The President Who Would Be King Changes The Law

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Man you're really off your game tonight.

Congress approved the Use of Military Force against Iraq in late 02, the US invaded Iraq in 03.

Its not even debatable.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Man you're really off your game tonight.

Congress approved the Use of Military Force against Iraq in late 02, the US invaded Iraq in 03.

Its not even debatable.

True enough , but we were going in with or without Congressional approval. That is a fact.

Bush just preferred to have that approval.

 

[HenryBHough]

Until the military begins to uphold the constitution rather than the personality cult du jour freedom will continue to erode.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Until the military begins to uphold the constitution rather than the personality cult du jour freedom will continue to erode.

So the Military is not upholding the Constitution?

The problem ya have is that the Military is incapable of making policy decisions, of any kind.

The bigger problem, is that Leftists are elected to make decisions which affects the Military... and without exception, the Military suffers, the Nation suffers and the world suffers.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[TooTall]

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

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

The only moron in this post is Obama. He 'thinks' he changed the law with his EO or more correctly, his Executive Actions, which is illegal. But, it gets applause and cheering from his followers who don't realize he is lying to them.

 

[TooTall]

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.

What law did the EP change?

 

[TooTall]

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.

I think I read that three states are taking Obama to court. And there will probably be a few more in the future.

 

[TooTall]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Man you're really off your game tonight.

Congress approved the Use of Military Force against Iraq in late 02, the US invaded Iraq in 03.

Its not even debatable.

True enough , but we were going in with or without Congressional approval. That is a fact.

Bush just preferred to have that approval.

That is not a fact. That is an opinion.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Man you're really off your game tonight.

Congress approved the Use of Military Force against Iraq in late 02, the US invaded Iraq in 03.

Its not even debatable.

True enough , but we were going in with or without Congressional approval. That is a fact.

Bush just preferred to have that approval.

That is not a fact. That is an opinion.

LOL no it's a fact. major military commands already had their orders before the Congressional vote.

 

[TooTall]

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.

ROFLMNAO! Man you're really off your game tonight.

Congress approved the Use of Military Force against Iraq in late 02, the US invaded Iraq in 03.

Its not even debatable.

True enough , but we were going in with or without Congressional approval. That is a fact.

Bush just preferred to have that approval.

That is not a fact. That is an opinion.

LOL no it's a fact. major military commands already had their orders before the Congressional vote.

They had been given the command to prepare for an invasion, and it is not a fact that they would have been given the command to execute without Congressional approval. Pure speculation on your part.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.