Texas Gov. Greg Abbott: ‘Federal Judge Just Granted My Request to Halt Obama’s Executive Amnesty

[JakeStarkey]

Washington made the first executive order in 1789. There is not question whatsoever, even though you know how to cut and paste the Constitution, about that. The EO is legal, and the GOP wisely did not entwine the HSA and EO together until it strangled its effectiveness to govern. He is your president, this is your law, and that remains so until Obama leaves office and Congress can pass a law overturning ACA and the EO.

 

[Geaux4it]

Washington made the first executive order in 1789. There is not question whatsoever, even though you know how to cut and paste the Constitution, about that. The EO is legal, and the GOP wisely did not entwine the HSA and EO together until it strangled its effectiveness to govern. He is your president, this is your law, and that remains so until Obama leaves office and Congress can pass a law overturning ACA and the EO.

We should expedite his departure by all legal means.

I just wish he were more white than black because if he were, Biden would be POTUS by now

-Geaux

 

[JakeStarkey]

Washington made the first executive order in 1789. There is not question whatsoever, even though you know how to cut and paste the Constitution, about that. The EO is legal, and the GOP wisely did not entwine the HSA and EO together until it strangled its effectiveness to govern. He is your president, this is your law, and that remains so until Obama leaves office and Congress can pass a law overturning ACA and the EO.

We should expedite his departure by all legal means. I just wish he were more white than black because if he were, Biden would be POTUS by now -Geaux

He will be gone in a little less than 23 months.

 

[James Everett]

Washington made the first executive order in 1789. There is not question whatsoever, even though you know how to cut and paste the Constitution, about that. The EO is legal, and the GOP wisely did not entwine the HSA and EO together until it strangled its effectiveness to govern. He is your president, this is your law, and that remains so until Obama leaves office and Congress can pass a law overturning ACA and the EO.

Well Mr. STARKEY, I notice that you are unable to cite where in YOUR U.S. CONstitution that the POTUS is granted the power to legislate by decree. The reason is that NO SUCH POWER EXISTS BEYOND THAT OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO THE POTUS IN ARTICLE II. You cite George Washington's usurpation of the power vested in the POTUS on April 22, 1793, yet the first violation is by no means a vindication of all others, it only shows that George Washington was the first to commit this criminal act. One cannot justify an illegal act simply because someone else has committed such.
Your current President is of no concern to me, he is just the latest in a long line of visible festering boils that are the result of the underlying cancer that is YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. The Articles of Confederation were the only legal constitution for these united States, and the only true document that established a union of States rather than a consolidation of them.
Now please Mr. STARKEY do continue on with your research so that you may cite for us this power under YOUR U.S. CONstitution wherein YOUR POTUS is granted the power to legislate by decree/EXECUTIVE ORDER. Also in adition please do tell where that POWER ends:
Could YOUR POTUS be it Obama, or some future Executive decree that he is King of YOUR Country by "Executive order?
Could he by decree/executive order dismiss the congress?
Could he reinstate the enslavement of the Black man via "executive order"?
Could he by decree/executive order order that all "Homosexuals" be executed?
Now Mr. STARKEY, once you have cited wherein this fictional power (Executive order) exists within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, then you may show the limits thereof.
No, Mr. Starkey, I think you, like most all other fools in YOUR fictional world, accept these fictions in a blind attempt to justify the illegal acts committed by those within YOUR government because you cling blindly to the Democrat v Republican game: be you Democrat of Republican, you are willing toi justify any illegal act to support whichever party you cling to in this blind loyalty,

 

[James Everett]

Washington made the first executive order in 1789. There is not question whatsoever, even though you know how to cut and paste the Constitution, about that. The EO is legal, and the GOP wisely did not entwine the HSA and EO together until it strangled its effectiveness to govern. He is your president, this is your law, and that remains so until Obama leaves office and Congress can pass a law overturning ACA and the EO.

We should expedite his departure by all legal means. I just wish he were more white than black because if he were, Biden would be POTUS by now -Geaux

He will be gone in a little less than 23 months.

Yes, OBAMA will be gone in twenty three months unless he decrees via this fictional power of this "executive order" that he will remain YOUR President indefinitely, after all he does have the unlimited power in YOUR fictional world to legislate such via "Executive order": Right? If OBAMA leaves office, he will be replaced with a new visible festering boil (possibly Republican) but the underlying cancer remains, rotting away liberty from beneath the surface. Just as any Football game, the players are replaced by new players yet the game remains the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you say he claims unlimited executive power, which is nonsense, and you certainly can't show that the immigration EO is not legal.

You don't like him. Tough to be you.

 

[James Everett]

Only you say he claims unlimited executive power, which is nonsense, and you certainly can't show that the immigration EO is not legal.

You don't like him. Tough to be you.

I did NOT say that your current POTUS claims unlimited POWER, I stated that there is NO such power granted by YOUR U.S. CONstitution to any POTUS to legislate via "Executive order". I am indifferent to your current POTUS just as I have been to all of YOUR past POTUS. You simply cannot put law into context because of your blind belief in fiction, and your party loyalty..

 

[James Everett]

Only you say he claims unlimited executive power, which is nonsense, and you certainly can't show that the immigration EO is not legal.

You don't like him. Tough to be you.

Mr. STARKEY, I still await your citation of the power of the "Executive order" that was granted YOUR POTUS within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. You state that...."The EO is legal", yet if an act perpetrated by one of YOUR government officials is unconstitutional, then it is an unlawful and illegal act.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't care if you are waiting for a bus.

Your opinion does not matter in and of itself. You have to offer evidence is illegal, and saying, "look at the original Constitution" is only the beginning of YOUR affirmative duty. Give us a history of the Executive Order and then from those examples and from the law, conclude your point with emphasis.

Your disagreement, once again, is meaningless.

 

[James Everett]

I don't care if you are waiting for a bus.

Your opinion does not matter in and of itself. You have to offer evidence is illegal, and saying, "look at the original Constitution" is only the beginning of YOUR affirmative duty. Give us a history of the Executive Order and then from those examples and from the law, conclude your point with emphasis.

Your disagreement, once again, is meaningless.

Mr. STARKEY,
Your request that I give evidence that the so called EO is unlawful and illegal is a simple request to fulfill.....
YOUR 1787/1789 U.S.CONstitution Article VI, Section 2, is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that YOUR "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
YOUR U.S. CONstitution establishes the law under which YOUR government is to function, it establishes that government.
James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53

6 Feb. 1788

To what expedient then shall we finally resort for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.
Note here Mr. Starkey.....
"by so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."
So we see that the structure was established to keep each department in their proper palce. This is known as....
"The separation of powers"
This separation of powers is established by YOUR U.S. CONstitution which is the supreme law of the land within the enumerated powers granted to it by the State governments which established that law/constitution.
What are the powers of the CONGRESS?
Let us take a look....
Article I
Article I describes the design of the legislative branch of US Government -- the Congress. Important ideas include the separation of powers between branches of government (checks and balances), the election of Senators and Representatives, the process by which laws are made, and the powers that Congress has.
Article I section I states......
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Note here Mr. STARKEY that there is NO INCLUSION of YOUR POTUS in this Article and section, meaning that the legislative authority resides NOT IN THE POTUS, NOT IN THE JUDICIARY, BUT RATHER RESIDES IN THE CONGRESS ALONE.
This Mr. STARKEY is THE LAW.
Now we see where the separation of powers grants the power to legislate to YOUR Congress, now please do show where such power is delegated to the POTUS to legislate via decree/Executive order.
As for past "Executive orders" or the history thereof? I can give you a list of past murders committed by various murderers, yet that does not justify future or present murders, nor does it make murder legal, simply because others have committed the crime. The EO is a crime, no matter who, or how many have perpetrated that particular crime.