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.
Creating law from an EO like Obama did is a dictatorship.
We need to note that the Congress could have dealt with this many times. Congress refuses to. It also does not work when one branch refuses to do it's job.
As noted in another thread. What we have right now is a three ring circus.
Creating law from an EO like Obama did is a dictatorship.
except of course that's categorically untrue. EOs are lawful when they meet Constitutional muster - regardless of whether you like the President issuing them or not. The Constitution is the test, not your political preferences.
who cares who appointed him, a mistake is a mistake no matter who does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz
People seem to forget that President Obama was a Constitutional scholar, professor and lawyer who knew how to construct his legal directives that would be hard to challenge and he did so within the confines of the law and to what was permissible.
Hence the failure Trump is facing regarding DACA as well as his failure to repeal Obamacare.
Trump should know by now that lawyers aren't his best buddies aka Sessions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
On the contrary, Obama publicly stated what he did was unconstitutional. And then he did it anyway. And now we have a judge saying the current president is REQUIRED to continue exercising executive power in a way the previous president PUBLICLY ADMITTED was unconstitutional.
We are watching the dismantling of our republic, and you short-sighted fools are all giddy about this ruling because it thumbs its nose at Trump. The fact that it erodes the fundamental rule of law is a trifling secondary concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
Even Obama admitted his DACA EO was an illegal act. That's the way he rolled anyway.
There is a simple solution. Trumps been wanting to make them legal but Dems apparently want to use them for mid term politics.
bitey and rakin are right, the EO that obama signed on DACA was unconstitutional, and he not only knew it, he admitted it. what obama should have done is go through congress to get DACA passed so he could legally sign it into law.
and it is true that trump tried to get a fix for DACA by going through congress, and even offered up 1.8 million recipients, even though the dems only wanted 800,000. and the dems blocked the effort to get a deal on DACA.
and yes there was some "bipartisan" bull crap bill, but it was just that, bull crap, and everyone knew it.
The judge and Obama are the ones that dismissed the rule of law and Constitutionality. Immigration law needs to come from Congress. Actually ALL laws do.
If someone with standing disagrees that a particular EO is Constitutional, they have their legal remedies and two additional levels of appellate review available. So far, no one has successfully proved your uninformed opinion to be true.
On the other hand, others have utilized the judiciary to challenge the decision to rescind DACA and successfully done so.
Sorry if you don't like it. Actually, no. Sorry, I'm not sorry.
That judge is dumb. It's unlawful because it wasn't passed by Congress. Maybe that judge should take a Constitution refresher course. The administration should just ignore this judge. He can't do anything.
Ever heard of contempt?? Judge will throw some low level trump DOJ and/or DHS staffer into jail.
60 pages to justify redefine words.... in an opinion
I got an opinion too... my opinion matters more to me than theirs, or yours.
LOL. Your opinion does not matter one damn bit. You are a nobody. Me, too. No status, no authority, a nothing preaching to more nothings. Pound away at that keyboard, but the judge's opinion is all that matters.
Why not? Not only can they, but IMO they have a constitutional OBLIGATION to ignore this naked judicial power grab and then dare Congress to do something about it. I'd LOVE to see them try to impeach a President for deciding to return a proper legislative function to THEM where it belongs.
Why not? Not only can they, but IMO they have a constitutional OBLIGATION to ignore this naked judicial power grab and then dare Congress to do something about it. I'd LOVE to see them try to impeach a President for deciding to return a proper legislative function to THEM where it belongs.
They have a Constitutional obligation to ignore the judiciary because they disagree with the outcome? dumb.
Why not? Not only can they, but IMO they have a constitutional OBLIGATION to ignore this naked judicial power grab and then dare Congress to do something about it. I'd LOVE to see them try to impeach a President for deciding to return a proper legislative function to THEM where it belongs.
It's funny watching the cons claim that anything they dislike is "unconstitutional."
In reality, you're wanting to violate the constitution in order to rectify something you think is unconstitutional. That makes you as bad as those whom you oppose. But I've got news for you, two wrongs don't make a right.
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.
