The President Who Would Be King Changes The Law

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

 

[boedicca]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

I don't believe Obama granted amnesty to illegal aliens as a war measure to deal with states that are in a war of secession.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

Actually it was a speech. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment. Apparently even Lincoln's contemporaries believed that the only law making force was Congress.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

I don't believe Obama granted amnesty to illegal aliens as a war measure to deal with states that are in a war of secession.

The why is irrelevant, The only thing that matters is that he is within his powers to do so.

Of course Congress COULD over ride is EO, but that is another matter entirely.

 

[boedicca]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

I don't believe Obama granted amnesty to illegal aliens as a war measure to deal with states that are in a war of secession.

The why is irrelevant, The only thing that matters is that he is within his powers to do so.

Of course Congress COULD over ride is EO, but that is another matter entirely.

Proving once again that you are an idiot who doesn't understand the proper role of the Presidency.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

Actually it was a speech. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment. Apparently even Lincoln's contemporaries believed that the only law making force was Congress.

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order

 

[boedicca]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

Actually it was a speech. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment. Apparently even Lincoln's contemporaries believed that the only law making force was Congress.

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order

Do you even know the history of why it was done? What was the status of the 10 States to which it applied?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Captain Choom realizes he has to admit he changed the law. Prosecutorial discretion may excuse not deporting these invaders, but no way it can justify giving out work permits to illegals.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

Actually it was a speech. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment. Apparently even Lincoln's contemporaries believed that the only law making force was Congress.

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order

Do you even know the history of why it was done? What was the status of the 10 States to which it applied?

LOL Lincoln certainly considered them to be part of the union still. You yourself called them states. If they weren't part of the union dumbshit how could Lincoln have freed anyone?

 

[boedicca]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

Actually it was a speech. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment. Apparently even Lincoln's contemporaries believed that the only law making force was Congress.

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order

Do you even know the history of why it was done? What was the status of the 10 States to which it applied?

LOL Lincoln certainly considered them to be part of the union still. You yourself called them states. If they weren't part of the union dumbshit how could Lincoln have freed anyone?

It was a war measure, you blithering boobie. The 10 states were in a war of secession, that's how Lincoln was able to justify emancipating slaves in those areas. It didn't apply to states that were not part of the rebellion, and it was a use of executive war powers.

So, unless Obama is granting amnesty as a war measure (and not the cultural war he is enaged in, btw), then comparing his action to Lincoln's pins the bogometer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All you morons who failed Civics in High School are now trying to act like you understand how our Federal Government works.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order

And it didn't accomplish anything since it said it only applied to the south which was another country at the time. The only slaves lincoln could have freed are these in the north but the EP never mentioned them.


Yes - there were slaves in the north during the civil war. There were 4 northern states where slavery was legal and practiced!! The CW was NOT about slavery. THINK

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Katzndogz]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

Actually it was a speech. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment. Apparently even Lincoln's contemporaries believed that the only law making force was Congress.

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order

You have been listening to Nancy Pelosi. The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime act that emancipated the slaves in states that were in rebellion and engaged in acts of treason. Slave holding states that were not in rebellion did not have their slaves emancipated.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a military order, advanced by the Commander in Chief.

It literally dealt with the treatment of blacks found in the south, in regard to the policy of Union troops as they advanced throughout the south. Policy which falls directly within the legitimate purvey of Honest Abe, the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ever...

 

[mikegriffith1]

If Obama's illegal edict is allowed to stand and becomes a precedent for future presidents, we will look back on Obama's edict as the beginning of authoritarian, one-man rule in America and as the beginning of the end of constitutional government.

No honest, rational person can deny that under the Constitution the power to change immigration law plainly and clearly belongs to Congress.

Would liberals be making up so many excuses and justifications for Obama's illegal action if he his executive order had sealed the border and mandated the deportation of all illegal aliens?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South was not recognized as a nation by the USA, the French, the British, etc., other than itself.

The CSA's proclamations were best used in the outhouse, because they had no power.

Yes, AL's EO was legal and justified.

We can see the far right gobblers getting ready for their big today tomorrow, getting roasted on the Board.

 

[boedicca]

Well, you know how The Won feels...


SunKingObama by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is a pretty good example of why Obama wants to control the internets: Average Americans can see him Gruberize and out himself as a Lying Liar Who Lies.

He's publicly admitted (bragged) that he Changed The Law regarding immigration.


Isn’t this an admission against interest? Barack Obama has spent the past several days insisting that his changes in enforcement of immigration law and regulation is entirely constitutional, since it doesn’t actually change or conflict with statute. It only took a heckler in a crowd last night to get Obama to brag that he “changed the law” — a process which the supposed Constitutional law scholar would know is impossible without Congress:

“Don’t just start yelling, young ladies,” Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.


“I let you holler,” he said as they continued shouting. “You’ve got to listen to me too.”


Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Just to be clear, executive action — whether through formal EOs or other kinds of directives — cannot “change the law.” They can only act as guidelines on how to act within the law. Any change to statute has to originate in Congress through passage of a bill, and then signed by the President to take effect. This, in fact, is exactly what Republicans have accused Obama of attempting — a change in statute by executive edict, a move that would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. Anyone who has passed a high-school civics class understands that process and that restriction on power.

Nor did this appear to be a simple case of pulling the wrong word. The once-celebrated constitutional scholar actually made the case twice that he had changed the law in response to the heckling. The Hill captured Obama’s continued argument, emphases mine:

“You have been deporting families,” a heckler yelled. The president urged the demonstrator to stop shouting before he fired back.


“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so that’s point No. 1,” Obama said, his words echoing to 1,000 attendees. “Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we’re reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally.”

So yes, Obama thinks he’s changed the law, which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do....

Obama 8220 I just took an action to change the law 8221 Hot Air

WRong

The Emancipation Proclamation changed the law. It was an EO.

As just the most famous example.

I don't believe Obama granted amnesty to illegal aliens as a war measure to deal with states that are in a war of secession.

The why is irrelevant, The only thing that matters is that he is within his powers to do so.

Of course Congress COULD over ride is EO, but that is another matter entirely.

LOL! No he's not... For starters, his policy requires the expenditures of monies which are NOT authorized by guess who.

Secondly, it defies the law, which he is required to enforce.

And it goes on and on into issues that are well beyond your limited intellectual means to navigate.