Obama's executive actions on immigration

@coldjoint,

Wow...
What utter nonsense about the US Constitution. When you actually READ it rather than just counting "no" and "not" you will find that the word has little to do with restricting the size of government.

These are the first 3 instances of "no" and "not".

Quote:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

It seems to me they were looking to have actual thinking adults in the government.

The next instance:

Quote:

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

One Representative for every 30,000? Doesn't seem like limited size of government to me. We currently have one Representative for about every 600,000.

Then we get the Senate:

Quote:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

It seems Opitz is not very bright.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

It seems Opitz is not very bright.

Bright enough to realize the true meaning of the document which is not to put to much power in the hands of government and especially one man.

He is much brighter than you in so many ways. Lawfare supporting Shill.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

We still have three branches of government and 2 of them, including the one that decides all matters of constitutionality, disagree with you.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

We still have three branches of government and 2 of them, including the one that decides all matters of constitutionality, disagree with you.

http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/funny_meter.gif

3 Replies

@coldjoint,

Like I said before. You don't give a **** about the US or the Constitution. You only have your RW drivel to feed you.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

If I posted what I really think of you I would be kicked off this site for a month.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

If I posted what I really think of you I would be kicked off this site for a month.

No chance of you saying what you really think because you gave up control of that quite a while ago. Even your hatred of Jews lacks originality. Old troll.

http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/old.gif

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You don't give a **** about the US or the Constitution.

Wrong, I don't give a **** about you.

0 Replies

Quote:

President Barack Obama's executive action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation suffered a legal setback on Monday with an appeal to the Supreme Court now the administration's only option.

The 2-1 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to uphold a May injunction deals a blow to Obama's plan, opposed by Republicans and challenged by 26 states

http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-upholds-injunction-against-obamas-immigration-015910554.html

Going to SCOTUS. I am hoping that Obama loses on the grounds of power overreach. This is going to be a legacy problem problem for Obama on three fronts

1) he could not get reform done through process

2) he tried to subvert the process when he could not get what he wanted through politics

3) he acted like he had power he did not have, he claimed to the hispanic lobby that he had power he did not have, which makes him either a fool or a liar.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Going to SCOTUS. I am hoping that Obama loses on the grounds of power overreach. This is going to be a legacy problem problem for Obama on three fronts

I also hope that Obama loses with the SCOTUS... but perhaps for different reasons than you do. (Factually this is a rare time that I will be happy either way it goes.)

If SCOTUS rules against Obama, this will become a big issue for the presidential election next year. This will be a huge disadvantage for the Republican nominee whether it is Trump, Rubio or anyone else.

Like it or not, Obama took action to address part of the immigration issue.

The Republicans are the obstructionists. They have no workable plan of their own. They have the wall (that anyone who knows anything knows isn't a solution) and mass deportation. This is not a good issue for the Republicans. Not to mention the increasing importance of Hispanic part of the electorate.

The best thing for the Democrats for their success in the White House and Congressional elections next year is if the SCOTUS overrules him. Let's push this issue to the top of the agenda when the Republicans have no coherent policy.

I say bring it on.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

It seems you don't even know what the ruling is, hawk.

Obama can't lose on the grounds of overreach since this is only an appeal on an injunction until the case is ruled on in a lower court. The lower court ruled that until it hears the case it will not allow the new rules to go into effect. The administration is appealing that injunction.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The Republicans are the obstructionists. They have no workable plan of their own.

That is incorrect. Moderate Republicans were just about to pass immigration reform earlier this year, and Mr. Obama rushed his executive order to cut them off before they could act.

maxdancona wrote:

If SCOTUS rules against Obama, this will become a big issue for the presidential election next year. This will be a huge disadvantage for the Republican nominee whether it is Trump, Rubio or anyone else.

Unlikely that the Republican nominee would be disadvantaged much.

More likely, if this executive order goes down in flames, moderate Republicans will wait until Mr. Obama leaves office and then pass immigration reform without him.

If the executive order goes down in flames, it might even give Mr. Obama an opportunity to rebuild the bridges that he burned when he issued the executive order, and maybe then he could work with the Republicans to get reform passed while he is still in office. Maybe.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Moderate Republicans were just about to pass immigration reform earlier this year... moderate Republicans will wait until Mr. Obama leaves office and then pass immigration reform without him.

Please name names. Who were these "moderate Republicans"?

And where were these "moderate Republicans" when George Bush was in office?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Thumbs up as I have not seen that one before.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Please name names. Who were these "moderate Republicans"?

This Wikipedia article lists the following senators as being moderates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

"Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, and John Hoeven of North Dakota."

It is hard to tell who exactly would have been behind immigration reform, as Mr. Obama issued his executive orders before the Republican moderates had any opportunity to act.

Maybe if he rebuilds his bridges with those moderates, we'll get to find out which Republicans support immigration reform.

maxdancona wrote:

And where were these "moderate Republicans" when George Bush was in office?

In the Senate I presume.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

The right wi ng has been stalling immigration reform since well before Obama took offic, in defiance of the will of the majority of Americans. Obama, on the contrary, acted in accordance with the American will, and the right wing hissy fit shows no evidence of subsiding. That's the GOP, the O stand for ostnate. Or obstructionate.
Make that obstinate.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

George W. Bush tried to pass immigration reform. He was blocked by the Republicans in Congress. There is no way in hell that the Republicans are going to do anything reasonable no matter what Obama (or Sanders) does.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Moderate Republicans were just about to pass immigration reform earlier this year

Quote:

It is hard to tell who exactly would have been behind immigration reform, as Mr. Obama issued his executive orders before the Republican moderates had any opportunity to act.

So they were just about to pass legislation that you have no clue as to who authored it or if it even existed and no clue as to who supported it.

You do have a fantastic imagination oralloy but I don't believe that there was any legislation being pushed by the GOP since you don't have any facts to support your claim.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So they were just about to pass legislation

Probably more accurate to say they were just about to introduce the legislation. It might have passed reasonably quickly though, if it had been introduced.

parados wrote:

that you have no clue as to who authored it or if it even existed and no clue as to who supported it.

No one authored it, and it never existed. Mr. Obama cut off the moderates before they even had an opportunity to introduce the legislation.

No, I don't know who was going to support it.

parados wrote:

You do have a fantastic imagination oralloy

Thank you for the complement. I am not sure that it is deserved though. My intellect does allow my imagination to go places that most other people do not, but true creativity is beyond my abilities.

For example, I could never write a song or a poem, or paint a picture (or anything similar) if my life depended on it.

parados wrote:

but I don't believe that there was any legislation being pushed by the GOP since you don't have any facts to support your claim.

The legislation would have come from moderate senators, not from the GOP as a whole. The legislation was never pushed. Mr. Obama cut the moderates off with his executive order before they ever had a chance to push it.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

So they were about to introduce and pass legislation that wasn't authored and didn't exist? Do you know how the legislative process works? You can't vote on something until it is on the calendar. It isn't on the calendar for a vote until it has gone through committee. It can't go through committee until it is on the committee calendar. It can't be on the committee calendar until it has been assigned to the committee. It can't be assigned to the committee unless it has been introduced. It can't be introduced until it is written. Since they hadn't written anything it wasn't about to be introduced. It certainly wasn't about to be passed.

You are talking nonsense, oralloy. You are claiming something that didn't exist was going to magically appear if only Obama hadn't made it disappear. It's fantasy to argue they were about to introduce legislation let alone pass it.

2 Replies

Obama's executive actions on immigration

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know