Legal scholars say Obama violated constitution by giving amnesty to illegals

[JakeStarkey]

Duh . . . yeah! George Washington issued them in 1789. Guess he did not read the Constitution, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

Mac1958's Unsolicited and Probably Wildly Unpopular Illegal Immigration Policy:

1. Bring all troops home from the Middle East shit hole
2. Bring most troops home from other countries, those countries can start taking care of themselves for a fucking change
3. Use American troops to seal American borders north and south
4. Grant illegals Temporary Guest Worker status - they pay our taxes and fees but do not vote until they are citizens
5. Put those people at the end of the immigration line
6. Review policy in 10 years

.

That was in essence GWB’s immigration reform plan, except for item three, which is likely illegal.

And of course the Administration’s deferral policy has nothing to do with ‘amnesty,’ immigration, or its reform; this is law enforcement policy only.

 

[Inthemiddle]

.

Mac1958's Unsolicited and Probably Wildly Unpopular Illegal Immigration Policy:

1. Bring all troops home from the Middle East shit hole
2. Bring most troops home from other countries, those countries can start taking care of themselves for a fucking change
3. Use American troops to seal American borders north and south
4. Grant illegals Temporary Guest Worker status - they pay our taxes and fees but do not vote until they are citizens
5. Put those people at the end of the immigration line
6. Review policy in 10 years

.

That was in essence GWB’s immigration reform plan, except for item three, which is likely illegal.

And of course the Administration’s deferral policy has nothing to do with ‘amnesty,’ immigration, or its reform; this is law enforcement policy only.

Using the military to defend our borders is illegal?

 

[Againsheila]

You are blah blahing again, CaliGirl.

The president's orders are legal until otherwise decided not so by the court.

Thus, your opinions, CG are as incorrect as SS, which is your right.

You are entitled to your incorrect legal position. Yea, the President's orders were legal.

When were you elected onto the SC, Jokey?

So if the president said it okay to shoot anyone who disagrees with you, that would be law until the court comes in and says it's not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show me the executive order that has been issued that does that, other than those issued against our terrorist enemies. No has challenged that with SCOTUS.

What CaliGirl and the other weak heads don't get is that EOs are part of the executive power and requires no legislative approval.

Washington did in 1789.

You are blah blahing again, CaliGirl.

The president's orders are legal until otherwise decided not so by the court.

Thus, your opinions, CG are as incorrect as SS, which is your right.

When were you elected onto the SC, Jokey?

So if the president said it okay to shoot anyone who disagrees with you, that would be law until the court comes in and says it's not?

 

[idb]

I'm confused...isn't it the Supreme Court's job to rule on constitutionality?
What have they said about it?

The constitutionality of executive orders is determined on a case by case basis, as rulings are often narrow in relation to the specifics of the case.

In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), for example, the Court upheld the Reagan executive order freezing Iranian assets and nullifying judgements seeking restitution. Neither the IEEPA nor the Hostage Act authorized the president to take such action, but as the Court noted in its ruling:

Congress cannot anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it necessary to take, or every possible situation in which he might act.

Dames & Moore v. Regan

Executive orders are, therefore, as with all other acts of government, presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. See: Ogden v. Saunders (1827).

Meaning that everyone elses' opinion is just that...opinion.

Once again someone's opinion has been cited as fact and used to start a thread.
No surprise there I suppose.

 

[idb]

Show me the executive order that has been issued that does that, other than those issued against our terrorist enemies. No has challenged that with SCOTUS.

What CaliGirl and the other weak heads don't get is that EOs are part of the executive power and requires no legislative approval.

Washington did in 1789.

You are blah blahing again, CaliGirl.

The president's orders are legal until otherwise decided not so by the court.

Thus, your opinions, CG are as incorrect as SS, which is your right.

So if the president said it okay to shoot anyone who disagrees with you, that would be law until the court comes in and says it's not?

Pfffft!
What did Washington know about the Constitution?!