Posted: 11/20/2014 7:32:58 PM EDT
|
Had a friend pose me this question about the amnesty EOs, figured I'd let GD try and answer it seriously.
"What, if any, legal justification is Obama trying to claim as a basis for him to declare amnesty?" Fo. |
| He is not giving them amnesty per se, but instead telling ICE and other agencies to put people at the bottom of the list giving them de facto amnesty. Since he is empowered to tell the executive branch how to do their job this is fully within his legal right. Whether it is right is a separate question. |
|
Quoted: Had a friend pose me this question about the amnesty EOs, figured I'd let GD try and answer it seriously. "What, if any, legal justification is Obama trying to claim as a basis for him to declare amnesty?" Fo. If Obama was smart, he would sign the same executive order Pres. Bush signed allowing family members of legal residents to remain. <SNICKER>
|
|
Quoted:
If Obama was smart, he would sign the same executive order Pres. Bush signed allowing family members of legal residents to remain. <SNICKER> Quoted:
Quoted:
Had a friend pose me this question about the amnesty EOs, figured I'd let GD try and answer it seriously. "What, if any, legal justification is Obama trying to claim as a basis for him to declare amnesty?" Fo. If Obama was smart, he would sign the same executive order Pres. Bush signed allowing family members of legal residents to remain. <SNICKER> The key word being in bold? |
|
Quoted:
not a given Hispanics in Texas were %47 of the conservative vote. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a clue. I also don't see WHY he's doing it. No benefit for him or the dems at all. not a given Hispanics in Texas were %47 of the conservative vote. When they're told the only way they get their benefits is to vote dem, that will change. |
|
They keep repeating statements to the effect that "the immigration system is broken and we need to fix it." However I have not heard a detailed explanation of exactly WHAT is broken and WHY it needs to be fixed by unconstitutional means  How does offering amnesty to millions of illegals "fix" anything? This is going to create a legal and political shitstorn, it isn't going to fix shit. I guess that's the point...  |
|
Quoted:
He is not giving them amnesty per se, but instead telling ICE and other agencies to put people at the bottom of the list giving them de facto amnesty. Since he is empowered to tell the executive branch how to do their job this is fully within his legal right. Whether it is right is a separate question. Doesnt legal and right blur together in instances such as selective enforcement? Where do you draw the line? |
|
Don't know about the legal justification, by his personal reason is his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He can't stand being told no. His whole life he has been massaged and told what a smart and special fellow he is. Also, his handlers require it. They need to increase the Dem voting base for their end game. |
|
Quoted:
not a given Hispanics in Texas were %47 of the conservative vote. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a clue. I also don't see WHY he's doing it. No benefit for him or the dems at all. not a given Hispanics in Texas were %47 of the conservative vote. I am not a Texasologist, but I think if 53% of a group votes A, and 47% votes B, A is going to win. 
Love their food, music, and women, except the fat ones with the sharpie eyebrows, but bringing in a bunch of Hispanics is going to change the election landscape a shit-ton, and not in conservatives favor. |
|
What, if any , legal justification ???
Tyrants don't need justification for their acts. Legal or otherwise. GD And I believe he is acting out due to the poor reception he received in China recently. Chinese ignored him . Putin ignored him. So, butthurt , he has returned to force his social agenda on the U.S. |
|
Quoted:
Doesnt legal and right blur together in instances such as selective enforcement? Where do you draw the line? Quoted:
Quoted:
He is not giving them amnesty per se, but instead telling ICE and other agencies to put people at the bottom of the list giving them de facto amnesty. Since he is empowered to tell the executive branch how to do their job this is fully within his legal right. Whether it is right is a separate question. Doesnt legal and right blur together in instances such as selective enforcement? Where do you draw the line? You asked an empirical question of what legal authority he has, and empirically what he is doing is within his legal authority, so no it does not blur the lines. Whether he is overreaching or whether what he is doing is right is a normative question that is separate from the empirical question. |
|
Quoted:
You asked an empirical question of what legal authority he has, and empirically what he is doing is within his legal authority, so no it does not blur the lines. Whether he is overreaching or whether what he is doing is right is a normative question that is separate from the empirical question. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is not giving them amnesty per se, but instead telling ICE and other agencies to put people at the bottom of the list giving them de facto amnesty. Since he is empowered to tell the executive branch how to do their job this is fully within his legal right. Whether it is right is a separate question. Doesnt legal and right blur together in instances such as selective enforcement? Where do you draw the line? You asked an empirical question of what legal authority he has, and empirically what he is doing is within his legal authority, so no it does not blur the lines. Whether he is overreaching or whether what he is doing is right is a normative question that is separate from the empirical question. I get it. But like i said, where do you draw the line? Legally does he have the authority to tell branches under his control to stop prosecuting murders of conservatives perpetrated by libs for example? |
|
Quoted:
Had a friend pose me this question about the amnesty EOs, figured I'd let GD try and answer it seriously. "What, if any, legal justification is Obama trying to claim as a basis for him to declare amnesty?" Fo. He has no legal justification. He's trying to get the dems 11 million more voters |
|
Quoted:
I thought you had to be convicted before POTUS can pardon you Quoted:
Quoted:
I still think he will use the constitutional Presidential Pardon,. Legal, not reviewable, not overturnable. Ford gave a pardon to Nixon in advance of any charges. |
|
Quoted:
I get it. But like i said, where do you draw the line? Legally does he have the authority to tell branches under his control to stop prosecuting murders of conservatives perpetrated by libs for example? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is not giving them amnesty per se, but instead telling ICE and other agencies to put people at the bottom of the list giving them de facto amnesty. Since he is empowered to tell the executive branch how to do their job this is fully within his legal right. Whether it is right is a separate question. Doesnt legal and right blur together in instances such as selective enforcement? Where do you draw the line? You asked an empirical question of what legal authority he has, and empirically what he is doing is within his legal authority, so no it does not blur the lines. Whether he is overreaching or whether what he is doing is right is a normative question that is separate from the empirical question. I get it. But like i said, where do you draw the line? Legally does he have the authority to tell branches under his control to stop prosecuting murders of conservatives perpetrated by libs for example? Since those crimes are usually under the jurisdiction of local governments then he would not the power to do that. If he directed the federal courts from doing such a thing then he would be in violation of the 14th amendment and that would not be legal. |
|
Quoted:
Since those crimes are usually under the jurisdiction of local governments then he would not the power to do that. If he directed the federal courts from doing such a thing then he would be in violation of the 14th amendment and that would not be legal. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is not giving them amnesty per se, but instead telling ICE and other agencies to put people at the bottom of the list giving them de facto amnesty. Since he is empowered to tell the executive branch how to do their job this is fully within his legal right. Whether it is right is a separate question. Doesnt legal and right blur together in instances such as selective enforcement? Where do you draw the line? You asked an empirical question of what legal authority he has, and empirically what he is doing is within his legal authority, so no it does not blur the lines. Whether he is overreaching or whether what he is doing is right is a normative question that is separate from the empirical question. I get it. But like i said, where do you draw the line? Legally does he have the authority to tell branches under his control to stop prosecuting murders of conservatives perpetrated by libs for example? Since those crimes are usually under the jurisdiction of local governments then he would not the power to do that. If he directed the federal courts from doing such a thing then he would be in violation of the 14th amendment and that would not be legal. So ideally, states would enact laws similar to what the federal has involving immigration in order to make the EO null? |
|
The only cool thing about all this is those same libs and racist (black) voters will be the ones who get fucked the most by legalising 35 million (real number) illegals. Hispanics have voted overwhelmingly against gay issues when on the ballots. Gays just got fucked. Hispanics now become the number one "race victim", number one minority. Blacks step aside. Many black districts will soon have Hispanic representation. Remember Rangle damn near lost his seat last time to an Hispanic. I think its safe to say too that he just fucked Hillary's chances to be the first woman president (or any Dem) in the next election as well. So yeah he threw his presidential tantrum and fucked not only his "enemies", but his allies as well. |
|
Quoted:
So ideally, states would enact laws similar to what the federal has involving immigration in order to make the EO null? No, that is not really an option. The federal government has purview over immigration and the states cannot create contradictory laws. The states can sue the federal government, but from what I read they really do not have a legal case to make. The only way to circumvent the president's plan is to either create legislation that overrides it, or to take away the funding the executive order requires. |
|
Quoted:
They keep repeating statements to the effect that "the immigration system is broken and we need to fix it." However I have not heard a detailed explanation of exactly WHAT is broken and WHY it needs to be fixed by unconstitutional means
How does offering amnesty to millions of illegals "fix" anything? This is going to create a legal and political shitstorn, it isn't going to fix shit. I guess that's the point... Not enough of us are signing up for the free shit. They need more people on the tit to help bring it all down. You know, "the whole collapse it from within thing". |
|
Quoted:
No, that is not really an option. The federal government has purview over immigration and the states cannot create contradictory laws. The states can sue the federal government, but from what I read they really do not have a legal case to make. The only way to circumvent the president's plan is to either create legislation that overrides it, or to take away the funding the executive order requires. Quoted:
Quoted:
So ideally, states would enact laws similar to what the federal has involving immigration in order to make the EO null? No, that is not really an option. The federal government has purview over immigration and the states cannot create contradictory laws. The states can sue the federal government, but from what I read they really do not have a legal case to make. The only way to circumvent the president's plan is to either create legislation that overrides it, or to take away the funding the executive order requires. I did some reading. While it may be legal, it may also be unconstitutional. |
