Can't happen, King Obama!
 
 

Obama will soon see he must follow the laws of the land if he over reaching his executive authority!

Obama hasn't changed any laws. He is only prioritizing the laws that already exist. Laws that past President created.
 
If you really think Obama is changing laws, just what laws has he changed and how did he change them...

He not changing law.  He's refusing to execute the laws as written.

How's that chucky?

The answer to that question is posted in several places on the board.  I'm not going to repeat it.  It should be obvious even without reading it.  You may not agree, but I don't feel like getting into a pissing match with an idiot.

(( The answer to that question is posted in several places on the board. ))
 
So what you're saying Chuck, you can't answer wvits question.  Pretty easy question.  But, if you don't want to get into a pissing match, then just point wvit in the direction of those answers you speak of... 

So what you're saying Chuck, you can't answer wvits question.


Really, I guess you're an idiot too.  One who can't comprehend English.

What's there to comprehend Chuck"..Wvit asked you a simple question and you couldn't answer it.  Like most right wing idiots, when asked a question, they deflect the question, then try to pass it off on somebody else...

Vit's not looking for an education.  He's looking for a pissing match.  I'm not going to buy into it.  There are plenty enough of them on here if your interested.

He asks a question and I'm not obliged to answer it.  It's a simple question, but a stupid question with an obvious answer.  And even an idiot should know that if I don't answer a question it doesn't mean I couldn't answer it. 

Spin it anyway you want Chuck.  Fact remains, YOU CAN"T ANSWER THE QUESTION.  Your best response would have been, NO RESPONCE...
 
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

I'm done pissing with you, miss.

He is interpreting the law as he sees fit.

Just like bush refused to monitor CO2.
Just like Reagan sold arms to Iran and used proceeds to arm rebels.  No wait, THAT was illegal!

But the bush thing never caused a ripple among you Repocons, even though the Clean Air Act said he should.

Vit's not looking for an education.  He's looking for a pissing match.
 
 
Neither Vit not jig have the ability to be educated. Closed minds have no opening. The best they can do is piss into the wind then act like victims when they get wet.
 

Laws that past President created.

There in lies the problem, presidents do not create laws, that is the Constitutional role of Congress....

even clowns at fox know the president has a lot of discretion in how and in what priority the laws of the land are executed.  you idiots.  take bush, please.  he refused to enforce many EPA regulations, and weakened the EPA by every method possible, including hiring people in bed with the corporate polluters TO BE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING THESE CORPORATIONS...did you cry like stupid fuck pigs then because rush limbaugh said to?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/fox-news-cant-decide-whether-executive-action-o/201500

But legal experts largely agree that Obama's pledged executive action is constitutional. According to a letter signed by over 100 legal experts, the use of prosecutorial discretion "is a common, long-accepted legal practice in practically every law enforcement context," including in immigration law. The letter continued:

There are multiple forms of immigration prosecutorial discretion. Discretion covers both agency decisions to refrain from acting on enforcement, like cancelling, serving or filing a charging document or Notice to Appear with the immigration court, as well as decisions to provide a discretionary remedy like granting a stay of removal, parole, or deferred action. A favorable grant of prosecutorial discretion does not provide formal legal status or independent means to obtain permanent residency. It does, however, provide a temporary reprieve from deportation. Some forms of prosecutorial discretion, like deferred action, confer "lawful presence" and the ability to apply for work authorization.

The application of prosecutorial discretion to individuals or groups is grounded in the Constitution, and has been part of the immigration system for many years. Furthermore, court decisions, the immigration statute, regulations and policy guidance have recognized prosecutorial discretion dating back to at least the 1970s. Notably, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated: "A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials ... Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all[.]" Federal courts have also recognized prosecutorial discretion and with respect to deferred action in particular, discussed its reviewability.

As UCLA Law Professor Hiroshi Motomura explained, an expansion of DACA -- like the original use of prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers in 2012 -- is a way for immigration officials to utilize limited law enforcement resources to create "a list to prioritize who should be deported first." In a Washington Post interview with Motomura, he explained how executive action is common sense:

"Here's how I think about it. If the president can make a list to prioritize who should be deported first, then I think it's clear that he can give people at the bottom of that list a piece of paper saying you're at the bottom," Motomura says. "That's how I think about DACA. It's clearly within his discretionary power. But if he did this for every single immigrant, he would no longer be exercising his discretion. That would be problematic."

Even Hannity's Fox News cohorts seem to understand this long-standing use of executive authority is legal. On the November 6 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl explained how prosecutorial discretion works in an immigration context, noting a series of memos written by former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton that have prioritized certain deportations over others since 2011, a formalization of prosecutorial discretion that "reaffirms many of the principles and policies of previous guidance." Wiehl pointed out that the memos "basically said to the ICE agents, you know, if you've got an illegal immigrant that's here, unless they've committed a felony or multiple felonies, don't go after them. The key words in these memos are "prosecutorial discretion." What that means code for is, don't prosecute." O'Reilly followed up: "Okay, so this is like a town where the police chief would say to its cops, you know, if somebody's smoking marijuana in the street, low-level beef, ignore it. They do that in a lot of places[.]"

O'Reilly's panel pointed out that the memos weren't "legally binding," but none of them questioned the constitutionality of prosecutorial discretion. 

Fox News host Megyn Kelly also admitted that the president has authority to use executive orders to address immigration reform and prioritize law enforcement resources. On the November 6 edition of The Kelly File, Kelly explained to her guest, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), that "the president does have prosecutorial discretion when it comes to immigration, the Supreme Court made that clear as recently as 2012":

EPA regulations are not laws created by Congress asshat....

yes, they are, you fucking moron.  just like regulations implemented by the IRS, by Social Security, by Medicare are laws with full congressional and legal authority, you stupid fucking piece of shit.  why do you like showing how fucking stupid you are, boy?

Did Congress write the EPA laws, I think not ergo they are not laws created by Congress.....

Nondelegation and the Administrative State

The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. . . . And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be govern'd by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.

— John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690

We have a clear violation here of Article 2, Section 3.

The best case may come from Republican governors and state attorneys general (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/23/snl-skit-suggests-obamas-immigration-executive-action-is-unconstitutional/%20http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/14/how-conservatives-will-legally-fight-obamas-immigration-action-and-how-hell-defend-it/), who say that the actions will put new burdens on their local governments and that, thus, they may have the most legal "standing" to sue. Kansas's secretary of state, Kris Kobach, is one of them and is profiled (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2014/11/22/f6d2b3fe-728a-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html) in Sunday's Washington Post.

you boys are too fucking stupid to even try to educate.  how can you boys believe such bullshit?  we know reagan and both bushes also signed executive orders that affected how the immigration laws would be executed, without congress, and you boys didn't cry and cry and ruin your makeup over those...why now, stupid fuck racist pigs?

 
But Mommy, Johnny did it, why can't I ??   Leftists are sooo childish....
 

The hoosier idiot still does not know of Simpson-Mazzoli.....

With some regularity, however, the existing forms of immigration relief have been overtaken by circumstances. When that has happened, Congress steps in. In 1986, faced with a large and growing population of illegal aliens, Congress created a new, time-limited form of immigration relief for certain aliens who, among other things, had to have come to the United States more than six years previously. This is the much ballyhooed Reagan amnesty. It was, unfortunately, riddled with fraud in its execution, the uncovering of which is still roiling the immigrant community. But even setting that aside it left President Reagan with a moral dilemma. Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

What the Progressive commentariat is not telling you is that the Reagan and Bush immigration orders looked nothing like Obama’s creation of a new, open-ended form of immigration relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.


Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

too fucking stupid to even try to educate.

He went from being a champion high school debater, to graduating summa cum laude in his class at Harvard, to rowing for Oxford, to editing the Yale Law Journal.

He received a White House fellowship a few weeks before Sept. 11, 2001, and after the terrorist attacks he advised the Attorney General on immigration issues.   He returned home a few years later to take a job as a professor of constitutional law.

For a decade, he has led the legal effort to strengthen the country’s immigration laws and toughen their enforcement. He co-wrote 16 state laws. Governors have been texting his cellphone and Senate staffers have been sending e-mails.  But he is also Kansas’s secretary of state.

He is working on the lawsuit, 40 or 50 pages already written. “We have a clear violation here of Article 2, Section 3,” he says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2014/11/22/f6d2b3fe-728a-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2014/11/22/f6d2b3fe-728a-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html)

in law, stupid bitch, that is called "precedent." if you had finished grade school, bm jim, you would know just how fucking stupid your last comment was, even compared to your other stupid fuck comments, moron.  how do you find your way here each day, simpleton?  seen any chemtrails lately, lame ass?

funny how you right wing dickheads will use ONE FUCKING "EXPERT" OPINION THAT DIFFERS FROM THE VAST MAJORITY OF "EXPERT" OPINIONS, TO TRY AND PROVE THE MAJORITY EXPERTS ARE WRONG...like in this case, and in your laughable attempts to deny global warming and climate change.  why even bother to refer to an expert if he is so clearly in the minority?  how does that help your case?

So, now we are to learn that an EO by a president or any president establishes a leagl precedent, brilliant.....

Liberal George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley believes that President Barack Obama's forthcoming executive amnesty will be an "unprecedented" and "dangerous" overreach that will threaten America's constitutional system of governance.

"This would be unprecedented and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers within our system," Turley said

Turley added that Obama's executive amnesty will be even more dangerous because Obama would be defying the will of Congress immediately after an election in which voters rejected Obama's illegal immigration agenda.

"We have a Congress that is coming in with the full voice of the American people behind them," Turley said. "That's what an election is. Now, you may disagree with the outcome, but you have to respect the outcome."

"We have a separation of powers that gives us balance," he said. "And that doesn't protect the branches. It's not there to protect the executive branch or legislative branch. It's to protect liberty. It's to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty."


Jonathan Turley named lead counsel for House suit against Obama (http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVxn.G3NUG7sAh89XNyoA/RV=2/RE=1416858751/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.foxnews.com%2fpolitics%2f2014%2f11%2f18%2fjonathan-turley-named-lead-counsel-for-house-suit-against-obama%2f/RK=0/RS=zCx.Y9pMzwd2ww4UoofTXTQn3og-)

fuck the will of congress.  they also probably want to weaken EPA laws, give even more huge tax breaks to hugely profitable corporations that outsource american jobs, set up phony off-shore companies to avoid taxes, and ignore pollution standards.  reagan and both bushes signed executive orders that mandated how immigrations laws would be enforced and jonathan turley did not bitch like a little girl then.  fuck jonathan turley. 

 
Nah, fuck you, shit stain.

http://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/ (http://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/)

No, both Reagan and Bush 41 issued EO's to execute the law as proscribed in the Constitution....

they did the same thing as obama.  you boys refuse to believe the truth even when it is slapping you right across your huge gaping pieholes.  and look at dumbfuck jerkwater, too stupid to even make up original replies, going to the stupid fuck right wing website "freedomwordpress" for his next opinion!!  what a stupid douchebag!!

 
No, they did not, horseshit duddy.  Have a third grader explain it to you.

Personally I don't have a big problem with what Obama did. It was a grand stand act that formalizes what he has been doing for years. Nothing more. My only concern is I have yet to see what happens to those who don't take the offer to become legal.

Either way, we need to let it ride and get on with more important things.

The issue for most is not the illegals at the moment but Obama subverting the Constitution which is a big deal and will be with future presidents and executive power.   No need for a Congress or the SC if the executive can do as he pleases with the Constitution, legislation and judicial power as he sees fit.   

this just in:  anything a president does is widely publicized and could be considered a grandstand act.  executive orders, almost always, are publicized and would fall into that category.  if it was done secretly, right wingers would be complaining about it NOT being a grandstand act, and not done publicly. 


the same exact way reagan and both bushes signed executive orders concerning immigration laws and other enforcement issues. 

No, it is not the same and apparently you are to ignorant to understand that, Hooty.

sweaty you have been wrong about everything you've ever posted and your wrong about this.  Benghazi - wrong, IRS - wrong, birth certificate - wrong, everything you believe is wrong.
 
this would tell an intelligent person something but then I guess that leaves you in the dark doesn't it.

There is no more important issue than blatant government lawlessness.  Those who attempt to defend don't deserve recognition.

Back up you accusations with proof what I have ever been wrong about, wvit as you opinion means little when you lie constantly on this board.

Post what I said if you can...

wrong wrong wrong.  sweaty you are a complete dumbass and you've proved it over and over.
 
you're only reply is to prove it, show you the posts.   hahahhahhahaaa, you show your ignorance every day with every post from you're twisted bigoted little pea brain.

I didn't think you could handle the task, wvit.   You are an idiot.

you're such an easy mark sweaty, you're intelligence quotient must be down in the basement somewhere.

I am content with my IQ score, wvit.   It is over 120 and average with my siblings.   Why do you ask?  If you are anywhere near 125 let me know?   Being pissy will not help your score, wvit...   LOL...

over 120, hhahahahahahhahahhahaaaaaa  hahahahahhahahhahaaaa hahahahhahahahahhaha

wvit is laughing because he can't count that high.

Wvit does that when is mind cannot handle facts.   Nothing new.   Most likely a genetic pathology.

I'm laughing because you two goofballs are such idiots.

No it is not the same, the only reason that you think it is the same is because you lack the intelligence to know the difference, don't you....

vwit is nothing more than a confused, incontinent old coot.

you are still an idiot duke.

Just think, wvit, that even an idiot can tell you how dumb you are.

at least douche john realizes he is an idiot, but he still doesn't realize that, as an idiot, everything he thinks is wrong. 

Yet I am smarter than you and correct far more often than you.

Imagine what a fucking dolt that makes you, horseshit duddy.