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.
So, you can't find the passage in the constitution that Obama has supposedly violated?
Got it.
I provided the constitution for another poster. Perhaps you can help them out in articulating Obama violating the constitution through use of Executive Order.
No, it's pointless to go there because any American citizen should know this and you're being intentionally obtuse which you apparently think is helping you to get some kind of point across. The POTUS can not arbitrarily alter immigration law through selective enforcement.
Voting down the Dream Act was not a solution, just more of the same. So what was their counter legislation that would have resolved the issue. There are many states that already have approved similar versions, we have a problem and the GOP's only reaction is to vote down legislation and act as an impediment.
The Dream Act was first proposed in 2001, over ten years later nothing. Let's face it this congress doesn't want to see anything that even remotely resembles a solution, meanwhile the problem continues.
That's all well and good and may or may not be true. It's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. How does anything in that post change the fact that Obama implemented the DA after Congress voted it down?
I'm saddened that they only real response here is "it's OK as long as it's our guy doing it". After all the screaming about Bush's signing statements, which BTW, was decried by most tea-partiers I know, would it not be good to see a court ruling on this as at least a baseline we can work from.
How do you vote to impeach a president for something you freely allowed and even defended a president of your party doing?
From what I've read, approximately 25% of the democrats, that favored the president, are now opposed to his actions. If all republicans are opposed and add the percentage of democrats vote to impeach, it could be done.
Please, don't try to turn what I originally asked as something I'm in favor of. I was simply asking why, if they are so displeased, they don't impeach instead of suing. It's not customary to do that but politics have changed so much in the last ten years, it's hard to distinguish any longer.
In all my years (and there have been plenty), I've never seen such fighting and divisiveness in Washington. Not to say I haven't seen it, but they usually compromise on issues and something eventually gets done. I've seen no compromise on anything - at least none I can recall - for a very long time. It's tiresome and I can see why people are so disgusted with all of them, both republicans AND democrats.
So let me get this summary straight--Boehner and the GOP want to use millions of dollars spend inordinate amounts of time to sue the president who has used less executive orders than both Bushes, Reagan, and Eisenhower? And here I thought the GOP was all about stopping government waste? Boehner going to waste a huge amount of time and millionsof tax payer dollars on frivolous litigation that he is going to lose anyway. Dictator Obama is doing a terrible job of dictating and needs to implement many more executive orders if he wishes to get in the same level of playing field as both Bushes and Reagan.
So let me get this summary straight--Boehner and the GOP want to use millions of dollars spend inordinate amounts of time to sue the president who has used less executive orders than both Bushes, Reagan, and Eisenhower? And here I thought the GOP was all about stopping government waste? Boehner going to waste a huge amount of time and millionsof tax payer dollars on frivolous litigation that he is going to lose anyway. Dictator Obama is doing a terrible job of dictating and needs to implement many more executive orders if he wishes to get in the same level of playing field as both Bushes and Reagan.
As soon as liberals will acknowledge the fact that this lawsuit is not about the POTUS using executive orders or the number of times he has done so the conversation can move on. It's about him using executive orders illegally and unethically. The usual knee jerk response of but but BUT George W. Bush doesn't even come close to cutting it here, rObots.
That's all well and good and may or may not be true. It's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. How does anything in that post change the fact that Obama implemented the DA after Congress voted it down?
I don't think the DA is a complete solution but this problem has been around for decades and the immigrants are not going home, doing nothing is damaging.
This congress more than any other is just about obstruction and Obama has not used EO's anymore than other presidents.
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.
