The President Who Would Be King Changes The Law

[JakeStarkey]

OK, boedicca, that is a great image! Bravo!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

One, it does not defy the law.

Two, Congress is not financing this EO out of taxes.

Obama is on safe sound legally and financially,

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! FDRs gold confiscation?

It was illegal also... As the basis of such fell within FDRs 'war' powers, and if you'll check the calendar, you'll see that the US was not at war... But FDR rejected this and passed other subsequent EOs as a means to buttress his albatross, but the Federal court found the EO invalid, in the first prosecution that came against a citizen.

The Order was destructive to the US Economy, served to produce the precisely opposite effect the nation was assured it would produce and is in large measure counted one of the fundamental reasons that the US economy sustained 15 years of depression, when the average cycle returns the US Economy to significant growth in 2.2 years.

We can see similar 'progress' in the similar policies of the obama-cult, having spent the US Into bankruptcy, set crippling bureaucratic restrictions on the market place, shutting off credit and subsidizing the unemployed.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LOL! FDRs gold confiscation?

It was illegal also... As the basis of such fell within FDRs 'war' powers, and if you'll check the calendar, you'll see that the US was not at war... But FDR rejected this and passed other subsequent EOs, but the Federal court found the EO invalid, in the first prosecution that came against a citizen.

The Order was destructive to the US Economy, served to produce the precisely opposite effect the nation was assured it would produce and is in large measure counted one of the fundamental reasons that the US economy sustained 15 years of depression, when the average cycle returns the US Economy to significant growth in 2.2 years.

We can see similar 'progress' in the similar policies of the obama-cult, having spent the US Into bankruptcy, set crippling bureaucratic restrictions on the market place, shutting off credit and subsidizing the unemployed.

LOL the EO was invalidated because it wasn't signed by the Sec of Treasury, not because it was illegal. EO 6260 and 6261 corrected that and people WERE prosecuted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

Oh? Then how was it done in the past? Why didn't someone sue? How did it happen this time? Why is the GOP allowing this to happen?

Illegal doesn't mean "Keys and dumbo don't like it"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! FDRs gold confiscation?

It was illegal also... As the basis of such fell within FDRs 'war' powers, and if you'll check the calendar, you'll see that the US was not at war... But FDR rejected this and passed other subsequent EOs, but the Federal court found the EO invalid, in the first prosecution that came against a citizen.

The Order was destructive to the US Economy, served to produce the precisely opposite effect the nation was assured it would produce and is in large measure counted one of the fundamental reasons that the US economy sustained 15 years of depression, when the average cycle returns the US Economy to significant growth in 2.2 years.

We can see similar 'progress' in the similar policies of the obama-cult, having spent the US Into bankruptcy, set crippling bureaucratic restrictions on the market place, shutting off credit and subsidizing the unemployed.

LOL the EO was invalidated because it wasn't signed by the Sec of Treasury, not because it was illegal. EO 6260 and 6261 corrected that and people WERE prosecuted.

That it was not signed by the proper legal authority... makes it ILLEGAL.


Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by law.

 

[boedicca]

LOL! FDRs gold confiscation?

It was illegal also... As the basis of such fell within FDRs 'war' powers, and if you'll check the calendar, you'll see that the US was not at war... But FDR rejected this and passed other subsequent EOs, but the Federal court found the EO invalid, in the first prosecution that came against a citizen.

And look what has happened to the value of the dollar since FDR did the Federal Reserve's bidding and

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

According to the Dumberthan POV, if somebody gets away with doing something illegal, we can all do that because there is a precedent!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LOL! FDRs gold confiscation?

It was illegal also... As the basis of such fell within FDRs 'war' powers, and if you'll check the calendar, you'll see that the US was not at war... But FDR rejected this and passed other subsequent EOs, but the Federal court found the EO invalid, in the first prosecution that came against a citizen.

And look what has happened to the value of the dollar since FDR did the Federal Reserve's bidding and

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

According to the Dumberthan POV, if somebody gets away with doing something illegal, we can all do that because there is a precedent!

NO ONE is arguing that EO was a good one you idiot. Only that it was legal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

Oh? Then how was it done in the past? Why didn't someone sue? How did it happen this time? Why is the GOP allowing this to happen?

And why do you 'feel' that 'The GOP is allowing this'?

Media Reports? The US Legislature is presently comprised of a split majority... as such THE GOP has no means to "STOP" it. Therefore, to claim that they can, is absurd. Right?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh, the simpleton didn't like that example? How about this one moron.

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Give me your objections to that example, then I'll provide another example where a POTUS made law with an EO.

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

Oh? Then how was it done in the past? Why didn't someone sue? How did it happen this time? Why is the GOP allowing this to happen?

And why do you 'feel' that 'The GOP is allowing this'?

Media Reports? The US Legislature is presently comprised of a split majority... as such THE GOP has no means to "STOP" it. Therefore, to claim that they can, is absurd. Right?

If it were illegal, they would take him to court.


You are confusing what is legal with what you believe is the best course of action. Much as you somehow believe that gay marriage should be kept illegal simply because you find it yucky. Not because the government has a right to do so.

No different than those chuckle heads who were screaming that Bush didn't have the authority to invade Iraq. Well, of course he certainly did, the fact that they didn't like it doesn't change the fact that he DID have the authority to do so.

 

[Plasmaball]

Anyways if you skip to 27 minutes in he starts to talk about it. The Op is lying as usual. Obama is taking steps on what laws to enforce and what not to. Which every president has done. Furthermore he admits he cant change the law, and calls on Congress to pass a Amnesty type bill.

Context, something the OP is allergic too.

Deciding who goes and who stays is outside of the president's authority. It's a specific power that the constitution grants to Congress alone.

then i guess for the past 50 years the presidents have been wrong..right?

There's no parallel to what Obama's doing. All the Leftwat talking heads drawing comparisons fall through because of fatal divergences.

ok

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

neither do you

 

[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.

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?

Do you even know what "state" means?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

Oh? Then how was it done in the past? Why didn't someone sue? How did it happen this time? Why is the GOP allowing this to happen?

And why do you 'feel' that 'The GOP is allowing this'?

Media Reports? The US Legislature is presently comprised of a split majority... as such THE GOP has no means to "STOP" it. Therefore, to claim that they can, is absurd. Right?

If it were illegal, they would take him to court.


You are confusing what is legal with what you believe is the best course of action.

Who says that they're not taking him to court?

And I'm not confusing anything... You're just pissed that your two examples legitimizing the illegal action were both illegitimate.

The fact is that Obama does not have the authority to import 2 million people into the country, then deem them quasi-citizens, then move to import their relatives into the US... . And that is because those are decisions which effect the people of the United States who he does NOT represent. He represents the LAW of the United States... the Legislature represents the people of the United States. The Chief Executive EXECUTES THE LAW, he doesn't make law.

You're feeling that he does, as important as that may seem to you, does not make it so.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really? FDR as a paragon of respecting the Constitution? As if. He did everything he could to undermine it. You really are an IDIOT.

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

Oh? Then how was it done in the past? Why didn't someone sue? How did it happen this time? Why is the GOP allowing this to happen?

And why do you 'feel' that 'The GOP is allowing this'?

Media Reports? The US Legislature is presently comprised of a split majority... as such THE GOP has no means to "STOP" it. Therefore, to claim that they can, is absurd. Right?

No different than those chuckle heads who were screaming that Bush didn't have the authority to invade Iraq. Well, of course he certainly did, the fact that they didn't like it doesn't change the fact that he DID have the authority to do so.

There's no equity in the two circumstances, Bush had not ONE, but TWO BI-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL APPROVALS to invade Iraq and over-throw its socialist (fascist) government.

And just to be clear, obama could not get bi-artisan approval for a cure for Cancer.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

.Who said anything about respecting the COTUS? And of course that is your opinion anyway, which as we all know doesn't count for much because you are STUPID.

I merely stated that there is precedent for the POTUS issuing an EO that made law, I provided TWO examples, there are others.

LOL! Precedent?

ROFLMNAO!

It's ILLEGAL!

ILLEGAL DOES NOT BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE?

Oh? Then how was it done in the past? Why didn't someone sue? How did it happen this time? Why is the GOP allowing this to happen?

And why do you 'feel' that 'The GOP is allowing this'?

Media Reports? The US Legislature is presently comprised of a split majority... as such THE GOP has no means to "STOP" it. Therefore, to claim that they can, is absurd. Right?

No different than those chuckle heads who were screaming that Bush didn't have the authority to invade Iraq. Well, of course he certainly did, the fact that they didn't like it doesn't change the fact that he DID have the authority to do so.

There's no equity in the two circumstances, Bush had not ONE, but TWO BI-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL APPROVALS to invade Iraq and over-throw its socialist (fascist) government.

no fraid not, Congress voted to approved additional funding, but we had already went into Iraq by that time.