 |
| Emperor Obama double-dog dares the TeaPublicans to Impeach Him While Legally Acting on Immigration |
"Emperor Obama" prepares to legally grant amnesty because the GOP House never brought the Senate-passed immigration bill up for a vote, thereby, avoiding acting like a legislative body with responsibility to solve this very large problem.
John Boehner, a/k/a Sir John of Orange, has called President Obama "Emperor Obama" for acting like a grown-up and facing the immigration problem.
Call him "Emperor" all you like, Sir John, but the facts are that Mr. Obama will be acting well within the law, as the following conservative Constitutional lawyers and experts agree.
Stamping your little feet and calling the president names is so last October.
You won! Doncha know?
For a guy who glows orange all the time, you're not very bright.
 |
| But...but...the lowest non-mandate turnout of voters since 1942 said NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! |
Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal characterized Obama’s intransigence as a childish “temper tantrum.” But, if Obama’s cool demeanor qualifies as a tantrum, what do we make of a drama queen like Speaker Boehner who has angrily pledged to fight Obama “tooth and nail.” Boehner grimly warns that the president will ruin any chance of getting immigration legislation if he doesn’t back down. This is a gutsy performance from the man who could have gotten a truly bipartisan, Senate-passed immigration bill through the House and to the president’s desk at any moment in the last couple of years simply by allowing a vote – a vote that never happened because Boehner did not want to risk a riot among the anti-immigrant radicals in his caucus. --David Horsey, LATimes
The Roberts Court Has Already Said That Obama Has The Power To Issue His Immigration Order
[Justice]"...Kennedy’s opinion in Arizona does more than strike down several provisions of a state law, however. It also includes language highlighting the “broad discretion” the executive branch enjoys in matters relating to immigration:
Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. 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. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal.
Legal Panel At Federalist Society Begrudgingly Accepts Obama's Immigration Powers
"...by and large, the panelists agreed the president has wide legal latitude to prioritize and shape deportation laws, as regrettable for Republicans or the long-term balance of powers that may be. “I think the roots of prosecutorial discretion are extremely deep,” said Christopher Schroeder, the Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke Law School.
“The practice is long and robust. The case law is robust. Let me put it this way: Suppose some president came to me and asked me in the office of legal counsel, ‘Is it okay for me to go ahead and defer the deportation proceedings of childhood arrival?’ Under the present state of the law, I think that would be an easy opinion to write. Yes.” Schroeder was speaking specifically about the deferred action program that Obama already has put into place -- the one affecting so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children.
But later, Schroeder expanded his legal reasoning. “I don’t know where in the Constitution there is a rule that if the president’s enactment affects too many people, he’s violating the Constitution,” Schroeder said. “There is a difference between executing the law and making the law. But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more problematic than you would think.
If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law.
“I agree this can make us very uncomfortable. I just don’t see the argument for unconstitutionality at this juncture,” Schroeder added.
And looky here at what fell out of the Clown Car:
Texas Ted Cruz has a plan to use the budget to “stand strong and united against the president unilaterally and illegally trying to extend amnesty to millions who came here illegally (like his father Raphael Cruz).”
What Cruz and the rest of the Republican xenophobes are saying, in stark terms, is that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George W. Bush (all Republican presidents) violated the U.S. Constitution and illegally took executive action on immigration. Or in Cruz’s terms, were acting like monarchs that was perfectly legal and constitutional because they were white.
In Cruz’s mind, the Republican wave in the midterm elections was solely a referendum on the President’s expected executive actions on immigration policy. Cruz is wrong, of course, because clearly 62% of all Americans support action on immigration including 4 out of 5 Republican voters.
Oy vey!
Ted Cruz Goes There By Accusing Obama of Being An Angry and Defiant Black Man
But wait! The GOP DOES have a plan after all!
G.O.P. Unveils Immigration Plan: “We Must Make America Somewhere No One Wants to Live” BY ANDY BOROWITZ
28 comments:
Isn't this all irrelevant until Louie Gohmert checks in?
Inaction is s decision and therefore is the (intended) action of doing nothing (congress).
Actions have consequence, intended o otherwise.
President Obama has out maneuvered the GOP on immigration. I am quite sure he employed the legal counsel of many legal experts on constitutional law whole mapping this strategy out.
While he's at it, Barry should double dog dare Boehner into sticking his tongue onto a frozen flagpole.
I'm more pro-immigration than probably anyone reading and commenting here, so I'm not bent out of shape on this.
Besides, Congress has been punting this issue for years. Well, someone has picked up the ball they kept kicking away...
I've seen uninformed comments suggesting a return to Reagan... because we all know he never signed an EO doing essentially the same thing.
Then there is the crowd that believes almost wistfully that in days gone by, first generation immigrants spent their days learning English rather than supporting their families. Most scholarship and data shows that by the second gen, recently landed immigrants are all bi-lingual.
I often wonder if these folks are aware of the many foreign language brigades we had during the civil war?
But here's my favorite quote from one of our favorite bloggers, the attitude of which helps explain why Latinos will never vote GOP...
If Mexicans came here legally and learned English like our ancestors did, and got well educated and opened tons of Mexican restaurants, Ole!"
"If Mexicans came here legally and learned English like our ancestors did, and got well educated and opened tons of Mexican restaurants, Ole!"
Ha. My grandmother came from Italy, lived her for 60 years and barely spoke English when she died. Her children were bilingual, and her grandchildren, of which I was one, had to learn Italian in school.
That's usually how it works in every group of immigrants.
Right now I'm working with a group of immigrants, mostly from Central and South America, who are learning ENglish. They are dedicated, bright, and caring people, happy to have the opportunities that this country offers. I don't know what their individual situations vis-a-vis legal status are, but I do know they have the right stuff to become American citizens. I'm happy to help them and all the other immigrants achieve that.
"Retiring Sen. Tom Coburn warned in a USA Today interview that things could get ugly, not that he’s telling anyone to make things ugly:
“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” Coburn said on Capital Download. “You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”
Coburn went on to say that since Obama’s not going to “work with Congress” — which has done such admirable hard work on not passing anything in years — executive action would be a big mistake, because it sends a dangerous message to Americans:
“Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”
Hey, you guys all remember the riots and the looting and the violence when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush signed executive orders on immigration, right? Lawlessness is just so ugly.
Iowa congressmelon Steve King warned last week that if Barack Obama took executive action on immigration, the nation would be thrown into a “constitutional crisis” because of the unprecedented usurpation of power that has never been seen before in our great nation, apart from the executive orders on immigration issued by every president since Eisenhower."
Nah, the TeaPublicans don't want any rioting and anarchy like the rioting and anarchy they keep telling us to watch out for. Nah. They're not trying to get the dumbasses to hear their dog whistles. No not at all. Except well they are.
the emperor figured out that canadians were going to sneak in through the keystone pipeline and blocked them. so why is he giving the mexicans a pass?
Better food.
Rusty, maybe you missed the anarchy when the former President issued a record number of signing statements, excluding his presidency of laws limiting the power of the unitary executive.
We foamed at the mouth, screamed and in some case protested, but never resorted to real violence and never questioned his right to even hold the office.
It will be interesting to see if there is a difference in reaction.
In general, every time I hear Sen McConnell bring up how Obama is calling the American people stupid, I want to scream.
He is basing this on polling that shows that Americans are not in favor of this. basically, he is arguing for laws and policy being subject to the will of the people.
That would be well and good if Sen Mitch would then start passing laws to limit gun ownership, raise the minimum wage, and extend gay marriage rights, all of which the American people overwhelmingly favor.
Please, anyone, tell me why the will of the people, as expressed in an election, is only valid for Republican, GOP and conservative ideas and principles.
They're really doing a magnificent job of coming unglued:
"Republican Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama thinks they can send President Obama to prison for 5 years for doing what every other modern president has done by taking executive action on immigration reform.
Brooks is pretty sure there’s a federal statute, but he doesn’t have the citation for it “at the top of my tongue.” No worries! When making public statements suggesting that the President is committing a criminal violation that could send him to prison, it’s totally understandable that an elected lawmaker wouldn’t first look up the citation."
Shaw and Dave: There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution to justify the rock-ribbed "English only" demands of certain so-called Constitutional Conservatives.
In fact, these demands shouldn't be coming from anyone who takes the 1st Amendment seriously.
Dave said: "That would be well and good if Sen Mitch would then start passing laws to limit gun ownership, raise the minimum wage, and extend gay marriage rights, all of which the American people overwhelmingly favor."
I'm all in favor of letting individuals decide to personally limit their gun ownership, as long as they don't arrogantly force this choice on others. And a person boosting their wage by doing work that is worth more is fine with me: the best way to raise wages.
However, the government is clearly interfering in a non-Constitutional way with marriage rights. So I part company with "Sen. Mitch" on that third issue.
When he was just Barry, he said he didn't have the authority to change immigration. Now that he is presbo he found it, maybe under his bed.
He will come out on top of this and the American people will be better off. He will blame the republicans for reid not allowing anything to come to the senate floor. American companies will get a good cheap unskilled labor force who actually wants to work. The current unskilled workforce will be able to collect their gooberment money and we all get great Mexican food.
Even Dave benefits. Since the Mexicans are coming here he will not have to go there, less travel for him.
See, we all win.
Yeah, really skud. Mr. Obama changes his mind and the TeaPublicans take to their fainting couches?
How about this:
“The framers of our Constitution, wary of the dangers of monarchy, gave the Congress tools to rein in abuses of power. They believed if the president wants to change the law, he cannot act alone; he must work with Congress. He may not get everything he wants, but the Constitution requires compromise between the branches. A monarch, however, does not compromise …” – Ted Cruz, 2014.
“I don’t think what Washington needs is more compromise, I think what Washington needs is more common sense and more principle,” – Ted Cruz, 2012.
Which is it? Or are you only concerned when the president changes his mind?
Like you TeaPublicans are only paying attention to the "will of the people" when their side wins.
Yeah. Right.
Dmarks... my comments about Mitch centered on his appeal to majority rules... yet only when the GOP carries the day.
Where was that point of view from him when the Dems and Obama carried the day?
Nowhere to be found...
Skud... you seem to be focusing on the clip of what Pres Obama said on Univision last year. What you, and others are not seeing is the question that preceded that answer.
He was not speaking generally about Presidential action, rather, he was responding to a specific question.
Your swipe at Reid is misplaced here in the context of immigration. The Senate, under Reid's leadership, passed a comprehensive bi-partisan immigration bill and sent it to the House.
The GOP, and here, McCain is a good example, are asking for time to work their will and craft a bill. McCain wants to know why we can't wait to allow time for that to happen now that we have a new congress.
What is unsaid is this... in the election, control of the Senate changed yes. But that side of Congress has already passed a bill. The House has been in GOP hands since 2010. How much more time do they need?
Business wants this fixed. Americans of all stripes want this fixed. Immigrants want this fixed. Please tell me why the GOP is unable to get it done, or chooses not to get it done.
McCain is right... the GOP needs more time... time to make sure Pres Obama cannot claim credit for this getting done on his watch.
Political, pure and simple... it has nothing to do with what is good for America...
BTW, don't insult me and my work in Mexico with smug comments. Especially not today as many of us are mourning the massacre of the 43 students of Guerrero...
Dave said: "Dmarks... my comments about Mitch..."
I know. And both sides do this, and both sides are hypocritical in their use of this type of statement. And yes, now it's republicans like "Mitch" doing it.
In regards to what you said to Skud, "The House has been in GOP hands since 2010. How much more time do they need?"... ever want to get rid of the fillibuster entirely?
Well that was pretty reasonable.
They're going to have a tough time shutting down the government over those measures.
Impeachment seems out of the question.
Boner's response should be interesting.
David,
How many republican sponsored bills did reid put to the floor?
I do believe we need a comprehensive immigration bill and agree the sides are opposed for purely political reasons, which serves no one.
Mexico is corrupt and getting worse. Open the borders and it will serve everyone.
I do like obamas point on those who decide to pay taxes, that was a joke because taxes are ceased funds and no one pays out of the goodness of their hearts.
Mexicans in this country are hard working and honest people who are looking for a better life. Maybe we can exchange some folks who only want to live off the system for them, kinda of a person exchange.
Skud... again, you've brought in a tangentital [sic] issue with Reid...
I've spent most of my adult life working in Mexico and with immigrants, both legal and illegal, here in the states.
I can honestly say I've never encountered one person from Mexico who wanted to game the system, either here, or in Mexico. Ever.
The statements that the many in the GOP spout, and in this case you too, are patently offensive and do not ring true in my experiences.
DMarks... the Senate bill was held up in the House by the Speaker... there is no filibuster there to abuse. It was a simple decision by leadership to not bring up legislation that the majority wanted but that the GOP base opposed.
Skud said:
"I do like obamas point on those who decide to pay taxes"
Good point. It's similar to those who have called taxes "contributions".
There is no "decide". The tax money is forcibly taken from us. At gunpoint, really (just check the experiences of those who flat-out refuse to pay them). A situation different from a mugging only in its legality.
"Mexicans in this country are hard working and honest people who are looking for a better life. Maybe we can exchange some folks who only want to live off the system for them, kinda of a person exchange. "
Interesting points. The first group, the hard working and honest ones (the vast majority) are no problem. The second group, the greedy leeches, is a problem. However, you must realize, Skud, that native-born Americans in this category far outnumber the immigrants in this category.
Dave a D,
The majority of the leeches are not from another country. They are the fourth and fifth generation of people who have never held a job and have no desire to every work for a living. Dave, those are the ones we should exchange for.
I have few issues with what obama spouted. If 10% pay taxes it is a gain. We support their medical care as it is and there are a lot of unskilled jobs they can occupy and do a good job.
We still need an immigration bill which this is not. It was just a political speech to make him look like he keeps his word even if it is six years late.
"If 10% pay taxes it is a gain"
Not sure what you mean, Skud. I can confidently say the overwhelming majority of them pay at least some tax.
"...to make him look like he keeps his word even if it is six years late."
The U.S. Congress is responsible for putting together legislation to address this issue, not the president.
Obama said that he would act to do something about immigration if the Congress didn't. And so he did.
DMarks & Skud... Illegals pay taxes everyday when they buy gas for their cars, diapers for their kids and many other items. Also, in a little know exercise, many actually pay income taxes as required, even though they have no hope of social security or a refund of over payment.
Fascinating I know, but true. And to the tune of billions of dollars.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_n.htm
Dave M. That is exactly what I was thinking of.
Post a Comment