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.
He can't back up his response with anything other than why he is justified in using his own executive order on immigration. In essence, he runs away from the question.
Did Obama not think things like his precedent through? If that is the best response he can muster it seems like he did little deep thinking on the subject - for the question to catch him that off guard and then to basically avoid any substance in justifying his position that no a Republican president can't say he won't enforce certain groups of people from not paying taxes.
The odd part about his action is that he mandated these illegals pay a tax as a pathway to amensty, but all tax increases must originate in the House..
A future President lowering taxes through an Executive Order is far more constitutional than him raising them through one.
He has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's only thinking about the adoration he can achieve from his followers or the vengeance he can impose on those who are not part of the cult.
He can't back up his response with anything other than why he is justified in using his own executive order on immigration. In essence, he runs away from the question.
Did Obama not think things like his precedent through? If that is the best response he can muster it seems like he did little deep thinking on the subject - for the question to catch him that off guard and then to basically avoid any substance in justifying his position that no a Republican president can't say he won't enforce certain groups of people from not paying taxes.
He is blinded by his own narcissism. He sees what he did as something different, and magnanimous. He doesn't see these people as "lawbreakers."
What he did was not "prosecutorial discretion." He apparently does not know what that means, but I have heard it explained at least a dozen times by Constitutional attorneys who have commented on this action, including, Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, and Judge Andrew Napolitano, also a Constitutional lawyer. These two are no slouches. They know the law, and they know the Constitution. They understand what "Prosecutorial discretion" is, and how and when it is used.
Lastly, it is not for the President to take actions on his own, to accomplish what the Congress fails to do. If that were allowed under the Constitution, where does it stop? Why would we even need Congress? The President then becomes a monarch, a King. That is what the Founders sought to prevent.
Dayoh, daaaayyyoh, moonlight come and me wan go home.
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.
