District court declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional

[dismal]

Presidents have far more power than the Constitution ever gave them. This is petty nothingness.

LOL, it seems you and Obama agree that he is acting outside the Constitution anyway.

I personally look forward to the next President Bush/Romney/Paul deciding not to enforce Obamacare penlties and tax rates above 15%.

 

[untermensche]

Presidents have far more power than the Constitution ever gave them. This is petty nothingness.

LOL, it seems you and Obama agree that he is acting outside the Constitution anyway.

I personally look forward to the next President Bush/Romney/Paul deciding not to enforce Obamacare penlties and tax rates above 15%.

I said I don't care.

This is politics, not reality.

I am all in favor of throwing Obama in prison right now for his killing of American citizens without trial and for his spying on the American public.

Compared to that this is incredible pettiness.

The Congress leaves a mess just sit there and refuses to address it. They forced the president to do something by doing absolutely nothing.

 

[KeepTalking]

You haven't made a point yet other than "at some point the president said something or other was unconstitutional and later on he did some other thing so that must be unconstitutional too."

He clearly said he did not have the power to do anything beyond what he had already done, didn't he?

I'm trying to figure out if reading comprehension is the problem here.


“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)


“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)

Oh, thanks for bolding the specific phrases Obama used that you feel are showing he is taking actions that he said were unconstitutional.

So, after carefully reading those phrases, it is now apparent that the President never said that the specific actions he took with the Executive Order on immigration are unconstitutional. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You haven't made a point yet other than "at some point the president said something or other was unconstitutional and later on he did some other thing so that must be unconstitutional too."

ARE YOU DAFT? Whenever the president says the words, "that would be unconstitutional", everything else he does is unconstitutional including brushing his teeth each morning.

President Obama shreds the Constitution every time he flosses or uses a spoon.

 

[dismal]

He clearly said he did not have the power to do anything beyond what he had already done, didn't he?

I'm trying to figure out if reading comprehension is the problem here.


“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)


“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)

Oh, thanks for bolding the specific phrases Obama used that you feel are showing he is taking actions that he said were unconstitutional.

So, after carefully reading those phrases, it is now apparent that the President never said that the specific actions he took with the Executive Order on immigration are unconstitutional. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

He specifically said after dealing with the DREAMERS that he couldn't do anything more without the Congress acting.

Do we agree so far? (I'm not here to teach reading comprehension...)

This new executive order is a) more b) done without congress.

Do we still agree?

If not tell me exactly what statement is wrong.

 

[KeepTalking]

Oh, thanks for bolding the specific phrases Obama used that you feel are showing he is taking actions that he said were unconstitutional.

So, after carefully reading those phrases, it is now apparent that the President never said that the specific actions he took with the Executive Order on immigration are unconstitutional. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

He specifically said after dealing with the DREAMERS that he couldn't do anything more without the Congress acting.

I do not see that specific wording in the above quotes. Even if that specific wording was used, it is different than specifically saying that it would be unconstitutional.

Do we agree so far? (I'm not here to teach reading comprehension...)

No. It is a good thing you are not here to teach reading comprehension, as you don't seem to be all that good at reading comprehension yourself.

This new executive order is a) more b) done without congress.

Do we still agree?

If not tell me exactly what statement is wrong.

Nope. I already told you why i did not agree with your initial statement. Since he did not note any specific actions that would be unconstitutional with regard to immigration, then the possibility exists that he had not yet considered the further actions that he has now taken when making the previous statements. In the real world, people often discover and act upon new ideas or information.

 

[dismal]

He specifically said after dealing with the DREAMERS that he couldn't do anything more without the Congress acting.

I do not see that specific wording in the above quotes. Even if that specific wording was used, it is different than specifically saying that it would be unconstitutional.

Excellent. We have identified the source of our disagreement. It is your reading comprehension issues after all. No need to discuss further.

 

[fromderinside]

In the real world, people often discover and act upon new ideas or information.

Tell me it isn't so. Some are going to have heart attacks if this is so. How are you doing Dismal? KeepTalking sez some deciders go on to consider other things after they first open their mouths on a topic. Pulse OK?

 

[ksen]

I'd like a link to the speech that quote was in. When I google it a bunch of conservative sites get listed but not the actual speech it was delivered in.

 

[dismal]

I'd like a link to the speech that quote was in. When I google it a bunch of conservative sites get listed but not the actual speech it was delivered in.

Well, there are like 15 quotes did you have a particular one in mind?

Here are a couple where he says he has gone as far as he can go without Congress after acting on the Dreamers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._not_an_option_would_be_ignoring_the_law.html

http://communications-univisionnews...1431/univision-news-transcript-interview-with

 

[KeepTalking]

I do not see that specific wording in the above quotes. Even if that specific wording was used, it is different than specifically saying that it would be unconstitutional.

Excellent. We have identified the source of our disagreement.

Yes, it is your propensity to try to make the utterances of the President say something other than what was plainly said. I can only assume this is done for partisan reasons.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Behold:

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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.”

“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.”

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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. ... [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can[.]” (2/14/13)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

Where did you cut and paste this from? Because you obviously hadn't researched it.

 

[dismal]

1Where did you cut and paste this from? Because you obviously hadn't researched it.

http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-t...dn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'd pick better sources in the future it I were you.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm not seeing the disconnect between

A.
Saying he can't ignore or create new immigration law

and

B.
Signing an executive order that neither ignores nor creates new immigration law

Enforcement is part of the executive branch's job.

 

[ksen]

I'd like a link to the speech that quote was in. When I google it a bunch of conservative sites get listed but not the actual speech it was delivered in.

Well, there are like 15 quotes did you have a particular one in mind?

Here are a couple where he says he has gone as far as he can go without Congress after acting on the Dreamers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._not_an_option_would_be_ignoring_the_law.html

http://communications-univisionnews...1431/univision-news-transcript-interview-with

I meant this one:

“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)

 

[dismal]

I'd pick better sources in the future it I were you.

They all have little linky things that go to actual pictures of Obama speaking.

This sort of post is really rather pathetic.

Do you actually doubt Obama said any of those things?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, there are like 15 quotes did you have a particular one in mind?

Here are a couple where he says he has gone as far as he can go without Congress after acting on the Dreamers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._not_an_option_would_be_ignoring_the_law.html

http://communications-univisionnews...1431/univision-news-transcript-interview-with

I meant this one:

“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)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/17/obama_halting_deportations_not_an_option_would_be_ignoring_the_law.html

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They all have little linky things that go to actual pictures of Obama speaking.

This sort of post is really rather pathetic.

No obfuscation is pathetic.

 

[dismal]

They all have little linky things that go to actual pictures of Obama speaking.

This sort of post is really rather pathetic.

No obfuscation is pathetic.

What obfuscation? I mean I see you avoiding my question about whether you actually doubt Obama said any of those things.

Do you actually doubt any of them?

No pathetic obfuscation this time.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No obfuscation is pathetic.

What obfuscation? I mean I see you avoiding my question about whether you actually doubt Obama said any of those things.

Do you actually doubt any of them?

No pathetic obfuscation this time.

And what will it change when I say that Obama said those things? Will they suddenly support the political agenda of Mr. Bohner or will they as others have pointed out above actually not say what you and Mr. Bohner say they do?