Obama....'recess appointments'...and GOP tactics

[bripat9643]

It isn't the slightest bit moronic. Lynch has said she would uphold Obama's unconstitutional actions with respect to immigration. In other words, she's going to assist Obama in trashing the Constitution.

It is rather easy to refute your numbskulls assertion.....As you can see, republican presidents have done what you (as an imbecile) call "unconstitutional".......Of course, you're correct that Obama is half black, so you must conclude that what he did was unconstitutional.

(BTW, Obama has often said to congress, "pass your own immigration bill and NO executive order will be needed..." but we all know that the tea baggers can easily extort elected republicans)

It has always been legal to allow political refugees to immigrate, and Reagan's amnesty was the result of a bill approved by Congress. So your pic is irrelevant horseshit.

 

[nat4900]

t has always been legal to allow political refugees to immigrate, and Reagan's amnesty was the result of a bill approved by Congress. So your pic is irrelevant horseshit.

Narrow minded and inane response...Reagan DID have a congress of sane dems and reps.....and that is how he was able to get congress to cooperate......Obama has a congress of hate filled, self-serving do-nothing, dingbats.

 

[bripat9643]

t has always been legal to allow political refugees to immigrate, and Reagan's amnesty was the result of a bill approved by Congress. So your pic is irrelevant horseshit.

Narrow minded and inane response...Reagan DID have a congress of sane dems and reps.....and that is how he was able to get congress to cooperate......Obama has a congress of hate filled, self-serving do-nothing, dingbats.

So you admit Reagan didn't use an EO to change the law.

You lose.

 

[rightwinger]

Declining to bring up Lynch's nomination for a vote has nothing to do with hating Obama. It has to do with stopping his assault on the Constitution.

Trough shit if you don't like it.

Sooooo, nominating Lynch is....according to your own sick and demented conclusion, "an assault on the Constitution."

If you had only a few more brain cells, you too would realize what a moronic statement that is.......But, somewhat humorous and certainly telling.....Thank you.

It isn't the slightest bit moronic. Lynch has said she would uphold Obama's unconstitutional actions with respect to immigration. In other word, she's going to assist Obama in trashing the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution restricting executive orders

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

 

[nat4900]

So you admit Reagan didn't use an EO to change the law.

You lose.

Pitiful, stupid poster..........


Reagan's Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens
September 29, 1981

Share on facebook Share on myspace Share on google Share on twitter Share on favorites

The American Presidency Project
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including Sections 212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1)), in view of the continuing problem of migrants coming to the United States, by sea, without necessary entry documents, and in order to carry out the suspension and interdiction of such entry which have concurrently been proclaimed, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The Secretary of State shall undertake to enter into, on behalf of the United States, cooperative arrangements with appropriate foreign governments for the purpose of preventing illegal migration to the United States by sea.
Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue appropriate instructions to the Coast Guard in order to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens and the interdiction of any defined vessel carrying such aliens.
(b) Those instructions shall apply to any of the following defined vessels:
(1) Vessels of the United States, meaning any vessel documented under the laws of the United States, or numbered as provided by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), or owned in whole or in part by the United States, a citizen of the United States, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States or any State, Territory, District, Commonwealth, or possession thereof, unless the vessel has been granted nationality by a foreign nation in accord with Article 5 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).
(2) Vessels without nationality or vessels assimilated to vessels without nationality in accordance with paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).
(3) Vessels of foreign nations with whom we have arrangements authorizing the United States to stop and board such vessels.
(c) Those instructions to the Coast Guard shall include appropriate directives providing for the Coast Guard:
(1) To stop and board defined vessels, when there is reason to believe that such vessels are engaged in the irregular transportation of persons or violations of United States law or the law of a country with which the United States has an arrangement authorizing such action.
(2) To make inquiries of those on board, examine documents and take such actions as are necessary to establish the registry, condition and destination of the vessel and the status of those on board the vessel.
(3) To return the vessel and its passengers to the country from which it came, when there is reason to believe that an offense is being committed against the United States immigration laws, or appropriate laws of a foreign country with which we have an arrangement to assist; provided, however, that no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent.
(d) These actions, pursuant to this Section, are authorized to be undertaken only outside the territorial waters of the United States.
Sec. 3. The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the fair enforcement of our laws relating to immigration (including effective implementation of this Executive Order) and the strict observance of our international obligations concerning those who genuinely flee persecution in their homeland.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
September 29, 1981.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:38 a.m., September 30, 1981]

 

[Antares]

Declining to bring up Lynch's nomination for a vote has nothing to do with hating Obama. It has to do with stopping his assault on the Constitution.

Trough shit if you don't like it.

Sooooo, nominating Lynch is....according to your own sick and demented conclusion, "an assault on the Constitution."

If you had only a few more brain cells, you too would realize what a moronic statement that is.......But, somewhat humorous and certainly telling.....Thank you.

It isn't the slightest bit moronic. Lynch has said she would uphold Obama's unconstitutional actions with respect to immigration. In other word, she's going to assist Obama in trashing the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution restricting executive orders

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

 

[bripat9643]

So you admit Reagan didn't use an EO to change the law.

You lose.

Pitiful, stupid poster..........


Reagan's Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens
September 29, 1981

Share on facebook Share on myspace Share on google Share on twitter Share on favorites

The American Presidency Project
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including Sections 212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1)), in view of the continuing problem of migrants coming to the United States, by sea, without necessary entry documents, and in order to carry out the suspension and interdiction of such entry which have concurrently been proclaimed, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The Secretary of State shall undertake to enter into, on behalf of the United States, cooperative arrangements with appropriate foreign governments for the purpose of preventing illegal migration to the United States by sea.
Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue appropriate instructions to the Coast Guard in order to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens and the interdiction of any defined vessel carrying such aliens.
(b) Those instructions shall apply to any of the following defined vessels:
(1) Vessels of the United States, meaning any vessel documented under the laws of the United States, or numbered as provided by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), or owned in whole or in part by the United States, a citizen of the United States, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States or any State, Territory, District, Commonwealth, or possession thereof, unless the vessel has been granted nationality by a foreign nation in accord with Article 5 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).
(2) Vessels without nationality or vessels assimilated to vessels without nationality in accordance with paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the Convention on the High Seas of 1958 (U.S. TIAS 5200; 13 UST 2312).
(3) Vessels of foreign nations with whom we have arrangements authorizing the United States to stop and board such vessels.
(c) Those instructions to the Coast Guard shall include appropriate directives providing for the Coast Guard:
(1) To stop and board defined vessels, when there is reason to believe that such vessels are engaged in the irregular transportation of persons or violations of United States law or the law of a country with which the United States has an arrangement authorizing such action.
(2) To make inquiries of those on board, examine documents and take such actions as are necessary to establish the registry, condition and destination of the vessel and the status of those on board the vessel.
(3) To return the vessel and its passengers to the country from which it came, when there is reason to believe that an offense is being committed against the United States immigration laws, or appropriate laws of a foreign country with which we have an arrangement to assist; provided, however, that no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent.
(d) These actions, pursuant to this Section, are authorized to be undertaken only outside the territorial waters of the United States.
Sec. 3. The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the fair enforcement of our laws relating to immigration (including effective implementation of this Executive Order) and the strict observance of our international obligations concerning those who genuinely flee persecution in their homeland.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
September 29, 1981.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:38 a.m., September 30, 1981]

What do you imagine that proves? It looks to me like Reagan is taking steps to enforce our immigration laws.

 

[nat4900]

From an The Hill article.....

Other recent precedents have been part of the contemporary debate. In 1985, during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, Congress passed a reform bill that shielded some 3 million immigrants from deportation. The bill, however, did not include family members and Reagan responded to this flaw by halting the deportation of their children without waiting for Congress to act. In fact, Congress failed to act during his tenure and Reagan's Republican successor, George H. W. Bush, acted unilaterally to protect families from breakup through deportation. Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican President George W. Bush also used presidential powers to make policy on immigration.

In none of these many examples did the opposition party raise sweeping objections comparable to those of today's Republicans in challenging the authority of the president to act broadly in interpreting, implementing and administering immigration policy.

Republicans' procedural and constitutional objections to Obama's executive order are a smokescreen for opposition to the substance of the policy. Republicans have also made clear their intent to paste every possible defeat on President Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

Sooooo, nominating Lynch is....according to your own sick and demented conclusion, "an assault on the Constitution."

If you had only a few more brain cells, you too would realize what a moronic statement that is.......But, somewhat humorous and certainly telling.....Thank you.

It isn't the slightest bit moronic. Lynch has said she would uphold Obama's unconstitutional actions with respect to immigration. In other word, she's going to assist Obama in trashing the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution restricting executive orders

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

 

[bripat9643]

It isn't the slightest bit moronic. Lynch has said she would uphold Obama's unconstitutional actions with respect to immigration. In other word, she's going to assist Obama in trashing the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution restricting executive orders

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

 

[nat4900]

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Go to bed, hug your teddy bear and have tons of sweet dreams about convictions...maybe THAT will help your hatred.

(that avatar of yours reminds me of you personally...but maybe you're a bit younger.)

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing in the Constitution restricting executive orders

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Fingerboy

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

The court gets the final say on what is constitutional.......not anarchists on a message board

 

[bripat9643]

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Go to bed, hug your teddy bear and have tons of sweet dreams about convictions...maybe THAT will help your hatred.

(that avatar of yours reminds me of you personally...but maybe you're a bit younger.)

That's right, run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy.

 

[Antares]

It isn't the slightest bit moronic. Lynch has said she would uphold Obama's unconstitutional actions with respect to immigration. In other word, she's going to assist Obama in trashing the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution restricting executive orders

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

Ummmm no.

Faulty logic.

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Fingerboy

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

The court gets the final say on what is constitutional.......not anarchists on a message board

Too funny, Anarchy rules on the Left and their President Obambi.

 

[bripat9643]

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Fingerboy

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

The court gets the final say on what is constitutional.......not anarchists on a message board

As you have already admitted, the court is not infallible, which means it doesn't have the final say on the facts.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing in the Constitution restricting executive orders

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

Ummmm no.

Faulty logic.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Fingerboy

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

The court gets the final say on what is constitutional.......not anarchists on a message board

Too funny, Anarchy rules on the Left and their President Obambi.

What do you think the process is for declaring an executive action unconstitutional?

Whining on a message board?

 

[Antares]

Except that they cannot be Un Constitutional in nature.

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

Ummmm no.

Faulty logic.

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Fingerboy

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

The court gets the final say on what is constitutional.......not anarchists on a message board

Too funny, Anarchy rules on the Left and their President Obambi.

What do you think the process is for declaring an executive action unconstitutional?

Whining on a message board?

Kid you wouldn't care if Obama was caught giving Israeli State Secrets to the Arabs....oh wait he already did that.

 

[The Rabbi]

And how do you prove them unconstitutional?

It has to be taken to Court.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

Ummmm no.

Faulty logic.

And until the court rules otherwise, his executive actions are constitutional

So until he's convicted, the robber didn't hold up the liquor store?

Fingerboy

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

The court gets the final say on what is constitutional.......not anarchists on a message board

Too funny, Anarchy rules on the Left and their President Obambi.

What do you think the process is for declaring an executive action unconstitutional?

Whining on a message board?

Kid you wouldn't care if Obama was caught giving Israeli State Secrets to the Arabs....oh wait he already did that.

In Nutjobber's world there are Republicans and Not Republicans. Since he thinks the Republicans somehow screwed him over he supports the Not Republicans. Doesnt really matter who they are, as long as they are Not Republicans.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes at all costs. That's why they were elected.

You don't expect to pass a Republican agenda....only block Obama

We can't pass a Republican agenda with Asshat in the big chair.

Of course you can
it has been done for 200 years

All it takes is something called bipartisanship. Give a little to get a little. Find a middle ground

What has Obama given?
What has Harry Reid given?
Nothing. Zero. Zilch. My way or the highway.

What has Obama given?

Extended the Bush tax cuts
Increased the threshold from $250,000 to $400,000
Provided tax cuts for 40% of the stimulus

Look Republicans ........you have been able to stop some of what Obama is trying to do at the cost of gaining nothing that Republicans want to do

They could have gotten Keystone if they weren't such dicks about it

You literally state that the republicans have not been able to get anything whatsoever and then list a few things that are supposed to be examples of where Obama 'gave' republicans what they wanted.

Cognitive dissonance in in a singe sentence - fucking amazing.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't expect to pass a Republican agenda....only block Obama

We can't pass a Republican agenda with Asshat in the big chair.

Of course you can
it has been done for 200 years

All it takes is something called bipartisanship. Give a little to get a little. Find a middle ground

What has Obama given?
What has Harry Reid given?
Nothing. Zero. Zilch. My way or the highway.

What has Obama given?

Extended the Bush tax cuts
Increased the threshold from $250,000 to $400,000
Provided tax cuts for 40% of the stimulus

Look Republicans ........you have been able to stop some of what Obama is trying to do at the cost of gaining nothing that Republicans want to do

They could have gotten Keystone if they weren't such dicks about it

You literally state that the republicans have not been able to get anything whatsoever and then list a few things that are supposed to be examples of where Obama 'gave' republicans what they wanted.

Cognitive dissonance in in a singe sentence - fucking amazing.

Let Nutjobber talk long enough and he'll hang himself. Every time.