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.
Why "should" the Republicans deal with it in court rather than congress? I mean, you wouldn't say the President should sign a bill he dislikes and thinks is maybe unconstitutional and then litigate it rather than just veto. You'd want him to just veto it, and he would.
Actually I believe that things like this should be resolved in court so that they are resolved no matter WHAT party is in charge.
It was wrong when Bush did this, and the Democrats should have taken it to court back then. Its also wrong when Obama tries to do this.
Actually I believe that things like this should be resolved in court so that they are resolved no matter WHAT party is in charge.
It was wrong when Bush did this, and the Democrats should have taken it to court back then. Its also wrong when Obama tries to do this.
There's two questions here:
1. Was the action constitutional?
2. Will it stand politically.
I guess you're right that in an ideal world the Republicans would let it work it's way through court so that (1) is answered before moving on to (2), but at the same time there's nothing wrong with trying to address (2) legislatively after that, and it's understandable - albeit not ideal from the perspective of answering the legal question - that they are jumping the gun.
Which is being done via amendments to the bill. You do know what amendments are...right? And understand that they add language to a bill....right?
Funding for illegal aliens is not in the bill. Obama doesn't dictate what is in bills. The (D)'s are wanting to add the language. The (R)'s are offering a clean bill.
The (R)'s have more votes because elections have meanings.
Funding for illegal aliens is not in the bill. Obama doesn't dictate what is in bills. The (D)'s are wanting to add the language. The (R)'s are offering a clean bill.
The (R)'s have more votes because elections have meanings.
They amended the bill. Why do you not understand this?
The (D)'s are NOT adding language. You're just lying. Nice! Thats how you want to argue this? By just making stuff up?
Attaching demands to spending bills qualifies as ransom-taking, hyper-partisan, and just plain stupid. Republicans will get the blame for dysfunctional government yet again.
Yep, that's why the dems asz's were handed to them in the last TWO congressional elections....
Notice that since the repubs whooooooooooooooooooooooooooopeedddddddddddddddddd dddd the dems aszessssss in the last few congressional elections, it is now HOSTAGE taking......but when it was those dems doing it...well, they are just doing what is right...
How does i feel dems to eat what you have sown in the last few years?
The Repugs are the hostage takers. They know they need the dems to pass the bill. The dems have told them to pass a clean bill but the repugs just cannot let that happen. What a bunch of idiots the repugs are.
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.
