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.
didn't Obama did the same thing by creating DACA in 2012 when Senate voted down Dream Act in 2010?
DACA gives unauthorized immigrants work permit and exempt from deportation....when Congress made it clear that those here without our authorization would be placed in removal proceedings. They amended into Title 8 of the US Code section 1225(b)(2)(A), which reads “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”
Too bad repetition can't be avoided in this forum, because the same comments and questions, replies and answers keep being repeated, but again...
No. DACA did not involve a declaration of a national emergency, and today it's about Trump, not Obama anymore!
Double edged swords cut both ways. Republicans won't hold the presidency forever. Next national emergency could be health care and/or climate change. Give them an inch, they'll take a foot, give a foot, they'll take a yard. Give the man a rope, he thinks he's a cowboy.
This too! Agreed, but repeated many times in these threads already...
Would be one thing if it were a question of people just not having read the prior comments, but even for those who have read the same thing, doesn't seem to make a difference to what people think either way!
A president has the right to declare a national emergency but Obama had no legal right to bypass congress with his DACA and DAPA programs so there was no two wrong here only one on the part of Obama. Why didn't you and yours give a damn about that?
How did Obama issue that EO if he had no legal right?
And who says anyone didn't give a damn about staying within the law? If/when Obama was found to be outside legal boundaries, the courts established that fact and whatever action(s) stopped/overturned accordingly. That's how our legal system is supposed to work, just as now we're faced with whether Trump's declaration of a national emergency (not to be confused with an EO) is legally sound.
All Americans should give a damn about the rule of law regardless who is testing those boundaries! We are a nation of laws! Not a monarchy, and we have only our legal process to determine who is crossing those lines. We have little choice but to watch and see, like we are forced to wait and see what Mueller's investigation will determine. I root for law and order, always, and I'm always concerned when our system of law and order seems to be getting compromised, no matter by who!
Too bad repetition can't be avoided in this forum, because the same comments and questions, replies and answers keep being repeated, but again...
No. DACA did not involve a declaration of a national emergency, and today it's about Trump, not Obama anymore!
sorry but not sorry for not reading every single post in a 27 page thread.
yes, DACA did not involve a declaration of a national emergency, but this thread is about "If you support "national emergency" to bypass Congress, you are an enemy of the Constitution"
Was EO on DACA not bypassing Congress and Senate?
-Congress made it crystal clear that "alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”
-Senate voted down Dream Act in 2010
The only people who have the right to Trump on his "national emergency" is the same one who bitched about Obama's DACA.
If you are one them, then carry on. If not, just sit down
Last edited by CaseyB; 02-28-2019 at 03:03 PM..
Reason: language
sorry but not sorry for not reading every single post in a 27 page thread.
yes, DACA did not involve a declaration of a national emergency, but this thread is about "If you support "national emergency" to bypass Congress, you are an enemy of the Constitution"
Was EO on DACA not bypassing Congress and Senate?
-Congress made it crystal clear that "alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”
-Senate voted down Dream Act in 2010
The only people who have the right to ***** Trump on his "national emergency" is the same one who bitched about Obama's DACA.
If you are one them, then carry on. If not, just sit down and take it up your ...
Wish I had the time to better entertain your rather misguided and somewhat offensive comment, but real quick I'd just like you to know that most people find the issue of these DACA kids a little different from the typical illegal immigrant -- adult -- who can actually be considered to be "seeking admission." If you need that explained, try pulling your head out.
Opinion about that and what Obama did as a result of this rather unique difficult problem is just a little more complicated than opinion about some "bad hombre" who purposely enters this country illegally.
Again, however, that was the past. That was Obama, and that issue is still being debated in more than a few ways, and again if whatever Obama did was deemed illegal, so be it. Doesn't stand. If legal, okay, but no one should be supporting what is not legally sound and/or unconstitutional, whether it be Obama or Trump.
Now it's about Trump and his "national emergency" to get what Trump wants and that Congress had denied. Hard for most Americans to recognize this "national emergency" that suddenly appears after the government shutdown. Might be we need some clarity on what establishes a national emergency other than what any POTUS like Trump might decide out of frustration about what they want and can't get, but here too the argument is not about DACA!
Confuse these issues all you like, but if you are going to entertain either issue, at least understand what the issues are and what the arguments are really all about, and please spare everyone with the "lets pretend we're constitutional scholars game!" That's what our court system is there for!
I can certainly understand why someone would be against this "national emergency" order that spends a lot of money, but...
I'm not sure we can quite yet call it unconstitutional. I believe the court(s) will decide that. However, I think we can all agree that it's a horrible idea, and a terrible precedent to set spending this kind of money using this executive branch tactic.
So, immoral perhaps, and definitely not in the spirit of the rules....but illegal or unconstitutional, we're not yet sure.
Kind of like when a murder goes free due to a "technicality". Perhaps they wasn't read their Miranda rights , or some other violation of their rights....so even though most likely guilty of murder, they go free. So is it unconstitutional that a murderer goes free even though we may all know they were actually guilty ? Or strangely enough, is it actually constitutional that a murderer goes free due to that "technicality". Perhaps the person ordering the release of this known "murderer" is actually the defender of the Constitution, and the person wanting this most likely guilty party locked up is the enemy of the Constitution.
Just another way of looking at your assertion of this being unconstitutional, pending the court(s) rendering their opinion on the matter.
In any case, as I said, it's a VERY bad idea.
As one of the founders of our Republic said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". Once enough of our leaders, and ourselves, become immoral enough to the spirit of the law/rule, and the good treatment of our fellow citizens, our beloved republic will fail, and we're well on our way now it appears.
You can't possibly make every thing illegal that is just flat out a bad idea. That's where we hope to rely on people and our leaders to follow the spirit of the rules/laws, and not hang every really bad idea on "well, it's not illegal".
I can certainly understand why someone would be against this "national emergency" order that spends a lot of money, but...
I'm not sure we can quite yet call it unconstitutional. I believe the court(s) will decide that. However, I think we can all agree that it's a horrible idea, and a terrible precedent to set spending this kind of money using this executive branch tactic.
So, immoral perhaps, and definitely not in the spirit of the rules....but illegal or unconstitutional, we're not yet sure.
Kind of like when a murder goes free due to a "technicality". Perhaps they wasn't read their Miranda rights , or some other violation of their rights....so even though most likely guilty of murder, they go free. So is it unconstitutional that a murderer goes free even though we may all know they were actually guilty ? Or strangely enough, is it actually constitutional that a murderer goes free due to that "technicality". Perhaps the person ordering the release of this known "murderer" is actually the defender of the Constitution, and the person wanting this most likely guilty party locked up is the enemy of the Constitution.
Just another way of looking at your assertion of this being unconstitutional, pending the court(s) rendering their opinion on the matter.
In any case, as I said, it's a VERY bad idea.
As one of the founders of our Republic said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". Once enough of our leaders, and ourselves, become immoral enough to the spirit of the law/rule, and the good treatment of our fellow citizens, our beloved republic will fail, and we're well on our way now it appears.
You can't possibly make every thing illegal that is just flat out a bad idea. That's where we hope to rely on people and our leaders to follow the spirit of the rules/laws, and not hang every really bad idea on "well, it's not illegal".
Spending this kind of money? Um, it was congress who actually passed the wall bill back in 2006. Did you complain to them back then about "spending this kind of money"? Thought not!
I can certainly understand why someone would be against this "national emergency" order that spends a lot of money, but...
I'm not sure we can quite yet call it unconstitutional. I believe the court(s) will decide that. However, I think we can all agree that it's a horrible idea, and a terrible precedent to set spending this kind of money using this executive branch tactic.
So, immoral perhaps, and definitely not in the spirit of the rules....but illegal or unconstitutional, we're not yet sure.
Kind of like when a murder goes free due to a "technicality". Perhaps they wasn't read their Miranda rights , or some other violation of their rights....so even though most likely guilty of murder, they go free. So is it unconstitutional that a murderer goes free even though we may all know they were actually guilty ? Or strangely enough, is it actually constitutional that a murderer goes free due to that "technicality". Perhaps the person ordering the release of this known "murderer" is actually the defender of the Constitution, and the person wanting this most likely guilty party locked up is the enemy of the Constitution.
Just another way of looking at your assertion of this being unconstitutional, pending the court(s) rendering their opinion on the matter.
In any case, as I said, it's a VERY bad idea.
As one of the founders of our Republic said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". Once enough of our leaders, and ourselves, become immoral enough to the spirit of the law/rule, and the good treatment of our fellow citizens, our beloved republic will fail, and we're well on our way now it appears.
You can't possibly make every thing illegal that is just flat out a bad idea. That's where we hope to rely on people and our leaders to follow the spirit of the rules/laws, and not hang every really bad idea on "well, it's not illegal".
Thanks. Agreed. No doubt there is what is simply right vs wrong. There is also what is legal or illegal. Laws and their enforcement can't be any more perfect than the people who make them, enforce them, but making these distinctions is important I think. There is the law and there is justice. Neither guarantees the other, but justice and what is right don't have much chance to prevail without respect for the rule of law.
Spending this kind of money? Um, it was congress who actually passed the wall bill back in 2006. Did you complain to them back then about "spending this kind of money"? Thought not!
Obviously it isn't only about the money, but it is about what money is spent for what sorts of border security, and so begins the argument, whether it be back in 2006 or now...
Spending this kind of money? Um, it was congress who actually passed the wall bill back in 2006. Did you complain to them back then about "spending this kind of money"? Thought not!
I was curious one night how far back the implementation of a fence went. Interestingly enough it was happening back during Bill Clinton's administration (even found an article with National Guard being used-sound famliar?). Operations Gatekeeper and Operation Safeguard. Granted it was "series of metallic airport landing mats that had simply been welded together" but it seems like this has been an issue since 1995. https://psmag.com/social-justice/bui...-local-history https://www.govexec.com/magazine/199...-the-wall/427/
History is amazing.
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.
