesty, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed to get more than five of his other Senate Democrats to sign a recent letter to Obama backing him on it. And Obama is well aware that the people have elected a new Congress, is even more opposed than this one.

"Carrying out the instructions of Congress" for a shamnesty, my ass.

Maybe the president shouldn't have the power of discretion over deportation, but I'm skeptical. I don't think this was Obama's subject on 3/31/08. If you can substantiate that Obama was on that subject, then maybe you'll have a point.

I'm sorry, you provided no basis for the source of your skepticism. You need to substantiate the basis of your questioning a direct quote.

The weird thing is that he said it is tempting to change laws on his own. Very weird.

Yes it is very weird, darkly suggestive of Obama's personal makeup.

But the president following the instructions Congress by setting deportation priorities is not changing a law. It is complying with a law---which is how our system works, is how democracy functions; is how our Constitution is written.

One can set priorities without legalizing 5 million illegals, should they wish - you know, like Clinton, Bush, and Obama managed to do up to this point. Law enforcement sets priorities routinely on every other crime, without feeling compelled to legalize 1/2 the criminal class. (Duh).

So, once again, you have an Obama quote which doesn't contradict or disparage what Obama is doing today.

“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)

Once again, there's nothing damning about this. He's still the president. He's still not an emperor. His job is still to execute the laws. Congress still hasn't fixed the broken system. He still has to enforce the laws that are in place. Some of the results will still be tragic.

All he's done is offer a little clarity, saying, in effect: "I can only deport so many people a year, and this particular group deserves to know that (so long as they register and pay taxes and stay out of trouble) they aren't first in line."

As you do little more than repeat denial, laced with factual irrelevancies, I am reminded of the admonition that "you can't reason someone out of something that they did not, originally, reason themselves into". Obama-bot loyal drones may be soothed by their mutual buzzing in the hive of denial, but it does not impress those of us who do not tend to the 'queen'.

Obama's statement is self-evident. He is not emperor and therefore he must enforce the deportation laws, even if he thinks the system is broken. Congress has chosen to leave the laws, and the mandate to deport, as they were written - even if he thinks the results may be tragic (i.e. deporting illegals).

He is intentionally being unfaithful to the explicit mandate of the law, giving immunity to mandated deportation to 5 million. He is, in his own words, acting as Emperor, attempting to "fix" a system that he has no right to fix (and in reality, is actually doing a good job breaking the system).

 

[Ford]

As you do little more than repeat denial, laced with factual irrelevancies, I am reminded of the admonition that "you can't reason someone out of something that they did not, originally, reason themselves into". Obama-bot loyal drones may be soothed by their mutual buzzing in the hive of denial, but it does not impress those of us who do not tend to the 'queen'.

Obama-bot loyal drones? You should heed the advice of another poster:

We both know the rule - attack the argument, not the source or poster.

 

[maxparrish]

Obama-bot loyal drones? You should heed the advice of another poster:

We both know the rule - attack the argument, not the source or poster.

I will, when it comes to basing an argument entirely on the imputed motivations, or behavior, of the person making the assertion. And when I read rhetoric is so vacuous as to impress only the true believing drones, I will also point that out.

In the meantime, should you have something of substance to add, feel free to do so.

 

[Ford]

In the meantime, should you have something of substance to add, feel free to do so.

You've typed a lot of words, Max, but haven't provided substance of your own. You have repeatedly characterized Obama's actions as unlawful, yet when pressed to prove they are in fact illegal have backed off that characterization.


Now you're justifying your own ad hominem attacks.