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.
I think it has been a dereliction of duty of congress to enact the legislation going back to Bush, we have already seen this movie. Boehner seems to be suddenly optimistic, that is misguided.
Other presidents used executive action for amnesty although not to this extent.
Really? No President has come close to anything like this. Richard Milhouse Obama is the most corrupt President in U.S. History. Luckily he has an army of cheerleaders like you to run interference for his illegal conduct.
I think it has been a dereliction of duty of congress to enact the legislation going back to Bush, we have already seen this movie. Boehner seems to be suddenly optimistic, that is misguided.
Other presidents used executive action for amnesty although not to this extent.
I'm going to let you in on a secret. Congress is not beholden to the President and is not there to do his bidding. If their constituents are telling them they do not want to pass a bill, those representatives should be good shepherds of their constituents' trust and wishes. Obama is out of his mind if he thinks that because he wants something, Congress should act and on his timetable. Government doesn't work that way.
80% of people object to Obama using Executive Order for this and 74% say Obama should work with Congress. What you should be asking yourself is why isn't Obama a good shepherd for our citizens' trust? But keep being fooled into believing it's the Republicans that are the issue.
The senate passed a bi-partisan immigration bill, I believe 63-47 it never reached the floor for a vote in the house. They found time to vote down Obama care 54 times but they couldn't allow a vote on the senate bill. Boehner indicated immigration reform was dead last June, now he is indicating that we need to wait until nest year. Threats to impeach a president for executive action shows they have no interest in solutions, just more of the same.
No reasonable reform will get through the house, whatever Obama does can be rescinded in 2017 if the next president chooses to do so. No action has been taken in almost 15 years and this is minor, we need real reform.
Real reform shouldn't include amnesty and that's why the House didn't want anything to do with the Senate bill.
If that's your attitude, you'd better pray there is NEVER another Republican President. Because this executive amnesty will be used as precedent to do by fiat what the next Republican President can't get through Congress.
I just went through that under Bush. And besides, a GOP President could never be as bad as the House is now. No one that crazy would ever make it through the debates. We have dealt with crazy for years. The threats if we don't cow tow to crazy are just another form of crazy. They make Bush look like a pinko. I am all for striking a deal with respectable people. The House has done nothing to earn respect. The Senate is a wild card. I'll reserve comment.
If that's your attitude, you'd better pray there is NEVER another Republican President. Because this executive amnesty will be used as precedent to do by fiat what the next Republican President can't get through Congress.
Who said the following: "With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it."
God I seriously don't know how righties dress themselves in the morning...
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
Well first, it's definitely not treason. You can argue about the legality of it, but it's not treason.
Second, theoretically, if the votes were there, the Congress could impeach and remove a President for jaywalking, there's no higher authority that can step in and call foul on an impeachment.
That being said, the votes aren't there, so it's not really worth discussing any further.
Who said the following: "With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it."
God I seriously don't know how righties dress themselves in the morning...
At least we buy our own clothes... without righties, you lefties wouldn't have clothes to get dressed in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 All of this overlooks the FACT that the extreme left could have passed any immigration bill it wanted after the 2008 election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjski
How?
Due to the Dems holding the WH and both Houses of Congress at the time.
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
It isn't "treason," but it is an impeachable offense, because the President is not given the power to change law. That is for the Congress only. The President cannot make law (nor can he change it), and it is his sworn duty to uphold existing laws (whether he likes them or not).
However, as Trey Gowdy has said, "Impeachment is a punishment; it is not a remedy."
Though the President has committed many impeachable offenses, removal from office was not likely under the previous Senate, and under the new Senate it probably is not likely to happen either. It is a long process, and we have so many other important things to attend to. I think there are other ways to deal with this President. One that has been suggested is to withhold funding. Another is to refuse to confirm any of his nominees.
The Democrats are going to be punished for many years for supporting and enabling Barack Obama. I think they are realizing that now.
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.
