Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,545,926 times
Reputation: 2118
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And there is precedent to what I've stated about Obama committing federal offenses by issuing these 2 EOs... U.S. District Court Judge Hanen's ruling: While prosecutors have the ability to defer prosecution or arrest in particular cases, "it [The Court] is not aware of any accepted legal principle, including prosecutorial discretion, that not only allows the government to decline prosecutions, but further allows it to actually complete the intended criminalmission."
Obama has committed federal offenses in issuing the 2 illegal immigration EOs.
So why did the GOP sue on Obamacare vs the immigration bill? If it's so open and shut?
EO were perfectly fine up until Obama tried to use it.
1. The claim the Mr. Obama is reaching across the aisle is a farce.
2. It's not about EOs in general.
3. The other Presidents signed bills when they granted amnesty they didn't do it through EO.
1. The claim the Mr. Obama is reaching across the aisle is a farce.
2. It's not about EOs in general.
3. The other Presidents signed bills when they granted amnesty they didn't do it through EO.
And president Obama didn't give Amnesty with his EO. There is absolutely no way anyone can spin it that he did give Amnesty. Your argument is predicated on a falsehood.
And president Obama didn't give Amnesty with his EO. There is absolutely no way anyone can spin it that he did give Amnesty. Your argument is predicated on a falsehood.
Now he can focus on criminals and high risk illegals rather than individuals who are raising families and have resided here for 5 years or more without breaking any laws except the misdemeanor of crossing the border.
He wasn't given the funds to do both.
Therefor prosecutorial discretion.
Now he can focus on criminals and high risk illegals rather than individuals who are raising families and have resided here for 5 years or more without breaking any laws except the misdemeanor of crossing the border.
He wasn't given the funds to do both.
Therefor prosecutorial discretion.
Granting legal status is setting aside the law for a specified group of people and saying they are not in violation of law- which they are. That's different from saying we don't have the manpower to prosecute these people.
If the president actually offered Amnesty through executive order then you may be right. Although two other presidents actually did this, there could be a case made by the republicans that Amnesty was illegal and win in court. Especially the way it's stacked conservative now.
But it isn't
It's all about prosecutorial discretion. And based on that, the president will prevail.
Why?
Because the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill by a vote of 68 to 32 and sent it to the house. In it, the bill provided the necessary revenue to completely give the president the power and the money necessary to effectively carry out the legislative mandate and close the border, provide additional security and fund the transition from illegal to legal citizen.
The republican house refuses to take up the bill.
The republicans have refused two additional requests by the president for funding that would have increased security, increased border agents and dealing with illegal immigrants.
The president doesn't have enough money to effectively enforce the laws the way the republicans would like.
Therefor, he is invoking prosecutorial discretion to selectively enforce immigration law as he sees fit and what the administration's budget will allow for.
As he stated, "we will concentrate on felons, not families."
I have a very good comprehension what's actually going on with the president's EO and the republican reaction.
I'll give you another clue that you can take to the bank.
When republican legislators come back from the holiday break, they will do nothing about the EO. Zip! Nada! Mainstream republicans will sweep the whole issue under the table. It will just be the radical fringe base that will be moaning on the sidelines.
Considering you don't even know what this thread is about, I won't listen to your "opnion" but, will wait and see what the courts have to say.
I believe they know more about it then you do, or think you know.
Considering you don't even know what this thread is about, I won't listen to your "opnion" but, will wait and see what the courts have to say.
I believe they know more about it then you do, or think you know.
you're right. the courts know much more about the finer points of constitutional law than you or I do.
Thank God, you and I are still able to post our opinions on forums concerning the issue without undue harassment.
what a boring existence it would be if we couldn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
