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.
Finn, you've made this comment a few times, and others have tried to help you with this. The orders entered by Reagan and Bush related to existing or soon to be existing laws, not prior EOs they entered. Congress had already passed or were about to pass amnesty bills and their EOs tied up some loose ends. Do a Google search for prior comprehensive immigration reform bills that were passed and you will see.
Congress in this case has not passed or is not even close to passing an amnesty bill. Your references comparing Reagan's and Bush's actions are not even remotely comparable. Do a Google search and you will see the difference. They did not create new law. Hope this helps.
Just like today, in 1989 the Congress had refused to act on it, and the president acted on his own.
I have heard spin, but unfortunately it is horribly weak, almost laughable. "Relating" them to a law means absolutely nothing. If you think Obamas EO is illegal, then so was Reagan, and Bush's. It is as simple as that. If you believe it is a crime, then you are only trying to justify a crime. The "then and now" cases are exactly the same, even the excuses are the same. Ooohhhh.... but it's for the children.......
Personally I do not think Obama should do it, and I don't think Reagan and Bush should have done it, but it is not a crime. They all have/had equal executive powers. It's partisanship on steroids to argue it was ok for then, but its not ok now.
Can Obama change ACA if he "refers" or "relates" to it? I mean, that's a law which was passed recently, so by your logic it is ok for him to tweak it.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-20-2014 at 03:53 PM..
700 words and you could only find 3 to disagree with? I guess that's admitting defeat.
interesting how you carefully avoided the fact that Reagan and bush's actions followed an act of congress.
It followed Congress refusal to act to change the law, which is exactly what we are seeing today.
What is the Congress purpose in regards to immigration?
Think about what you are saying. Basically you are saying that Obama could pass any EO to amend ACA, because it was recently passed by Congress. Would you be ok with that? "Yea, I made some tweaks to ACA in order to further the Congress purpose". LOL
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-20-2014 at 03:51 PM..
You don't remember Ford pardoning Nixon? He hadn't even been charged let alone convicted.
Clinton pardoned Marc Rich (Billionaire Tax evader) who was on the FBI most wanted list and he was indicted but not convicted. (Eric Holder was part of that debacle too.)
P.S. Gave an example from both parties as part of my "equal time for equal rats" initiative.
Its my belief that a pardon needs to be asked for, and on an individual basis..
Unless the 5,000,000 illegals each asked for one, this isnt a pardon.
There are actual forms one needs to fill out in order to be reviewed.
Again, they had the support of Congress to enter the EO to support a bill that had been passed. There is no law that Obama can point to that was passed recently that allows him to supplement/clarify/add to that has been passed by Congress. Congress surely does not support him and has no plan to pass immigration reform until next year. I don't spin. I may be wrong on some things--not this--but I don't spin. If a bill had been passed and Obama had the support of Congress, you would not be hearing a word about it.
At least you are not putting forth the silliness I am hearing that the executive branch has the power to act when the legislative branch does not--you're not, right? It will really all depend on what he actually puts in his EO. If he puts in the order to spend money because he has the power and authority to do so on behalf of the immigrants, I do believe the gloves will come off.
Interestingly, video after video after video has been put forth over the past few days where Obama himself has confirmed in the past he is not an emperor and does not have the authority to enter an EO granting amnesty. We will see what it actually says once all the Vegas hoopla settles down. God knows he has consulted enough lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Just like today, in 1989 the Congress had refused to act on it, and the president acted on his own.
I have heard spin, but unfortunately it is horribly weak, almost laughable. "Relating" them to a law means absolutely nothing. If you think Obamas EO is illegal, then so was Reagan, and Bush's. It is as simple as that. If you believe it is a crime, then you are only trying to justify a crime. The "then and now" cases are exactly the same, even the excuses are the same. Ooohhhh.... but it's for the children.......
Personally I do not think Obama should do it, and I don't think Reagan and Bush should have done it, but it is not a crime. They all have/had equal executive powers. It's partisanship on steroids to argue it was ok for then, but its not ok now.
Can Obama change ACA if he "refers" or "relates" to it? I mean, that's a law which was passed recently, so by your logic it is ok for him to tweak it.
Again, they had the support of Congress to enter the EO to support a bill that had been passed. There is no law that Obama can point to that was passed recently that allows him to supplement/clarify/add to that has been passed by Congress. Congress surely does not support him and has no plan to pass immigration reform until next year. I don't spin. I may be wrong on some things--not this--but I don't spin. If a bill had been passed and Obama had the support of Congress, you would not be hearing a word about it.
At least you are not putting forth the silliness I am hearing that the executive branch has the power to act when the legislative branch does not--you're not, right? It will really all depend on what he actually puts in his EO. If he puts in the order to spend money because he has the power and authority to do so on behalf of the immigrants, I do believe the gloves will come off.
Interestingly, video after video after video has been put forth over the past few days where Obama himself has confirmed in the past he is not an emperor and does not have the authority to enter an EO granting amnesty. We will see what it actually says once all the Vegas hoopla settles down. God knows he has consulted enough lawyers.
Actually in 1989 the situation was the same, the Congress had declined to take it up, and the President acted on his own.
Do you think Obama should be allowed to tweak Obamacare because it was a recent law and the intent of the Congress was to make it work?
Yes, we will see what he says, and if SC needs to do something, then they can do something. I think in the light of the fact that this has been done many times before, I think they would rule is ok.
Somebody needs to DO something about the Immigration problem, Congress obviously refuses, so Obama DOES something. There's a problem with that?
What should be done is round them up and throw them out. As the law says.
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.