It has been reported that obama never did a EO on immigration

[BULLDOG]

What does voting for Obamacare have to do with you not being smart enough to find a website?

How could you vote for Obamacare?

Other than voting to elect and then reelect Obama, which I am proud to say I did, I'm not sure of any opportunity I have had to directly vote for or against Obamacare. I was just responding to a really dumb poster in terms he might understand.

Your a fine example of what Gruber was talking about. You take it one step further, after Gruber calls you stupid for supporting obama care, you agree with him by still supporting it.

Obamacare is good for me and my country. I figured that out long ago. Unless you can show me that a dumb statement by one person somehow changes the law, I don't see how you should think it could change my mind. Of course, I always have trouble understand whatever it is that right wingers think of as logic.

We will see how you like it when you figure out that the subsidy you receive for obama care is being counted as income. Then you lose all your tax credits at the end of the year. Just remember, you we warned of this over a year ago.

Exactly what makes you think I receive any subsidy? I guess you actually believe that the only people who support it are bums looking for something free. You're wrong again.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Presidunce Obumbler SAID that since Congress wasn't doing it, he and his pen and his phone would.

But it LOOKS like he signed NO Executive Order. Instead, he has supposedly signed some "memo" which would convey his Imperial directions on how to implement a law that doesn't exist.

And it doesn't exist -- NOT because he didn't sign an Executive Order (which isn't a law, anyway). It doesn't exist because CONGRESS, the SOLE body with the Constitutional authority to make such a law, has CHOSEN not to do so.

So, I want to see the Executive non-order memo.

Let's dissect what the President is directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do, and based on what claim of "authority."

 

[jknowgood]

How could you vote for Obamacare?

Other than voting to elect and then reelect Obama, which I am proud to say I did, I'm not sure of any opportunity I have had to directly vote for or against Obamacare. I was just responding to a really dumb poster in terms he might understand.

Your a fine example of what Gruber was talking about. You take it one step further, after Gruber calls you stupid for supporting obama care, you agree with him by still supporting it.

Obamacare is good for me and my country. I figured that out long ago. Unless you can show me that a dumb statement by one person somehow changes the law, I don't see how you should think it could change my mind. Of course, I always have trouble understand whatever it is that right wingers think of as logic.

We will see how you like it when you figure out that the subsidy you receive for obama care is being counted as income. Then you lose all your tax credits at the end of the year. Just remember, you we warned of this over a year ago.

Exactly what makes you think I receive any subsidy? I guess you actually believe that the only people who support it are bums looking for something free. You're wrong again.

No, the people that have to pay for their insurance. Most hate it, their rates and deductibles when way up.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I FOUND it.

I'm quite sure others have already found this crap and discussed it. But to clarify THIS thread, I will post a link to it again.

There appears to be ZERO Executive Order going on here. It is a LEGAL OPINION. And it purports to DISCUSS a proposal or two concerning "deferred action" on deportation as some kind of "prosecutorial discretion." That too is horseshit, of course. But HERE is the LINK to the 33 page DHS "opinion."

http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf

EDITED to correct a mistaken reference to a DoJ memo. I believe it is an office of legal counsel of DHS memo.

 

[BULLDOG]

Presidunce Obumbler SAID that since Congress wasn't doing it, he and his pen and his phone would.

But it LOOKS like he signed NO Executive Order. Instead, he has supposedly signed some "memo" which would convey his Imperial directions on how to implement a law that doesn't exist.

And it doesn't exist -- NOT because he didn't sign an Executive Order (which isn't a law, anyway). It doesn't exist because CONGRESS, the SOLE body with the Constitutional authority to make such a law, has CHOSEN not to do so.

So, I want to see the Executive non-order memo.

Let's dissect what the President is directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do, and based on what claim of "authority."

Make up your mind. Teabaggers have been crying about an executive order, but now you are crying about an executive action which changes no laws but only directs the priorities of enforcing existing laws. Even Hannity acknowledges that we don't have the resources to deport all the immigrants, so would you rather concentrate enforcement on catching the illegals who are thugs and drug runners, or concentrate on breaking up families? Is deporting little Betty Lou's mother more important to you than deporting a cartel thug?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A report put out by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) (from where I got the link to the DHS "opinion" paper in the prior post) does a remarkable job in slicing and dicing the CLAIM by the Obumbler Administration that it has ANY Constitutional authority to do what it is directing.

President Obama s Deferred Action Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional Center for Immigration Studies

NOTE: Post EDITED to change my mistaken(?) reference to "DoJ." I believe its actually a DHS memo. I will verify it once I read it all again.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Presidunce Obumbler SAID that since Congress wasn't doing it, he and his pen and his phone would.

But it LOOKS like he signed NO Executive Order. Instead, he has supposedly signed some "memo" which would convey his Imperial directions on how to implement a law that doesn't exist.

And it doesn't exist -- NOT because he didn't sign an Executive Order (which isn't a law, anyway). It doesn't exist because CONGRESS, the SOLE body with the Constitutional authority to make such a law, has CHOSEN not to do so.

So, I want to see the Executive non-order memo.

Let's dissect what the President is directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do, and based on what claim of "authority."

Make up your mind. Teabaggers have been crying about an executive order, but now you are crying about an executive action which changes no laws but only directs the priorities of enforcing existing laws. Even Hannity acknowledges that we don't have the resources to deport all the immigrants, so would you rather concentrate enforcement on catching the illegals who are thugs and drug runners, or concentrate on breaking up families? Is deporting little Betty Lou's mother more important to you than deporting a cartel thug?

MY mind is made up. I stand by the Constitution.

There IS such a thing (like it or not) as a valid Executive Order. When CONGRESS passes a law and it has to be Administered, the Chief Executive is entitled to direct the manner in which it shall be accomplished.

What the imbecile in chief proposes, however, is to issue an EO in the PLACE of and INSTEAD of a LAW passed by congress.

The Constitution does not authorize any such nonsense.

I realize that many liberals imagine that anything this asshole incumbent does is per se "ok." But, the shoddiness of your thinking is akin to the shoddiness of typical liberal "logic." Try to follow along this time:

EO = ok when used to ADMINISTER a LAW duly passed by CONGRESS.

EO = NOT "ok" when used as a substitute for a "law."

 

[BULLDOG]

Other than voting to elect and then reelect Obama, which I am proud to say I did, I'm not sure of any opportunity I have had to directly vote for or against Obamacare. I was just responding to a really dumb poster in terms he might understand.

Your a fine example of what Gruber was talking about. You take it one step further, after Gruber calls you stupid for supporting obama care, you agree with him by still supporting it.

Obamacare is good for me and my country. I figured that out long ago. Unless you can show me that a dumb statement by one person somehow changes the law, I don't see how you should think it could change my mind. Of course, I always have trouble understand whatever it is that right wingers think of as logic.

We will see how you like it when you figure out that the subsidy you receive for obama care is being counted as income. Then you lose all your tax credits at the end of the year. Just remember, you we warned of this over a year ago.

Exactly what makes you think I receive any subsidy? I guess you actually believe that the only people who support it are bums looking for something free. You're wrong again.

No, the people that have to pay for their insurance. Most hate it, their rates and deductibles when way up.

Rates have always increased, but the rate of increase is lower now, and I can now buy insurance when I couldn't buy it for any price before. Sorry, but you gotta do better than that to make this look like anything less than one of the best things that could happen.

 

[BULLDOG]

A report put out by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) (from where I got the link to the DHS "opinion" paper in the prior post) does a remarkable job in slicing and dicing the CLAIM by the Obumbler Administration that it has ANY Constitutional authority to do what it is directing.

President Obama s Deferred Action Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional Center for Immigration Studies

NOTE: Post EDITED to change my mistaken(?) reference to "DoJ." I believe its actually a DHS memo. I will verify it once I read it all again.

Right .....The Center for Immigration studies..... That's the bunch headed by Mark Krikorian who has been known to hobnob with extremists. He accepted an invitation to speak alongside known Holocaust denier Nick Griffin and so-called “racial realist” Jared Taylor at the Michigan State chapter of Young Americans for Freedom in 2007, despite the group having recently made news for orchestrating such offensive events as “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day,” a “Koran Desecration” competition, and covering the campus in “Gays Spread AIDS fliers.”.....That Center for Immigration Studies? Your post would have more credibility with a link to WND or Glenn Beck. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing anyone who advocates Gays Spread Aids flyers, or a Koran Desecration Day. You got a link to a sane source?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here is a link to the ONLY official Presidential "action" touching on the topic of our Immigration policies, etc that came around the time of the Presidential puffery about signing some EO.

It isn't.

Presidential Memorandum -- Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century The White House

 

[BULLDOG]

Presidunce Obumbler SAID that since Congress wasn't doing it, he and his pen and his phone would.

But it LOOKS like he signed NO Executive Order. Instead, he has supposedly signed some "memo" which would convey his Imperial directions on how to implement a law that doesn't exist.

And it doesn't exist -- NOT because he didn't sign an Executive Order (which isn't a law, anyway). It doesn't exist because CONGRESS, the SOLE body with the Constitutional authority to make such a law, has CHOSEN not to do so.

So, I want to see the Executive non-order memo.

Let's dissect what the President is directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do, and based on what claim of "authority."

Make up your mind. Teabaggers have been crying about an executive order, but now you are crying about an executive action which changes no laws but only directs the priorities of enforcing existing laws. Even Hannity acknowledges that we don't have the resources to deport all the immigrants, so would you rather concentrate enforcement on catching the illegals who are thugs and drug runners, or concentrate on breaking up families? Is deporting little Betty Lou's mother more important to you than deporting a cartel thug?

MY mind is made up. I stand by the Constitution.

There IS such a thing (like it or not) as a valid Executive Order. When CONGRESS passes a law and it has to be Administered, the Chief Executive is entitled to direct the manner in which it shall be accomplished.

What the imbecile in chief proposes, however, is to issue an EO in the PLACE of and INSTEAD of a LAW passed by congress.

The Constitution does not authorize any such nonsense.

I realize that many liberals imagine that anything this asshole incumbent does is per se "ok." But, the shoddiness of your thinking is akin to the shoddiness of typical liberal "logic." Try to follow along this time:

EO = ok when used to ADMINISTER a LAW duly passed by CONGRESS.

EO = NOT "ok" when used as a substitute for a "law."

Well here is a partial legal definition of Executive order.

Executive Order
A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day.
Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition..

If you are concerned about his statutory authority, Congress certainly acquiesced to Reagan and Bush on their executive orders
Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it.

The entire definition is here.
Executive Order legal definition of Executive Order

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A report put out by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) (from where I got the link to the DHS "opinion" paper in the prior post) does a remarkable job in slicing and dicing the CLAIM by the Obumbler Administration that it has ANY Constitutional authority to do what it is directing.

President Obama s Deferred Action Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional Center for Immigration Studies

NOTE: Post EDITED to change my mistaken(?) reference to "DoJ." I believe its actually a DHS memo. I will verify it once I read it all again.

Right .....The Center for Immigration studies..... That's the bunch headed by Mark Krikorian who has been known to hobnob with extremists. He accepted an invitation to speak alongside known Holocaust denier Nick Griffin and so-called “racial realist” Jared Taylor at the Michigan State chapter of Young Americans for Freedom in 2007, despite the group having recently made news for orchestrating such offensive events as “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day,” a “Koran Desecration” competition, and covering the campus in “Gays Spread AIDS fliers.”.....That Center for Immigration Studies? Your post would have more credibility with a link to WND or Glenn Beck. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing anyone who advocates Gays Spread Aids flyers, or a Koran Desecration Day. You got a link to a sane source?

Do you see how pathetic you are? Nah. Tools like you never do.

You are committing a very standard, familiar and laughable fallacy.

You don't like the SOURCE of the piece I posted, and in your petty little illogical mind that translates into the proposition that nothing said by that source can possibly be factually accurate or logical and valid.

Work harder. Try to be logical. I couldn't give a shit what you feel about CIS.

Do you have ANY ability to address the SUBSTANCE of the analysis they offered?

Let's make it even easier for you.

Is it your contention that the President of the United States of America has some ascertainable Constitutional authority to issue an Executive Order (concerning the legalization of illegal aliens without a basis for the EO derived from a prior Act of Congress) having the force of law -- which is on par with an Act passed by Congress and signed by a President?

Now, where the President issues such an EO without basing it on a valid previously passed LAW, would it be YOUR contention that it somehow wouldn't be facially a violation of the Constitution?

I'd be fascinated in reading your sound legal foundation for such a set of positions.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Presidunce Obumbler SAID that since Congress wasn't doing it, he and his pen and his phone would.

But it LOOKS like he signed NO Executive Order. Instead, he has supposedly signed some "memo" which would convey his Imperial directions on how to implement a law that doesn't exist.

And it doesn't exist -- NOT because he didn't sign an Executive Order (which isn't a law, anyway). It doesn't exist because CONGRESS, the SOLE body with the Constitutional authority to make such a law, has CHOSEN not to do so.

So, I want to see the Executive non-order memo.

Let's dissect what the President is directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do, and based on what claim of "authority."

Make up your mind. Teabaggers have been crying about an executive order, but now you are crying about an executive action which changes no laws but only directs the priorities of enforcing existing laws. Even Hannity acknowledges that we don't have the resources to deport all the immigrants, so would you rather concentrate enforcement on catching the illegals who are thugs and drug runners, or concentrate on breaking up families? Is deporting little Betty Lou's mother more important to you than deporting a cartel thug?

MY mind is made up. I stand by the Constitution.

There IS such a thing (like it or not) as a valid Executive Order. When CONGRESS passes a law and it has to be Administered, the Chief Executive is entitled to direct the manner in which it shall be accomplished.

What the imbecile in chief proposes, however, is to issue an EO in the PLACE of and INSTEAD of a LAW passed by congress.

The Constitution does not authorize any such nonsense.

I realize that many liberals imagine that anything this asshole incumbent does is per se "ok." But, the shoddiness of your thinking is akin to the shoddiness of typical liberal "logic." Try to follow along this time:

EO = ok when used to ADMINISTER a LAW duly passed by CONGRESS.

EO = NOT "ok" when used as a substitute for a "law."

Well here is a partial legal definition of Executive order.

Executive Order
A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day.
Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition..

If you are concerned about his statutory authority, Congress certainly acquiesced to Reagan and Bush on their executive orders
Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it.

The entire definition is here.
Executive Order legal definition of Executive Order

I already know what an EO is and what it isn't. And your source is kind of weak. But let's run with that definition all the same. It MUST be true that a purported EO "implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty."

So, (if it actually even existed) WHICH prior STATUTE does it implement allegedly? Pray tell. It sure doesn't implement any treaty obligation nor does it implement any Constitutional provision.

And, on your final deflection effort you are flatly wrong. NOTHING done by way of EO by a prior President (neither Reagan nor Bush) was based on such thin air as you baselessly contend.

 

[BULLDOG]

Here is a link to the ONLY official Presidential "action" touching on the topic of our Immigration policies, etc that came around the time of the Presidential puffery about signing some EO.

It isn't.

Presidential Memorandum -- Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century The White House

.OK, so you claim the only action the president has taken on immigration is the innocuous link you gave. Why are you teabaggers running around like your hair is on fire about some claim of amnesty? Either you are crying about a non event, or you don't understand what is actually happening. Either way, it does nothing to remove the reputation of crazy from the right wing. Any amnesty given would certainly have a document to record it.

 

[BULLDOG]

A report put out by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) (from where I got the link to the DHS "opinion" paper in the prior post) does a remarkable job in slicing and dicing the CLAIM by the Obumbler Administration that it has ANY Constitutional authority to do what it is directing.

President Obama s Deferred Action Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional Center for Immigration Studies

NOTE: Post EDITED to change my mistaken(?) reference to "DoJ." I believe its actually a DHS memo. I will verify it once I read it all again.

Right .....The Center for Immigration studies..... That's the bunch headed by Mark Krikorian who has been known to hobnob with extremists. He accepted an invitation to speak alongside known Holocaust denier Nick Griffin and so-called “racial realist” Jared Taylor at the Michigan State chapter of Young Americans for Freedom in 2007, despite the group having recently made news for orchestrating such offensive events as “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day,” a “Koran Desecration” competition, and covering the campus in “Gays Spread AIDS fliers.”.....That Center for Immigration Studies? Your post would have more credibility with a link to WND or Glenn Beck. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing anyone who advocates Gays Spread Aids flyers, or a Koran Desecration Day. You got a link to a sane source?

Do you see how pathetic you are? Nah. Tools like you never do.

You are committing a very standard, familiar and laughable fallacy.

You don't like the SOURCE of the piece I posted, and in your petty little illogical mind that translates into the proposition that nothing said by that source can possibly be factually accurate or logical and valid.

Work harder. Try to be logical. I couldn't give a shit what you feel about CIS.

Do you have ANY ability to address the SUBSTANCE of the analysis they offered?

Let's make it even easier for you.

Is it your contention that the President of the United States of America has some ascertainable Constitutional authority to issue an Executive Order (concerning the legalization of illegal aliens without a basis for the EO derived from a prior Act of Congress) having the force of law -- which is on par with an Act passed by Congress and signed by a President?

Now, where the President issues such an EO without basing it on a valid previously passed LAW, would it be YOUR contention that it somehow wouldn't be facially a violation of the Constitution?

I'd be fascinated in reading your sound legal foundation for such a set of positions.

. I can't address substance from a source that has no credibility. Without credibility, there is no substance. I do appreciate easy. That's why I enjoy listening to the rants of teabaggers. You claim the president didn't issue an Executive order, so I fail to see why you would want to discuss something that hasn't happened.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here is a link to the ONLY official Presidential "action" touching on the topic of our Immigration policies, etc that came around the time of the Presidential puffery about signing some EO.

It isn't.

Presidential Memorandum -- Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century The White House

.OK, so you claim the only action the president has taken on immigration is the innocuous link you gave. Why are you teabaggers running around like your hair is on fire about some claim of amnesty? Either you are crying about a non event, or you don't understand what is actually happening. Either way, it does nothing to remove the reputation of crazy from the right wing. Any amnesty given would certainly have a document to record it.

Because you PACK your posts with so much bullshit, it takes too much effort and time to unpack your one or two relevant comments from all your ceaseless silly drivel.

First, I am not a tea partier. That is the correct term. "Tea bagger" refers more to the practice you silly libs engage in with your other gay buddies.

Secondly, I admire Tea Partiers. Unlike you tools, they have a dedication to basic, sound principles.

Thirdly, I have noted all along that there appeared to be NO EO yet. Presidunce Obumbler has made it SOUND like he was forced to take some such action. But in fact, he has simply been continuing his pattern of lies and deception.

Fourthly, the discussion (despite the fact that contrary to his claims, he hasn't actually DONE anything substantive yet) has been about what he has PROPOSED to do. The DHS Legal Counsel analysis discusses THAT set of proposals.

IF he were to try to take such actions, they would NOT be based upon any existing LAW or Constitutional duty or on any treaty obligation. Accordingly, any such purported EO would be facially unconstitutional and unlawful.

YOU make a lot of shit up and then expect others to address your fantasy notions. Well, sorry. But your posts are a lot more BULLSHIT than they are bulldog material.

CONGRESS was granted the Constitutional authority over matters of naturalization. The Constitution gives the nation's chief executive NO power to legislate on that topic or any other topic for that matter.

 

[BULLDOG]

Presidunce Obumbler SAID that since Congress wasn't doing it, he and his pen and his phone would.

But it LOOKS like he signed NO Executive Order. Instead, he has supposedly signed some "memo" which would convey his Imperial directions on how to implement a law that doesn't exist.

And it doesn't exist -- NOT because he didn't sign an Executive Order (which isn't a law, anyway). It doesn't exist because CONGRESS, the SOLE body with the Constitutional authority to make such a law, has CHOSEN not to do so.

So, I want to see the Executive non-order memo.

Let's dissect what the President is directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do, and based on what claim of "authority."

Make up your mind. Teabaggers have been crying about an executive order, but now you are crying about an executive action which changes no laws but only directs the priorities of enforcing existing laws. Even Hannity acknowledges that we don't have the resources to deport all the immigrants, so would you rather concentrate enforcement on catching the illegals who are thugs and drug runners, or concentrate on breaking up families? Is deporting little Betty Lou's mother more important to you than deporting a cartel thug?

MY mind is made up. I stand by the Constitution.

There IS such a thing (like it or not) as a valid Executive Order. When CONGRESS passes a law and it has to be Administered, the Chief Executive is entitled to direct the manner in which it shall be accomplished.

What the imbecile in chief proposes, however, is to issue an EO in the PLACE of and INSTEAD of a LAW passed by congress.

The Constitution does not authorize any such nonsense.

I realize that many liberals imagine that anything this asshole incumbent does is per se "ok." But, the shoddiness of your thinking is akin to the shoddiness of typical liberal "logic." Try to follow along this time:

EO = ok when used to ADMINISTER a LAW duly passed by CONGRESS.

EO = NOT "ok" when used as a substitute for a "law."

Well here is a partial legal definition of Executive order.

Executive Order
A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day.
Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition..

If you are concerned about his statutory authority, Congress certainly acquiesced to Reagan and Bush on their executive orders
Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it.

The entire definition is here.
Executive Order legal definition of Executive Order

I already know what an EO is and what it isn't. And your source is kind of weak. But let's run with that definition all the same. It MUST be true that a purported EO "implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty."

So, (if it actually even existed) WHICH prior STATUTE does it implement allegedly? Pray tell. It sure doesn't implement any treaty obligation nor does it implement any Constitutional provision.

And, on your final deflection effort you are flatly wrong. NOTHING done by way of EO by a prior President (neither Reagan nor Bush) was based on such thin air as you baselessly contend.

Congress acquiesced to executive orders for amnesty by at least two previous presidents. That is clearly a precedent.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Presidunce Obumbler SAID that since Congress wasn't doing it, he and his pen and his phone would.

But it LOOKS like he signed NO Executive Order. Instead, he has supposedly signed some "memo" which would convey his Imperial directions on how to implement a law that doesn't exist.

And it doesn't exist -- NOT because he didn't sign an Executive Order (which isn't a law, anyway). It doesn't exist because CONGRESS, the SOLE body with the Constitutional authority to make such a law, has CHOSEN not to do so.

So, I want to see the Executive non-order memo.

Let's dissect what the President is directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do, and based on what claim of "authority."

Make up your mind. Teabaggers have been crying about an executive order, but now you are crying about an executive action which changes no laws but only directs the priorities of enforcing existing laws. Even Hannity acknowledges that we don't have the resources to deport all the immigrants, so would you rather concentrate enforcement on catching the illegals who are thugs and drug runners, or concentrate on breaking up families? Is deporting little Betty Lou's mother more important to you than deporting a cartel thug?

MY mind is made up. I stand by the Constitution.

There IS such a thing (like it or not) as a valid Executive Order. When CONGRESS passes a law and it has to be Administered, the Chief Executive is entitled to direct the manner in which it shall be accomplished.

What the imbecile in chief proposes, however, is to issue an EO in the PLACE of and INSTEAD of a LAW passed by congress.

The Constitution does not authorize any such nonsense.

I realize that many liberals imagine that anything this asshole incumbent does is per se "ok." But, the shoddiness of your thinking is akin to the shoddiness of typical liberal "logic." Try to follow along this time:

EO = ok when used to ADMINISTER a LAW duly passed by CONGRESS.

EO = NOT "ok" when used as a substitute for a "law."

Well here is a partial legal definition of Executive order.

Executive Order
A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day.
Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition..

If you are concerned about his statutory authority, Congress certainly acquiesced to Reagan and Bush on their executive orders
Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it.

The entire definition is here.
Executive Order legal definition of Executive Order

I already know what an EO is and what it isn't. And your source is kind of weak. But let's run with that definition all the same. It MUST be true that a purported EO "implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty."

So, (if it actually even existed) WHICH prior STATUTE does it implement allegedly? Pray tell. It sure doesn't implement any treaty obligation nor does it implement any Constitutional provision.

And, on your final deflection effort you are flatly wrong. NOTHING done by way of EO by a prior President (neither Reagan nor Bush) was based on such thin air as you baselessly contend.

Congress acquiesced to executive orders for amnesty by at least two previous presidents. That is clearly a precedent.

Nope. Nobody familiar with your shoddy workmanship will accept anything you say on this topic where you won't even cite the material you bleat on about.

It will require a little pretty light lifting on your part. SHOW us all, with a link to the official source, the EO's of Reagan and Bush about which you are bleating. THEN make sure you do a little bit of heavier lifting:

Share with us all how THEIR respective actions were not based on existing law.

I feel charitable. So I will lighten your load a tiny fraction. Go look up: the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

When you have completed this simple set of tasks, I will enjoy discussing with you what "precedent" is and what it isn't.

 

[BULLDOG]

Here is a link to the ONLY official Presidential "action" touching on the topic of our Immigration policies, etc that came around the time of the Presidential puffery about signing some EO.

It isn't.

Presidential Memorandum -- Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century The White House

.OK, so you claim the only action the president has taken on immigration is the innocuous link you gave. Why are you teabaggers running around like your hair is on fire about some claim of amnesty? Either you are crying about a non event, or you don't understand what is actually happening. Either way, it does nothing to remove the reputation of crazy from the right wing. Any amnesty given would certainly have a document to record it.

Because you PACK your posts with so much bullshit, it takes too much effort and time to unpack your one or two relevant comments from all your ceaseless silly drivel.

First, I am not a tea partier. That is the correct term. "Tea bagger" refers more to the practice you silly libs engage in with your other gay buddies.

Secondly, I admire Tea Partiers. Unlike you tools, they have a dedication to basic, sound principles.

Thirdly, I have noted all along that there appeared to be NO EO yet. Presidunce Obumbler has made it SOUND like he was forced to take some such action. But in fact, he has simply been continuing his pattern of lies and deception.

Fourthly, the discussion (despite the fact that contrary to his claims, he hasn't actually DONE anything substantive yet) has been about what he has PROPOSED to do. The DHS Legal Counsel analysis discusses THAT set of proposals.

IF he were to try to take such actions, they would NOT be based upon any existing LAW or Constitutional duty or on any treaty obligation. Accordingly, any such purported EO would be facially unconstitutional and unlawful.

YOU make a lot of shit up and then expect others to address your fantasy notions. Well, sorry. But your posts are a lot more BULLSHIT than they are bulldog material.

CONGRESS was granted the Constitutional authority over matters of naturalization. The Constitution gives the nation's chief executive NO power to legislate on that topic or any other topic for that matter.

So many separate claims by you, and so little time. I ask you to point out anything I might have posted to you that you had not already addressed, or that was not pertinent to what was being discussed.

First, Teabagger might be a name that the right is now ashamed of, but fully embraced until someone told you what it actually meant.


Secondly I don't doubt you one bit

Thirdly You claim there has been no Executive order of any kind concerning immigration, but can't explain that right wingers are on a continuous loop of crying about the supposed amnesty our president has supposedly given. Several states are even suing him over it. Are they just crazy or what?

Fourthly You can't sue someone over what they propose to do. (see thirdly)

I'm sorry if you can't keep up with the silly claims that you and the right wing make, and you get confused trying to justify them, but that's not my problem.

 

[BULLDOG]

Make up your mind. Teabaggers have been crying about an executive order, but now you are crying about an executive action which changes no laws but only directs the priorities of enforcing existing laws. Even Hannity acknowledges that we don't have the resources to deport all the immigrants, so would you rather concentrate enforcement on catching the illegals who are thugs and drug runners, or concentrate on breaking up families? Is deporting little Betty Lou's mother more important to you than deporting a cartel thug?

MY mind is made up. I stand by the Constitution.

There IS such a thing (like it or not) as a valid Executive Order. When CONGRESS passes a law and it has to be Administered, the Chief Executive is entitled to direct the manner in which it shall be accomplished.

What the imbecile in chief proposes, however, is to issue an EO in the PLACE of and INSTEAD of a LAW passed by congress.

The Constitution does not authorize any such nonsense.

I realize that many liberals imagine that anything this asshole incumbent does is per se "ok." But, the shoddiness of your thinking is akin to the shoddiness of typical liberal "logic." Try to follow along this time:

EO = ok when used to ADMINISTER a LAW duly passed by CONGRESS.

EO = NOT "ok" when used as a substitute for a "law."

Well here is a partial legal definition of Executive order.

Executive Order
A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
The president's power to issue executive orders comes from Congress and the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders differ from presidential proclamations, which are used largely for ceremonial and honorary purposes, such as declaring National Newspaper Carrier Appreciation Day.
Executive orders do not require congressional approval. Thus, the president can use them to set policy while avoiding public debate and opposition..

If you are concerned about his statutory authority, Congress certainly acquiesced to Reagan and Bush on their executive orders
Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it.

The entire definition is here.
Executive Order legal definition of Executive Order

I already know what an EO is and what it isn't. And your source is kind of weak. But let's run with that definition all the same. It MUST be true that a purported EO "implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty."

So, (if it actually even existed) WHICH prior STATUTE does it implement allegedly? Pray tell. It sure doesn't implement any treaty obligation nor does it implement any Constitutional provision.

And, on your final deflection effort you are flatly wrong. NOTHING done by way of EO by a prior President (neither Reagan nor Bush) was based on such thin air as you baselessly contend.

Congress acquiesced to executive orders for amnesty by at least two previous presidents. That is clearly a precedent.

Nope. Nobody familiar with your shoddy workmanship will accept anything you say on this topic where you won't even cite the material you bleat on about.

It will require a little pretty light lifting on your part. SHOW us all, with a link to the official source, the EO's of Reagan and Bush about which you are bleating. THEN make sure you do a little bit of heavier lifting:

Share with us all how THEIR respective actions were not based on existing law.

I feel charitable. So I will lighten your load a tiny fraction. Go look up: the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

When you have completed this simple set of tasks, I will enjoy discussing with you what "precedent" is and what it isn't.

I never was one for accepting homework assignments from teabaggers, so you can look up the previous EOs yourself. You are crying about what you think the president might do. It's your rant.....show us where what the president has done breaks or changes any existing laws, or makes any new ones. Better yet, show us where all the crying about some order you don't even believe exists is more than just another "I HATE OBAMA" tantrum