Has Obama violated both the text and intent of our Constitution with immigration?

[PaintMyHouse]

When Patriots Restore the Rule of Law, I'm using the Utah NSA Spy Center to find the IP's of all the subversive people within the US that spread propaganda to deliberately cripple this Nation and it's Constitution. You're all going to jail for life unless you repent in public and admit what you did, and sear never again to betray your People.

Yep, you're a moron, and a fascist one at that.

 

[SwimExpert]

Priority? Do we let the president grant exemptions to our murder or rape or robbery statutes?

Yes, it's called a pardon.

HAHAHA. Are you saying obozo has issued pardons to millions of illegals??? He didn't do that, you ignorant fool. If he did, there would be hell to pay anyway, but he didn't. Instead he said he's just not going to enforce the law for millions of confessed violators. Read the papers.

No, I'm just pointing out that our constitution has always understood that executive power comes with discretion.

 

[Care4all]

Nope, he hasn't. He took action via prioritizing, and has tried to get Congress to do their job, and to get Congress to do something on immigration reform....

But the republicans are clearly fine with Obama's actions and are not going to do anything, do anything at all, about it....and have chosen to ignore our immigration problems and Obama's prioritizing /actions.

The laws written by congress on immigration, did NOT SPECIFY who was going to be deported 1st, 2nd or last and handed this authority over to INS... if Congress does not want INS to focus on deporting felons, gangsters, drug dealers etc. first, and wants to focus on deporting the illegal parents of American citizen children first, then Congress needs to reform the law and not give the discretion of who to concentrate on deporting, to INS, as it stands now.... or fund the deportation of ALL illegals....which they have never done.

Priority? Do we let the president grant exemptions to our murder or rape or robbery statutes? It's always been understood that when a law is passed, it applies to everyone in the country. But obozo grants exemptions to MILLIONS of foreign invaders.

Every known illegal should be deported. No exceptions. THINK

yes, through pardons, our president can precisely do that SS....

Congress has only funded enough money to deport at the maximum 400,000 illegals a year.... it is going to take 27.5 years to deport the 11 million illegals with the funding allotted for it....

INS has to prioritize, there is no choice....they are only funded to deport so many illegals a year....

The House has the power of the purse, not the President....and the President, the executive branch has the power over INS and to prioritize, NOT the Congress.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

When Patriots Restore the Rule of Law, I'm using the Utah NSA Spy Center to find the IP's of all the subversive people within the US that spread propaganda to deliberately cripple this Nation and it's Constitution. You're all going to jail for life unless you repent in public and admit what you did, and sear never again to betray your People.

Yep, you're a moron, and a fascist one at that.

Consider yourself lucky you'll be getting a rather easy option out. Not many people were as nice as Washington or Lincoln, and allowed the traitors who oppressed the People to walk free if they behaved. Same thing after Athens, Tennessee in 1946. The Tyrant scum were allowed to walk.

However, you'd put us in a mass grave in heartbeat. At worst we'll jail you. And doesnt' that make Obama a fascist since he uses the NSA and IRS to beleaguer his opposition?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When Patriots Restore the Rule of Law, I'm using the Utah NSA Spy Center to find the IP's of all the subversive people within the US that spread propaganda to deliberately cripple this Nation and it's Constitution. You're all going to jail for life unless you repent in public and admit what you did, and sear never again to betray your People.

Yep, you're a moron, and a fascist one at that.

Consider yourself lucky you'll be getting a rather easy option out. Not many people were as nice as Washington or Lincoln, and allowed the traitors who oppressed the People to walk free if they behaved. Same thing after Athens, Tennessee in 1946. The Tyrant scum were allowed to walk.

However, you'd put us in a mass grave in heartbeat. At worst we'll jail you. And doesnt' that make Obama a fascist since he uses the NSA and IRS to beleaguer his opposition?

I'd turn you into dust, but lucky for you, most people are not me. No one in fact.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'd turn you into dust, but lucky for you, most people are not me. No one in fact.

We don't forgive, we don't forget.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'd turn you into dust, but lucky for you, most people are not me. No one in fact.

We don't forgive, we don't forget.

And you don't matter, not a damn.

 

[johnwk]

"Has Obama violated both the text and intent of our Constitution with immigration?"

No.

But you've managed to violate both logic and reason with this loaded question fallacy.

Well done.

A loaded question? I guess you don't give a twit about Obama's own word or documented facts.


JWK

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd turn you into dust, but lucky for you, most people are not me. No one in fact.

We don't forgive, we don't forget.

And you don't matter, not a damn.

What have we learned this weekend????

That the NY Giants have more wins than the Obama administration.

Woe is America.

 

[johnwk]

Texas sues to have Obama’s unconstitutional immigration policy struck down!


See: 17 states sue Obama for executive order on immigration: Texas attorney general

December 3, 2014,

”A coalition of 17 U.S. states sued the Obama administration on Wednesday saying it acted illegally by issuing an executive order to ease the threat of deportation for millions of immigrants who are in the country without the proper documents.

The case being led by Texas and filed at the Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas said the executive order announced by Obama last month violated constitutional limits on presidential powers. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican and the Texas governor-elect, said the lawsuit is not asking for monetary damages but is seeking to have the order declared illegal.”

CLICK HERE and open file for the COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JWK

 

[Stephanie]

It would be better if it were all 50 STATES or in Obama's little world, all 57 of them

 

[johnwk]

Texas sues to have Obama’s unconstitutional immigration policy struck down!


See: 17 states sue Obama for executive order on immigration: Texas attorney general
December 3, 2014,
”A coalition of 17 U.S. states sued the Obama administration on Wednesday saying it acted illegally by issuing an executive order to ease the threat of deportation for millions of immigrants who are in the country without the proper documents.

The case being led by Texas and filed at the Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas said the executive order announced by Obama last month violated constitutional limits on presidential powers. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican and the Texas governor-elect, said the lawsuit is not asking for monetary damages but is seeking to have the order declared illegal.”
CLICK HERE and open file for the COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
JWK

It would be better if it were all 50 STATES or in Obama's little world, all 57 of them

Now that is very, very special!


JWK

 

[JakeStarkey]

No.

Has Obama violated both the text and intent of our Constitution with immigration?

 

[bendog]

No.

Has Obama violated both the text and intent of our Constitution with immigration?

Agreed, but he has expanded exec power, which is not a good thing from the perspective of distrusting centralize power.

 

[hazlnut]

 

[Care4all]

Nope, he hasn't. He took action via prioritizing, and has tried to get Congress to do their job, and to get Congress to do something on immigration reform....

But the republicans are clearly fine with Obama's actions and are not going to do anything, do anything at all, about it....and have chosen to ignore our immigration problems and Obama's prioritizing /actions.

The laws written by congress on immigration, did NOT SPECIFY who was going to be deported 1st, 2nd or last and handed this authority over to INS... if Congress does not want INS to focus on deporting felons, gangsters, drug dealers etc. first, and wants to focus on deporting the illegal parents of American citizen children first, then Congress needs to reform the law and not give the discretion of who to concentrate on deporting, to INS, as it stands now.... or fund the deportation of ALL illegals....which they have never done.

Priority? Do we let the president grant exemptions to our murder or rape or robbery statutes? It's always been understood that when a law is passed, it applies to everyone in the country. But obozo grants exemptions to MILLIONS of foreign invaders.

Every known illegal should be deported. No exceptions. THINK

You need to THINK.

It's a misdemeanor, not a felony as raping and robbing and murdering.

And there is not enough money in the budget for INS to deport all 11 million at once...besides the fact that it is logistically impossible to do All at once.

With the present funding slotted, it will take 27.5 years to deport all illegals.

There is no way that INS can do their jobs more efficiently than prioritizing.

Parents of US Citizen minors can not easily be deported without a long legal and costly process...

And for our safety, since deporting funds are limited it behooves us to deport the illegals in gangs or committing crimes first and those without children born in the USA before they bear them.

This faux outrage by the right wing talking heads for those in Congress is just another sidebar meant to once again distract our attention and allow Congress to abort their duty in legislating and funding immigration policy for this Nation.

Congress needs to do their job, but is hoping they can divert your attention away from that.... and point your finger elsewhere....and YOU foolishly bought in to it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When answering this question with any certainty, it is not only important to look at the text of our Constitution, but the context in which that text was written in order to formulate a legitimate opinion as to what our Constitution means.

Speaking before an audience in Chicago on November. 25, 2014, Obama boldly stated that he “took an action to change the law” with respect to naturalization and immigration. For details see Obama Admits: 'I Just Took an Action to Change the Law'

So, one question to be answered here is whether Obama is vested with power to change statutory law. In fact, our Constitution, in crystal clear language declares that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” Additionally, and with respect to naturalization, it declares that Congress, not our president, shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ” And in another part of our Constitution our president is commanded that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …”

So, by Obama’s own admission, he is clearly violating the text of our Constitution and is attempting to usurp power to change existing law dealing with naturalization and illegal entrants. But let us go a step further and discover the context in which the power to enact law dealing with naturalization was granted to Congress. Exactly what were our forefathers intentions for granting this power to Congress?

Sherman, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution notes the intentions for which the power was granted. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148

Is Obama not attempting to force foreigners upon States who would not have received them in any other manner?


Representative Burk goes on to elaborate upon filling the country with useful men!

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor. See Representative Burk, RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790


So, as it turns out, according to our forefathers expressed intentions, introducing the poverty stricken, uneducated, illiterate, low-skilled and disease infected populations of other countries into our Country, which is exactly what Obama is attempting to accomplish, ought to be considered a “high misdemeanor” in addition to an attempted usurpation of “legislative power”.

As established above, Obama’s actions not only violated the written text of our Constitution, but the context in which it was written and its “legislative intent”. And what is the most fundamental rule with regard to constitutional construction?


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

The important thing here is checks and balances. He can do what he likes as long as he doesn't do anything impeachable. If the Supreme Court believe he has done something wrong, they can knock it down. If Congress believe he has done something wrong they can change the law, they can also withhold funding (which they'll probably do anyway causing more problems) and other such things.

So.......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope, he hasn't. He took action via prioritizing, and has tried to get Congress to do their job, and to get Congress to do something on immigration reform....

But the republicans are clearly fine with Obama's actions and are not going to do anything, do anything at all, about it....and have chosen to ignore our immigration problems and Obama's prioritizing /actions.

The laws written by congress on immigration, did NOT SPECIFY who was going to be deported 1st, 2nd or last and handed this authority over to INS... if Congress does not want INS to focus on deporting felons, gangsters, drug dealers etc. first, and wants to focus on deporting the illegal parents of American citizen children first, then Congress needs to reform the law and not give the discretion of who to concentrate on deporting, to INS, as it stands now.... or fund the deportation of ALL illegals....which they have never done.

Priority? Do we let the president grant exemptions to our murder or rape or robbery statutes? It's always been understood that when a law is passed, it applies to everyone in the country. But obozo grants exemptions to MILLIONS of foreign invaders.

Every known illegal should be deported. No exceptions. THINK

You need to THINK.

It's a misdemeanor, not a felony as raping and robbing and murdering.

And there is not enough money in the budget for INS to deport all 11 million at once...besides the fact that it is logistically impossible to do All at once.

With the present funding slotted, it will take 27.5 years to deport all illegals.

There is no way that INS can do their jobs more efficiently than prioritizing.

Parents of US Citizen minors can not easily be deported without a long legal and costly process...

And for our safety, since deporting funds are limited it behooves us to deport the illegals in gangs or committing crimes first and those without children born in the USA before they bear them.

This faux outrage by the right wing talking heads for those in Congress is just another sidebar meant to once again distract our attention and allow Congress to abort their duty in legislating and funding immigration policy for this Nation.

Congress needs to do their job, but is hoping they can divert your attention away from that.... and point your finger elsewhere....and YOU foolishly bought in to it.

Exactly, well said.

 

[Care4all]

Texas sues to have Obama’s unconstitutional immigration policy struck down!


See: 17 states sue Obama for executive order on immigration: Texas attorney general

December 3, 2014,

”A coalition of 17 U.S. states sued the Obama administration on Wednesday saying it acted illegally by issuing an executive order to ease the threat of deportation for millions of immigrants who are in the country without the proper documents.

The case being led by Texas and filed at the Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas said the executive order announced by Obama last month violated constitutional limits on presidential powers. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican and the Texas governor-elect, said the lawsuit is not asking for monetary damages but is seeking to have the order declared illegal.”

CLICK HERE and open file for the COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JWK

It's a distraction...if the suit had merit congress would be doing it....

And you all bought in to it hook, line, and sinker....

Now congress can go back to twiddling their thumbs on immigration and keep the border opened for millions more....

Way to go!

 

[eagle1462010]