JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,522
- 2,165
- Banned
- #41
Duh . . . yeah! George Washington issued them in 1789. Guess he did not read the Constitution, huh?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.
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
.
.
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 GWBs immigration reform plan, except for item three, which is likely illegal.
And of course the Administrations deferral policy has nothing to do with amnesty, immigration, or its reform; this is law enforcement policy only.
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?
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?
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).
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?