Obama is Playing with Impeachment Fire by His Own Statements

[Jackson]

This board resembles The Witches of Salem more everyday.

I give it about three days before someone wants Obama burnt at the stake.

This thread, if you read the OP, is not about Obama, it's about the constitution and the boundaries.

Executive Order. is an element of Executive Power, a boundary of the Constitution.

youz n' idget Jackieboi.







go study.



The president:

• is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He or she has the power to call into service the state units of the National Guard, and in times of emergency may be given the power by Congress to manage national security or the economy.
• has the power make treaties with Senate approval. He or she can also receive ambassadors and work with leaders of other nations.
• is responsible for nominating the heads of governmental departments, which the Senate must then approve. In addition, the president nominates judges to federal courts and justices to the United States Supreme Court.
• can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress.
• can issue pardons for federal offenses.
• can convene Congress for special sessions.
• can veto legislation approved by Congress. However, the veto is limited. It is not a line-item veto, meaning that he or she cannot veto only specific parts of legislation, and it can be overridden by a two-thirds vote by Congress.
• delivers a State of the Union address annually to a joint session of Congress.

I think you are a bit behind us.

 

[gipper]

Way to go Mr President!

Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. The sign of a good leader

That's right. No need to abide by the Constitution, since your base thinks it is meaningless.

Rule by leftist elite....every leftist's dream.

 

[Stephanie]

RW's are nucking futs.... carp endlessly about something they know nothing about just to hear themselves yammer,

a gaggle of small brain geese has more sense.

go cry us a frikken river over it. and then look in mirror you want to see nuts and a loser
Your man/boy in the oval office just lost lost lost and you lw nutters can't stand it

 

[Care4all]

President Obama said that he would do what he could do, as President, within the LAW, on immigration reform....

And the right wing media has told the LIE repeatedly, that Obama is going to give Amnesty to All illegal immigrants via Executive order....

And ALL of you little thinking lock steppers have followed what the Right wing Media has said that Obama would do, and NOT what President Obama HAS actually SAID that he would do.....which is do as much reform as he could do, WITHIN THE LAW....

You all are Pathetic little tools.....

(sorry to include you too Stephanie, I think you are truly smarter than this in real life and a good person)

I don't care what he promised. He is now a lame duck without the Senate to back him up like they did "rubberstamping" any damaging thing he wanted to put on. and the PEOPLE in the country has spoken for him to sit the hell down and shut the hell up

Stephanie, he won't try to give Amnesty to the illegals via executive order, and if he does think he can legally do this and tries, it WILL BE shot down by the Courts, for certain or Congress will ACT and do immigration reform themselves nullifying whatever EO Obama had put in place, and put it before the President to sign.

It's by no means a High Crime or Misdemeanor for a President to issue an Executive order that is later via the Courts, shot down as unconstitutional....it has happened several times to other Presidents who have done some real doozies with their EO's over the years.

So this is all JUST Politics as usual....tactical scaring, pontificating, speculating and then ejaculating....all in unison.....

carry on, if you wish...

 

[Jackson]

Can you tell me which EO's those were?

sure. truman issued one that was overturned nationalizing steel mills and clinton issued one that was overturned prohibiting federal contracting with companies that employed strike breakers.

the courts were used to decide if they were contradictory to the law, but neither were used as evidence of 'high crimes'

Were the courts used to decided contradiction in both cases? I would like more info on truman's case.

google is your friend.
Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thank you very much. Didn't know the case. Found this statement, "the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress."

Truman was able to act because it was a time of emergency.

well, no, truman's eo overstepped the boundaries of the law and was overturned by the courts.

Yes, the statements I posted came from the Court's decision.

 

[ogibillm]

Way to go Mr President!

Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. The sign of a good leader

That's right. No need to abide by the Constitution, since your base thinks it is meaningless.

Rule by leftist elite....every leftist's dream.

i can point you to a thread where 'conservatives' believe that criminals don't have the right to due process.
who thinks what is meaningless again?

 

[Stephanie]

President Obama said that he would do what he could do, as President, within the LAW, on immigration reform....

And the right wing media has told the LIE repeatedly, that Obama is going to give Amnesty to All illegal immigrants via Executive order....

And ALL of you little thinking lock steppers have followed what the Right wing Media has said that Obama would do, and NOT what President Obama HAS actually SAID that he would do.....which is do as much reform as he could do, WITHIN THE LAW....

You all are Pathetic little tools.....

(sorry to include you too Stephanie, I think you are truly smarter than this in real life and a good person)

I don't care what he promised. He is now a lame duck without the Senate to back him up like they did "rubberstamping" any damaging thing he wanted to put on. and the PEOPLE in the country has spoken for him to sit the hell down and shut the hell up

Stephanie, he won't try to give Amnesty to the illegals via executive order, and if he does think he can legally do this and tries, it WILL BE shot down by the Courts, for certain or Congress will ACT and do immigration reform themselves nullifying whatever EO Obama had put in place, and put it before the President to sign.

It's by no means a High Crime or Misdemeanor for a President to issue an Executive order that is later via the Courts, shot down as unconstitutional....it has happened several times to other Presidents who have done some real doozies with their EO's over the years.

So this is all JUST Politics as usual....tactical scaring, pontificating, speculating and then ejaculating....all in unison.....

carry on, if you wish...

You're fine with a President walking over THE PEOPLE and their Representation in their own government, says a lot about you my dear. But if this was a Republican President wanting to do this, WELL WE KNOW what you all would wailing

 

[gipper]

Way to go Mr President!

Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. The sign of a good leader

That's right. No need to abide by the Constitution, since your base thinks it is meaningless.

Rule by leftist elite....every leftist's dream.

i can point you to a thread where 'conservatives' believe that criminals don't have the right to due process.
who thinks what is meaningless again?

Well...that makes it all okay.

If your guy can get away with tyranny...so should mine...

...the thought process of a child.

 

[Care4all]

President Obama said that he would do what he could do, as President, within the LAW, on immigration reform....

And the right wing media has told the LIE repeatedly, that Obama is going to give Amnesty to All illegal immigrants via Executive order....

And ALL of you little thinking lock steppers have followed what the Right wing Media has said that Obama would do, and NOT what President Obama HAS actually SAID that he would do.....which is do as much reform as he could do, WITHIN THE LAW....

You all are Pathetic little tools.....

(sorry to include you too Stephanie, I think you are truly smarter than this in real life and a good person)

I don't care what he promised. He is now a lame duck without the Senate to back him up like they did "rubberstamping" any damaging thing he wanted to put on. and the PEOPLE in the country has spoken for him to sit the hell down and shut the hell up

Stephanie, he won't try to give Amnesty to the illegals via executive order, and if he does think he can legally do this and tries, it WILL BE shot down by the Courts, for certain or Congress will ACT and do immigration reform themselves nullifying whatever EO Obama had put in place, and put it before the President to sign.

It's by no means a High Crime or Misdemeanor for a President to issue an Executive order that is later via the Courts, shot down as unconstitutional....it has happened several times to other Presidents who have done some real doozies with their EO's over the years.

So this is all JUST Politics as usual....tactical scaring, pontificating, speculating and then ejaculating....all in unison.....

carry on, if you wish...

You're fine with a President walking over THE PEOPLE and their Representation in their own government, says a lot about you my dear

I didn't say that Steph, I said IF by any chance, the President issues a blanket Amnesty for Illegal aliens via Executive order, I believe and know in my heart of hearts, the Courts will shoot down and nullify this executive order....

 

[Jackson]

President Obama said that he would do what he could do, as President, within the LAW, on immigration reform....

And the right wing media has told the LIE repeatedly, that Obama is going to give Amnesty to All illegal immigrants via Executive order....

And ALL of you little thinking lock steppers have followed what the Right wing Media has said that Obama would do, and NOT what President Obama HAS actually SAID that he would do.....which is do as much reform as he could do, WITHIN THE LAW....

You all are Pathetic little tools.....

(sorry to include you too Stephanie, I think you are truly smarter than this in real life and a good person)

Care, that comment to Stephanie's personality was thoughtful.

I've listened to Fox News, a (horrors!) and I never heard that Mr. Obama was going to give amnesty to ALL illegals.

 

[Saigon]

you're full of bullshit. that's all.

You should of seen the HATE they dumped all over Bush, protesting in the streets, charging Senate hearing with fake blood on their hands and the BITTER HATE rolled on and on. you need to worry over your own country and how they treat their dictators

My country has never had a dictator, and neither has yours.

Are you seriously suggesting that the vitriol detected at Bush was worse - in any way - than that directed at Obama? Seriously?

 

[Care4all]

President Obama said that he would do what he could do, as President, within the LAW, on immigration reform....

And the right wing media has told the LIE repeatedly, that Obama is going to give Amnesty to All illegal immigrants via Executive order....

And ALL of you little thinking lock steppers have followed what the Right wing Media has said that Obama would do, and NOT what President Obama HAS actually SAID that he would do.....which is do as much reform as he could do, WITHIN THE LAW....

You all are Pathetic little tools.....

(sorry to include you too Stephanie, I think you are truly smarter than this in real life and a good person)

I don't care what he promised. He is now a lame duck without the Senate to back him up like they did "rubberstamping" any damaging thing he wanted to put on. and the PEOPLE in the country has spoken for him to sit the hell down and shut the hell up

Stephanie, he won't try to give Amnesty to the illegals via executive order, and if he does think he can legally do this and tries, it WILL BE shot down by the Courts, for certain or Congress will ACT and do immigration reform themselves nullifying whatever EO Obama had put in place, and put it before the President to sign.

It's by no means a High Crime or Misdemeanor for a President to issue an Executive order that is later via the Courts, shot down as unconstitutional....it has happened several times to other Presidents who have done some real doozies with their EO's over the years.

So this is all JUST Politics as usual....tactical scaring, pontificating, speculating and then ejaculating....all in unison.....

carry on, if you wish...

You're fine with a President walking over THE PEOPLE and their Representation in their own government, says a lot about you my dear

I didn't say that Steph, I said IF by any chance, the President issues a blanket Amnesty for Illegal aliens via Executive order, I believe and know in my heart of hearts, the Courts will shoot down and nullify this executive order....

And IF by any chance I am wrong and for some odd reason they allow the President to do this because they believe IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL, then the next step would be for Congress and the Senate to pass a bill with Immigration reform the way they and the people they represent would like to see it.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
Video: Democrat rep unable to say why Obama’s immigration plan is legal
posted at 9:01 am on November 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• 188 SHARES

Somebody needs to work on their talking points a bit more. Congressman Peter Welch (D – Vermont) made an appearance on MSNBC to talk to Lawrence O’Donnell this week to discuss the President’s immigration plan. In a rather startling turn of events, Matthews completely failed to stick to the normal script and asked him why a particular section of the plan was even permissible under the law. The results are instructive.

Lawrence O’Donnell: No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the President’s plan which was leaked to the New York Times. the part where it says… that the President will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents. Can you tell me and has the White House told you, what is the legal justification for the President to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?

Congressman Peter Welch: You know, Lawrence, I can’t tell you, and I’m not the lawyer who’s going to be litigating this case. So the answer to that would be decided by the courts as you and I know. But here’s what I can tell you…

L.O.: Congressman, so as far as you know, and I don’t mean to badger about this but I’ve been on this for days now. I haven’t heard from a single elected Democrat, not one Democrat in Washington who can answer the question that I just put to you. Have you heard it Have you heard it answered by any Democrats?

P.W: I haven’t. I haven’t.

The video:





But really. What difference, at this point, does it make? (Sorry, Hillary.) We have to sign the executive action to find out if the executive action is legal. Hey… that sounds like a whole new area of political science and legal theory!

The legal questions surrounding this will probably take a long time to sort out. If the President wants to change immigration policy by ordering ICE to not enforce certain provisions, I’m not sure what anyone can do about it. By oath, the POTUS is supposed to be honor bound to enforce the laws of the United States of America, but there aren’t always resources to enforce every law fully, so the courts are lenient in letting that dodge go by. But creating a new category of immigration documents? That sounds like a legislative action, not an option of the executive. I’d like to see that one go to the courts.

FROM:
Video Democrat rep unable to say why Obama 8217 s immigration plan is legal Hot Air

 

[Wry Catcher]

President Obama said that he would do what he could do, as President, within the LAW, on immigration reform....

And the right wing media has told the LIE repeatedly, that Obama is going to give Amnesty to All illegal immigrants via Executive order....

And ALL of you little thinking lock steppers have followed what the Right wing Media has said that Obama would do, and NOT what President Obama HAS actually SAID that he would do.....which is do as much reform as he could do, WITHIN THE LAW....

You all are Pathetic little tools.....

(sorry to include you too Stephanie, I think you are truly smarter than this in real life and a good person)

Excellent post (though I have to disagree with your assessment of Stephanie).

 

[Jackson]

SNIP:
Video: Democrat rep unable to say why Obama’s immigration plan is legal
posted at 9:01 am on November 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• 188 SHARES

Somebody needs to work on their talking points a bit more. Congressman Peter Welch (D – Vermont) made an appearance on MSNBC to talk to Lawrence O’Donnell this week to discuss the President’s immigration plan. In a rather startling turn of events, Matthews completely failed to stick to the normal script and asked him why a particular section of the plan was even permissible under the law. The results are instructive.

Lawrence O’Donnell: No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the President’s plan which was leaked to the New York Times. the part where it says… that the President will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents. Can you tell me and has the White House told you, what is the legal justification for the President to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?

Congressman Peter Welch: You know, Lawrence, I can’t tell you, and I’m not the lawyer who’s going to be litigating this case. So the answer to that would be decided by the courts as you and I know. But here’s what I can tell you…

L.O.: Congressman, so as far as you know, and I don’t mean to badger about this but I’ve been on this for days now. I haven’t heard from a single elected Democrat, not one Democrat in Washington who can answer the question that I just put to you. Have you heard it Have you heard it answered by any Democrats?

P.W: I haven’t. I haven’t.

The video:





But really. What difference, at this point, does it make? (Sorry, Hillary.) We have to sign the executive action to find out if the executive action is legal. Hey… that sounds like a whole new area of political science and legal theory!

The legal questions surrounding this will probably take a long time to sort out. If the President wants to change immigration policy by ordering ICE to not enforce certain provisions, I’m not sure what anyone can do about it. By oath, the POTUS is supposed to be honor bound to enforce the laws of the United States of America, but there aren’t always resources to enforce every law fully, so the courts are lenient in letting that dodge go by. But creating a new category of immigration documents? That sounds like a legislative action, not an option of the executive. I’d like to see that one go to the courts.

FROM:
Video Democrat rep unable to say why Obama 8217 s immigration plan is legal Hot Air

You got it! The President is duty bound to take care and see that all the laws are followed and enforced. So how can he make an EO saying to do the opposite? He, would, in essence, be breaking the law.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
Video: Democrat rep unable to say why Obama’s immigration plan is legal
posted at 9:01 am on November 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• 188 SHARES

Somebody needs to work on their talking points a bit more. Congressman Peter Welch (D – Vermont) made an appearance on MSNBC to talk to Lawrence O’Donnell this week to discuss the President’s immigration plan. In a rather startling turn of events, Matthews completely failed to stick to the normal script and asked him why a particular section of the plan was even permissible under the law. The results are instructive.

Lawrence O’Donnell: No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the President’s plan which was leaked to the New York Times. the part where it says… that the President will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents. Can you tell me and has the White House told you, what is the legal justification for the President to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?

Congressman Peter Welch: You know, Lawrence, I can’t tell you, and I’m not the lawyer who’s going to be litigating this case. So the answer to that would be decided by the courts as you and I know. But here’s what I can tell you…

L.O.: Congressman, so as far as you know, and I don’t mean to badger about this but I’ve been on this for days now. I haven’t heard from a single elected Democrat, not one Democrat in Washington who can answer the question that I just put to you. Have you heard it Have you heard it answered by any Democrats?

P.W: I haven’t. I haven’t.

The video:





But really. What difference, at this point, does it make? (Sorry, Hillary.) We have to sign the executive action to find out if the executive action is legal. Hey… that sounds like a whole new area of political science and legal theory!

The legal questions surrounding this will probably take a long time to sort out. If the President wants to change immigration policy by ordering ICE to not enforce certain provisions, I’m not sure what anyone can do about it. By oath, the POTUS is supposed to be honor bound to enforce the laws of the United States of America, but there aren’t always resources to enforce every law fully, so the courts are lenient in letting that dodge go by. But creating a new category of immigration documents? That sounds like a legislative action, not an option of the executive. I’d like to see that one go to the courts.

FROM:
Video Democrat rep unable to say why Obama 8217 s immigration plan is legal Hot Air

You got it! The President is duty bound to take care and see that all the laws are followed and enforced. So how can he make an EO saying to do the opposite? He, would, in essence, be breaking the law.

Well I guess that only worries them when a Republican President does it. it's sickening

 

[Jackson]

SNIP:
Video: Democrat rep unable to say why Obama’s immigration plan is legal
posted at 9:01 am on November 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• 188 SHARES

Somebody needs to work on their talking points a bit more. Congressman Peter Welch (D – Vermont) made an appearance on MSNBC to talk to Lawrence O’Donnell this week to discuss the President’s immigration plan. In a rather startling turn of events, Matthews completely failed to stick to the normal script and asked him why a particular section of the plan was even permissible under the law. The results are instructive.

Lawrence O’Donnell: No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the President’s plan which was leaked to the New York Times. the part where it says… that the President will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents. Can you tell me and has the White House told you, what is the legal justification for the President to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?

Congressman Peter Welch: You know, Lawrence, I can’t tell you, and I’m not the lawyer who’s going to be litigating this case. So the answer to that would be decided by the courts as you and I know. But here’s what I can tell you…

L.O.: Congressman, so as far as you know, and I don’t mean to badger about this but I’ve been on this for days now. I haven’t heard from a single elected Democrat, not one Democrat in Washington who can answer the question that I just put to you. Have you heard it Have you heard it answered by any Democrats?

P.W: I haven’t. I haven’t.

The video:





But really. What difference, at this point, does it make? (Sorry, Hillary.) We have to sign the executive action to find out if the executive action is legal. Hey… that sounds like a whole new area of political science and legal theory!

The legal questions surrounding this will probably take a long time to sort out. If the President wants to change immigration policy by ordering ICE to not enforce certain provisions, I’m not sure what anyone can do about it. By oath, the POTUS is supposed to be honor bound to enforce the laws of the United States of America, but there aren’t always resources to enforce every law fully, so the courts are lenient in letting that dodge go by. But creating a new category of immigration documents? That sounds like a legislative action, not an option of the executive. I’d like to see that one go to the courts.

FROM:
Video Democrat rep unable to say why Obama 8217 s immigration plan is legal Hot Air

You got it! The President is duty bound to take care and see that all the laws are followed and enforced. So how can he make an EO saying to do the opposite? He, would, in essence, be breaking the law.

Well I guess that only worries them when a Republican President does it. it's sickening

That bothers me. That tells me some staunch Democrats are partisans before they are Americans. That is not good.

 

[ogibillm]

Way to go Mr President!

Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. The sign of a good leader

That's right. No need to abide by the Constitution, since your base thinks it is meaningless.

Rule by leftist elite....every leftist's dream.

i can point you to a thread where 'conservatives' believe that criminals don't have the right to due process.
who thinks what is meaningless again?

Well...that makes it all okay.

If your guy can get away with tyranny...so should mine...

...the thought process of a child.

just pointing out that there are people all over the spectrum willing to interpret the constitution in a myriad of ways.

 

[ogibillm]

SNIP:
Video: Democrat rep unable to say why Obama’s immigration plan is legal
posted at 9:01 am on November 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• 188 SHARES

Somebody needs to work on their talking points a bit more. Congressman Peter Welch (D – Vermont) made an appearance on MSNBC to talk to Lawrence O’Donnell this week to discuss the President’s immigration plan. In a rather startling turn of events, Matthews completely failed to stick to the normal script and asked him why a particular section of the plan was even permissible under the law. The results are instructive.

Lawrence O’Donnell: No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the President’s plan which was leaked to the New York Times. the part where it says… that the President will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents. Can you tell me and has the White House told you, what is the legal justification for the President to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?

Congressman Peter Welch: You know, Lawrence, I can’t tell you, and I’m not the lawyer who’s going to be litigating this case. So the answer to that would be decided by the courts as you and I know. But here’s what I can tell you…

L.O.: Congressman, so as far as you know, and I don’t mean to badger about this but I’ve been on this for days now. I haven’t heard from a single elected Democrat, not one Democrat in Washington who can answer the question that I just put to you. Have you heard it Have you heard it answered by any Democrats?

P.W: I haven’t. I haven’t.

The video:





But really. What difference, at this point, does it make? (Sorry, Hillary.) We have to sign the executive action to find out if the executive action is legal. Hey… that sounds like a whole new area of political science and legal theory!

The legal questions surrounding this will probably take a long time to sort out. If the President wants to change immigration policy by ordering ICE to not enforce certain provisions, I’m not sure what anyone can do about it. By oath, the POTUS is supposed to be honor bound to enforce the laws of the United States of America, but there aren’t always resources to enforce every law fully, so the courts are lenient in letting that dodge go by. But creating a new category of immigration documents? That sounds like a legislative action, not an option of the executive. I’d like to see that one go to the courts.

FROM:
Video Democrat rep unable to say why Obama 8217 s immigration plan is legal Hot Air

You got it! The President is duty bound to take care and see that all the laws are followed and enforced. So how can he make an EO saying to do the opposite? He, would, in essence, be breaking the law.

Well I guess that only worries them when a Republican President does it. it's sickening

That bothers me. That tells me some staunch Democrats are partisans before they are Americans. That is not good.

the legal justification is always issued with the order. since the order hasn't been issued, it's tough to pinpoint exactly what's in it, or what the justification will be.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
Video: Democrat rep unable to say why Obama’s immigration plan is legal
posted at 9:01 am on November 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• 188 SHARES

Somebody needs to work on their talking points a bit more. Congressman Peter Welch (D – Vermont) made an appearance on MSNBC to talk to Lawrence O’Donnell this week to discuss the President’s immigration plan. In a rather startling turn of events, Matthews completely failed to stick to the normal script and asked him why a particular section of the plan was even permissible under the law. The results are instructive.

Lawrence O’Donnell: No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the President’s plan which was leaked to the New York Times. the part where it says… that the President will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents. Can you tell me and has the White House told you, what is the legal justification for the President to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?

Congressman Peter Welch: You know, Lawrence, I can’t tell you, and I’m not the lawyer who’s going to be litigating this case. So the answer to that would be decided by the courts as you and I know. But here’s what I can tell you…

L.O.: Congressman, so as far as you know, and I don’t mean to badger about this but I’ve been on this for days now. I haven’t heard from a single elected Democrat, not one Democrat in Washington who can answer the question that I just put to you. Have you heard it Have you heard it answered by any Democrats?

P.W: I haven’t. I haven’t.

The video:





But really. What difference, at this point, does it make? (Sorry, Hillary.) We have to sign the executive action to find out if the executive action is legal. Hey… that sounds like a whole new area of political science and legal theory!

The legal questions surrounding this will probably take a long time to sort out. If the President wants to change immigration policy by ordering ICE to not enforce certain provisions, I’m not sure what anyone can do about it. By oath, the POTUS is supposed to be honor bound to enforce the laws of the United States of America, but there aren’t always resources to enforce every law fully, so the courts are lenient in letting that dodge go by. But creating a new category of immigration documents? That sounds like a legislative action, not an option of the executive. I’d like to see that one go to the courts.

FROM:
Video Democrat rep unable to say why Obama 8217 s immigration plan is legal Hot Air

You got it! The President is duty bound to take care and see that all the laws are followed and enforced. So how can he make an EO saying to do the opposite? He, would, in essence, be breaking the law.

Well I guess that only worries them when a Republican President does it. it's sickening

That bothers me. That tells me some staunch Democrats are partisans before they are Americans. That is not good.

Bothers me too and make's me ill. I'm shocked at how they've changed their tune since obama was elected from when Bush was President. just awful