Obama's immigration edicts don't even pass the laugh test

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
There continues to be much discussion regarding Barack Hussein Obama's moves to unilaterally change U.S. immigration laws, but unfortunately, it has focused on the merits of what he did rather than the way in which he did it.
Supporters' arguments that Obama's executive orders were cleared by the lawyers doesn't even pass the laugh test. If mere prosecutorial discretion was the basis for his edicts, surely Obama -- supposedly a constitutional lawyer -- would have known that on his own, and he could have moved forward in his first few years in office. However, not only did he not do so, he explained REPEATEDLY that he did not have legal authority to do so.
What changed? NOTHING! He didn't have the authority then, and he doesn't have it now. If prosecutorial discretion is the basis for violating the separation of powers provided in the Constitution, then the logical conclusion to would be that the president can decide which laws he will enforce and which he will not enforce -- in effect nullifying the will of Congress. And that is not how our Constitution works.
What Obama has done -- if allowed to go unchallenged -- fundamentally changes our Constitution without the cumbersome process provided therein. And all Americans should realize, and hope, that we aren't living in a dictatorship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spider

Member
BHO won't be backing down. His approval is up to 50%, per Gallup.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Spider Man said:
BHO won't be backing down. His approval is up to 50%, per Gallup.
... but Barack Hussein Obama wouldn't back down if his approval was down to 5%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Good Times Good Times

Well-Known Member
Bill Herald said:
Spider Man said:
BHO won't be backing down. His approval is up to 50%, per Gallup.
... but Barack Hussein Obama wouldn't back down if his approval was down to 5%.
You're not really making a "point", that's more of a hypothetical scenario. Spider offers up a fact and you return with "but (hypothetical scenario)".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Good Times Good Times said:
You're not really making a "point", that's more of a hypothetical scenario. Spider offers up a fact and you return with "but (hypothetical scenario)".
Dear Good Times Good Times:
Aren't I allowed to make an observation? Obama obviously doesn't seem to feel that he needs to make any changes to his agenda, in spite of the midterm elections, and I don't think he would do so, even had the GOP had achieved a far-greater landslide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Cool Rocking Daddy said:
Sure you are, billy. Just watch your step because there's a new sheriff on this here board. As to Obama, he was the one elected by the people. The GOP landslide is turning into so much nothing as they prove they can't get out of their own way time and time again.
Dear Cool Rocking Daddy:
In case you don't know it, the Republican majorities were elected by the people, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Dear Long Gone Daddy:
I don't know about Congress, but I have already guaranteed, on a number of occasions, that THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER U.S. PRESIDENT ELECTED UNDER THE REPUBLICAN BANNER, so you should be pleased about that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spider

Member
The big question is will Boehner and McConnell put up any resistance? Way it stands is NO. So why should BHO backdown?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top