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.
If the President were to extend amnesty, it could be argued that his actions fall under the category of pardons. An exclusive and unimpeachable Presidential power.
Ca he grant a blank pardon , or ho his pardons have to be exclusive to a named individual
Yes, it is impeachable. The Republicans are smart enough not to exercise that option. Crazy Joe Biden would be just as bad as Obama.
The real problem isn't even King Obama. It's his cult, both in the media and in the population, that wants a dictator to rule America instead of the Constitutional Republic we've always had.
There is ZERO doubt in my mind that if any Republican tried something like this, impeachment would happen. Why? Because conservatives wouldn't stand for it. We won't crap on the Constitution just because it's "our guy" who is doing the crapping. We conservatives have respect for our Constitution and the country's institutions. That's what makes us different from liberal extremists, who have unfortunately taken over the Democrat Party and make up the Democrat Party base.
Why grant any of them amnesty? Just because they managed to evade the law the longest that means it's justified?
You are entitled to your opinion, but currently people do support a pathway to citizenship.
However they don't support a blank amnesty and 75% reject amnesty through executive order. I agree with the public, make it possible for them to become citizens, but they at least need to a follow the same laws that legal immigrants follow.
But that debate can be taken later, what really matters is that immigration reform should be done be congress. Just because congress does not give Obama what he wants, does not give him the right to push it through with an executive order. Even though he may get away with this legally, he will not get away with this in the eyes of the public. The problem is, Obama don't care anymore. His focus now is to secure his legacy, even if it will damage the democratic party and America.
Again, YES. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. If he feels a law is not Constitutional, and there is a legal argument to support his opinion, then he can refuse to uphold a law. The FIRST obligation of the President, before everything else, is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Again, no. He can utlize the DOJ and the court system if he feels a law is unconstitutional. He cannot unilaterally not follow the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
And he did uphold the law. It's just that the law doesn't give a time table for deportation of illegals.
So he gave them 2 years before they would be deported. And then he extended that 2 more years.
He never said they could stay permanently because our laws do not allow that.
So he played the gray area.
You are corrrect. He is required to uphold the law. But lawyers being lawyers, they find the gray area. Finding the gray area is upholding the law. Not following at all is not.
You are entitled to your opinion, but currently people do support a pathway to citizenship.
However they don't support a blank amnesty and 75% reject amnesty through executive order. I agree with the public, make it possible for them to become citizens, but they at least need to a follow the same laws that legal immigrants follow.
But that debate can be taken later, what really matters is that immigration reform should be done be congress. Just because congress does not give Obama what he wants, does not give him the right to push it through with an executive order. Even though he may get away with this legally, he will not get away with this in the eyes of the public. The problem is, Obama don't care anymore. His focus now is to secure his legacy, even if it will damage the democratic party and America.
You're wrong. Most Americans do not support amnesty nor a path to citizenship for these illegal aliens. Why should we allow them either? Following the same laws that legal immigrants follow would be for them to return to their homelands and start the process in their own country not on our soil.
Depends on what is deemed as "reform". I don't see much that needs reforming but yes congress needs to make those decisions.
“I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the [immigration] on my own.
Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
The current occupier of the White House has said he would proceed with Amnesty "immigration reform" though Executive Order.
Republicans have gave a warning signal (like an Indian smoke signal) saying No, don't do it!
Could this be a treasonous act by the president and warrant impeachment?
Afterall, isn't it in the Constitution:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3
Obama should be impeached if his does this, we need to stop this extra-constitutional crap before someone even more corrupt hoodwinks his way into office.
"I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. ... With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed .... For me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
Obama should be impeached if his does this, we need to stop this extra-constitutional crap before someone even more corrupt hoodwinks his way into office.
"I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. ... With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed .... For me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
Why doesn't someone in congress call this to his attention and ask for an explanation as to why he isn't honoring his own words? Why wasn't it brought up to him when he implemented DACA by EO which was another form of at least a temporary amnesty?
Why doesn't someone in congress call this to his attention and ask for an explanation as to why he isn't honoring his own words? Why wasn't it brought up to him when he implemented DACA by EO which was another form of at least a temporary amnesty?
Because he doesn't care. They deny they ever said something even when there's proof it was on tape. They do.not.care. The left wants what is wants and doesn't care if they contradict themselves, doesn't care if it hurts workers, and sure as heck doesn't care if it's what the majority of Americans oppose.
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.