Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
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
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
You are merely not one and never were one who could or would ever back up your own bullshit.
You ball sucking laughable liberals are amazingly consistent in your pussy cowardice, like that.
The fact is, you are dishonest and spout the "party" line mindlessly with no concern for whether the shit you spew is honest or not. You are too ignorant, dishonest and lazy to even care.
Face it. In this matter, you are totally pwnd.
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
obama himself said he changed the law. He said, and I quote: "There have been significant numbers of deportations. That's true. But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law."
So, did he change the law, die he lie,or is he a dope who engages mouth before brain?
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
You are merely not one and never were one who could or would ever back up your own bullshit.
You ball sucking laughable liberals are amazingly consistent in your pussy cowardice, like that.
The fact is, you are dishonest and spout the "party" line mindlessly with no concern for whether the shit you spew is honest or not. You are too ignorant, dishonest and lazy to even care.
Face it. In this matter, you are totally pwnd.
When you get so confused by your own conflicting statements, claim victory and run. Typical teabagger behavior.
To dumb ? Nope never supported obamacare, unlike you.Went to white house web site to check to see if it's true and I could not find it.
What's up with the deception?
Executive Orders The White House
Could it be that you are just too dumb to look in the right place?
Next.
What does voting for Obamacare have to do with you not being smart enough to find a website?
Went to white house web site to check to see if it's true and I could not find it.
What's up with the deception?
Executive Orders The White House
And again, why el presidunce thinks he needs to pretend that he "signed" any EO remains a mystery.
When former President Reagan acted along such lines, he did so on the BASIS of an ACT of CONGRESS.
When Obumbler claims to have directed an amnesty, he is doing so OVER the REFUSAL of CONGRESS to provide him with any such Act.
Presidunce Obumbler "taught" Constitutional Law. He really ought to know better. But he wants to fundamentally change America, and maybe this is just how that dipshit rolls.
When former President Reagan acted along such lines, he did so on the BASIS of an ACT of CONGRESS.
And again, why el presidunce thinks he needs to pretend that he "signed" any EO remains a mystery.
When former President Reagan acted along such lines, he did so on the BASIS of an ACT of CONGRESS.
When Obumbler claims to have directed an amnesty, he is doing so OVER the REFUSAL of CONGRESS to provide him with any such Act.
Presidunce Obumbler "taught" Constitutional Law. He really ought to know better. But he wants to fundamentally change America, and maybe this is just how that dipshit rolls.
You got a link to where he claimed to have directed an amnesty? Any credible source would do.
But the president and his top aides have concluded that acting unilaterally is in the interest of the country and the only way to increase political pressure on Republicans to eventually support a legislative overhaul that could put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to legal status and perhaps citizenship. Mr. Obama has told lawmakers privately and publicly that he will reverse his executive orders if they pass a comprehensive bill that he agrees to sign.
When former President Reagan acted along such lines, he did so on the BASIS of an ACT of CONGRESS.
Can you show us what act of congress granted 400,000 Nicaraguans work visas and indefinitely deferred their deportation?
Remember, Reagan acted after Congress tried and failed to address the issue.
Bullshit's ignorance is astounding.
Obumbler does suck massive ass. But what he has proposed doing is clearly improper. Only a complete fuckwit would deny that,
Now then, I am not a tea partier but i do respect those who step up as they do.
You abject degenerate uber lolberals are the ones who engage in tea bagging. So stop projecting, you completely dishonest pussy.
I don't favor suing Obumbler for his faux EO or any of the actual actions he might take to permit a massive unauthorized illegal immigrant amnesty. On the other hand, my little Bullshit friend, you are ALSO wrong (this becomes monotonous) in claiming that you can't sue another for a proposed action. You dick for brain waste of life, you never heard of an "injunction?" Damn you suck at everything related to this debate, you poor pathetic nitwit.
Now, since you are too plodding to even ask why, I'll just tell you why I oppose the notion of this lawsuit. Congress already HAS the Constitutional power and duty to stop Obumbler from doing this shit. What they lack (because Boehner and company are panty waist pussies) is the determination to DO that which is within the power. They lack the nadz to honor their own Constitutional obligations.
And asshole lolberal Democratics like you wear their cheerleader skirts, wave the pom poms, jump, do a couple of splits and applaud them for it.
Bullshit's ignorance is astounding.
Obumbler does suck massive ass. But what he has proposed doing is clearly improper. Only a complete fuckwit would deny that,
Now then, I am not a tea partier but i do respect those who step up as they do.
You abject degenerate uber lolberals are the ones who engage in tea bagging. So stop projecting, you completely dishonest pussy.
I don't favor suing Obumbler for his faux EO or any of the actual actions he might take to permit a massive unauthorized illegal immigrant amnesty. On the other hand, my little Bullshit friend, you are ALSO wrong (this becomes monotonous) in claiming that you can't sue another for a proposed action. You dick for brain waste of life, you never heard of an "injunction?" Damn you suck at everything related to this debate, you poor pathetic nitwit.
Now, since you are too plodding to even ask why, I'll just tell you why I oppose the notion of this lawsuit. Congress already HAS the Constitutional power and duty to stop Obumbler from doing this shit. What they lack (because Boehner and company are panty waist pussies) is the determination to DO that which is within the power. They lack the nadz to honor their own Constitutional obligations.
And asshole lolberal Democratics like you wear their cheerleader skirts, wave the pom poms, jump, do a couple of splits and applaud them for it.
An injunction is obtained through an application process which might or might not include testimony before a judge. It might be given in conjunction with suing someone, but they are not the same thing. That's a mistake a dumb pathetic nitwit might make so it's not unexpected from you. You are really quick with the "dumb fucks" and "dishonest pussies". If that is the way you prefer to discuss, I'm fine with it, but that's your choice.
And again, why el presidunce thinks he needs to pretend that he "signed" any EO remains a mystery.
When former President Reagan acted along such lines, he did so on the BASIS of an ACT of CONGRESS.
When Obumbler claims to have directed an amnesty, he is doing so OVER the REFUSAL of CONGRESS to provide him with any such Act.
Presidunce Obumbler "taught" Constitutional Law. He really ought to know better. But he wants to fundamentally change America, and maybe this is just how that dipshit rolls.
You got a link to where he claimed to have directed an amnesty? Any credible source would do.But the president and his top aides have concluded that acting unilaterally is in the interest of the country and the only way to increase political pressure on Republicans to eventually support a legislative overhaul that could put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to legal status and perhaps citizenship. Mr. Obama has told lawmakers privately and publicly that he will reverse his executive orders if they pass a comprehensive bill that he agrees to sign.
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/obama-immigration.html?_r=0
But no. It IS only the NY Slimes. Perhaps you don't consider them credible?
Reagan used an Executive action with INS, to give illegal children of the immigrants given amnesty in the 1986 Immigration Act, delayed deportation protection.When former President Reagan acted along such lines, he did so on the BASIS of an ACT of CONGRESS.
Can you show us what act of congress granted 400,000 Nicaraguans work visas and indefinitely deferred their deportation?
Remember, Reagan acted after Congress tried and failed to address the issue.
Show us the Reagan EO or order or his minion's actions and orders. Date and link it/them.
I will be pleased to then show you how and why your claims are false.
"Reagan also used an executive action to ease immigration standards for 200,000 Nicaraguans who feared persecution from the communist Sandinista regime. President Bush used similar powers to grant deportation relief to hundreds of Kuwaiti nationals who had been evacuated to the United States during the first Gulf War.
But both of these executive actions were perfectly in line with the true scope of a president's prosecutorial discretion powers. They were limited in nature, applied to specific smaller groups of immigrants, and were not designed to thwart congressional intent on immigration policy." -- Everything You Need To Know About Obama s Executive Amnesty
That post is worth reading since it QUOTES Presidunce Obumbler ACKNOWLEDGING that what he has proposed doing is illegal. He knew it before, but musta forgotten what he once acknowledged because he is a compulsive liar or a fucking moron -- or both.
