Obama will go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time

What the southbound end of a northbound ass doesn't understand is that when Harry Truman left office he was one of the least possible presidents of all time. Now he is in the top ten.
When G. W. Bush left office, he was near the bottom but now he is rising steadily.

Anytime the so-called historians make these pronouncements they are generally wrong. So if Obama is near the top then he will end up near the bottom...where he belongs.

according to liberal and /or government math(same thing most likely):

if we all quit working and/or looking for work the unemployment rate would be zero-we will have achieved real full employment

food stamps and obamacare subsidies help build the economy

and Bernie after winning 7 primary elections in a row has fallen further behind in the delegate count Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The Constitution sets out the duties and responsibilities of each branch of government. Immigration is the responsibility of the Congress, not the president. Any executive order issued by Obama would be unconsitutional.
Tax policy must originate in the House.
Any executive order issued by Obama would be unconstitutional.
International treaties must be approved by the Senate.
Any substancial change to a treaty without Senate approval is unconsitutional.
Executive order 13510 changes the principals of a treaty with Belarus without Senate approval.
And some....well, some are just plain silly.

Since you are so knowledgable, I'll let you review your little list provided by the White House....what? You didn't think I'd understand that this is just a distraction probably cooked up in the basement of the White House. So what is old Barry going to do next to piss off and damage the country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

so eatfido .. still claim this is true?

"Well, even the states bringing the case against the Obama for this order disagree and understand that the president does have broad authority over immigration."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas

On the same day, the Court issued a separate order criticizing the federal government for granting three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the announcement of DAPA and the preliminary injunction,[11][12] despite earlier statements made to the court by the Department of Justice that no action would be taken on these applications.[13] The Court reserved the right to impose sanctions against the federal government's counsel for misrepresenting facts.[14]

Texas and the States that joined Texas V United States are in agreement, not disagreement on who sets immigration policy and it's NOT the President. the whole purpose of the case is to re-affirm the President cannot act unilaterally on immigration and bypass Congress.

http://www.americanbar.org/publicati...n-policy-.html

read this article and find me one mention of the President's role in setting immigration policy. just find me one. it's not there.

at the State level, attempts of the States to pass laws that contradict federal laws and regulations .. interestingly even state laws that appear to be complimentary to federal laws and regulations .. have been ruled unconstitutional.

[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field [of immi*gration], has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or comple*ment, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulation.

The lesson here was clear: the reg*ulation of immigration was a matter for the federal government. Any efforts to regulate immigrants where Congress had regulated—even complementary efforts—were unconstitutional.


now still want to look stupid and claim the Executive branch controls immigration policy? you realize that Obama himself has stated he does not have the authority to do this .. yet he did it anyway .. under the ridiculous premise he had to, because Congress would not act. No, they wouldn't act because they didn't want to do what Obama wanted. that doesn't give Obama the power to act, it just means Congress didn't agree with him. i'd bet a lot of Congress actually does agree with Obama and they'd love to grant 10s of thousands .. if not millions .. status. but right now it's political suicide for Congress to take that stance. and they know it. regardless, it's clearly the role of Congress and not the executive branch.

as usual we've disproved what you claim eatfido .. good luck trying to prove your point. show me something that claims what you say. i've shown you something that proves you wrong .. ball's in your court now.

The Constitution sets out the duties and responsibilities of each branch of government. Immigration is the responsibility of the Congress, not the president. Any executive order issued by Obama would be unconsitutional.
Tax policy must originate in the House.
Any executive order issued by Obama would be unconstitutional.
International treaties must be approved by the Senate.
Any substancial change to a treaty without Senate approval is unconsitutional.
Executive order 13510 changes the principals of a treaty with Belarus without Senate approval.
And some....well, some are just plain silly.

Since you are so knowledgable, I'll let you review your little list provided by the White House....what? You didn't think I'd understand that this is just a distraction probably cooked up in the basement of the White House. So what is old Barry going to do next to piss off and damage the country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

While what you say sounds good, especially to the "I Hate Obama" crowd (and while I agree with much of the displeasure with many of his executive orders), there is a major problem with much of what you imply but do not say: bureaucracy since ancient Chinese times is always about interpretation of intent and balancing it with realities of budgets, etc.

You argue that Obama has gone outside the proper bounds of execution. The executive branch argues they have not. A lot of precedents actually support their view on some of them (for example, not enforcing some of the immigration laws because of resources--that game has been played since Adams-1). Laws are typically an abomination of directness, clarity, and real logical construction--they are filled with ambiguity, sloppy wording, and loop-holes both intentional and not. The founding fathers understood that and accounted for it in the establishment of the Supreme Court (remember that topic and why a full complement of justices is needed?) Trouble is, the RWWs in particular want to argue for a strict interpretation of the constitution and of laws, but the damn laws are typically badly written.

So please focus of the real problem: legislative competence. Look at both the ACA and the Patriot Act. Two complete pieces of shit that were raced through with no intelligent application of thought, logical disconnects/contradictions, and gaping holes. NO president could actually administer either of those (and sadly most other pieces of legislation are no better written regardless of what you think of the subject matter). Actual experts pointed out numerous SERIOUS issues with the Patriot Act in time for it to be corrected, but logic and running the country be damned, it was passed with damn near all those sucking chest wounds intact.

Essentially every treaty has wording that allows flexibility in applying it.

Every law adds unfunded tasks--and often cuts budgets and manpower at the same time--creating an impossible to execute set of requirements that the executive branch needs to triage and some get ignored.

Again, I agree with much of what you want to have accomplished, but ranting against EOs as the way to get work done is more stupid than not. Unless you like the FAR as an example of well written, easy to follow, easy to administer legislation. THAT is what you need if you want to truly shrink EOs, and the price will be legislated-in waste on a scale you probably can't imagine.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Top Ten Post of All Time!!

While what you say sounds good, especially to the "I Hate Obama" crowd (and while I agree with much of the displeasure with many of his executive orders), there is a major problem with much of what you imply but do not say: bureaucracy since ancient Chinese times is always about interpretation of intent and balancing it with realities of budgets, etc.

You argue that Obama has gone outside the proper bounds of execution. The executive branch argues they have not. A lot of precedents actually support their view on some of them (for example, not enforcing some of the immigration laws because of resources--that game has been played since Adams-1). Laws are typically an abomination of directness, clarity, and real logical construction--they are filled with ambiguity, sloppy wording, and loop-holes both intentional and not. The founding fathers understood that and accounted for it in the establishment of the Supreme Court (remember that topic and why a full complement of justices is needed?) Trouble is, the RWWs in particular want to argue for a strict interpretation of the constitution and of laws, but the damn laws are typically badly written.

So please focus of the real problem: legislative competence. Look at both the ACA and the Patriot Act. Two complete pieces of shit that were raced through with no intelligent application of thought, logical disconnects/contradictions, and gaping holes. NO president could actually administer either of those (and sadly most other pieces of legislation are no better written regardless of what you think of the subject matter). Actual experts pointed out numerous SERIOUS issues with the Patriot Act in time for it to be corrected, but logic and running the country be damned, it was passed with damn near all those sucking chest wounds intact.

Essentially every treaty has wording that allows flexibility in applying it.

Every law adds unfunded tasks--and often cuts budgets and manpower at the same time--creating an impossible to execute set of requirements that the executive branch needs to triage and some get ignored.

Again, I agree with much of what you want to have accomplished, but ranting against EOs as the way to get work done is more stupid than not. Unless you like the FAR as an example of well written, easy to follow, easy to administer legislation. THAT is what you need if you want to truly shrink EOs, and the price will be legislated-in waste on a scale you probably can't imagine. Originally Posted by Old-T

Some things are not open to interpretation like immigration law is the job of the congress and tax law is the job of the house. It is not a matter of how you fudge the meanings but who has the balls to enforce the rules. Imagine a sporting event where the referee makes their rulings based on the crowd reactions. The other team is intimidated into not saying anything about it.

Some things are not open to interpretation like immigration law is the job of the congress and tax law is the job of the house. It is not a matter of how you fudge the meanings but who has the balls to enforce the rules. Imagine a sporting event where the referee makes their rulings based on the crowd reactions. The other team is intimidated into not saying anything about it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are correct WRT making the immigration laws. But let's take a simplified example:
--Congress passes a law saying all immigrants have to be put into quarantine for 180 days because of fear of the Zika virus.
--Estimated workload to do so is, let's say, 2,000 TSA agents and $10M annually.
--Congress attaches no new money or manpower authorizations in the budget.
--The executive branch now needs to decide how to not do 2,000 FTE of labor & $10M of work that it doesn't legally have.
--Part of the approach might be to stop doing other statutory things, or it may be a conscious decision--via EO--to not quarantine Icelandic citizens who have been in Iceland, a Zika-free area, for the past 9-days.

That is not changing the law, that is a judgement call about where to best accept risk with limited resources.

We do it all the time. Every administration does it. Until every piece of legislation is well defined and comes with the cost of implementation (or offsets on what not to do) then the next administration will face the same thing.

In your sports example, when an umpire gets injured and they have to proceed with 3 instead of 4, they position themselves differently--but in doing so they accept the risk that they will get some calls wrong that they would likely have gotten right with a full complement. That is the practical reality of implementation, not changing the rules of the game.

Repeal the 17th Amendment and watch unfounded mandates fade into oblivion, where the belong.

Repeal the 17th Amendment and watch unfounded mandates fade into oblivion, where the belong. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

classic example of unequal representation .. ECC ANONYMOUS does not approve



Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii

The Purpose of the Senate was to give the states a voice in national policies. Since that's been removed the sates have lost almost all of their power while popularly elected Senators raid the treasury to buy votes with the people's own money. This was part of the unholy Trinity unleashed against freedom in 1913. The other two were, of course, the FED and the income tax. Freedom was mortally wounded in 1913. It's on artificial life support now, but more and more Democrats and Republicans are ready to pull the plug. Freedom will be officially dead in ten years, if not sooner, unless we run the Democrats and Republicans out of office. That won't happen. Welcome to Amerika.

Obama's legacy will be scarred if Obamacare collapses:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ful-of-states/

UnitedHealth Group to exit Obamacare exchanges in all but a ‘handful’ of states

At Aetna's earnings call for the fourth quarter of 2015, Aetna chief executive Mark Bertolini said the insurer was concerned about the exchanges.

"This business remained unprofitable in 2015 and we continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges," Bertolini said.

Obama's legacy will be scarred if Obamacare collapses:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ful-of-states/

UnitedHealth Group to exit Obamacare exchanges in all but a ‘handful’ of states

At Aetna's earnings call for the fourth quarter of 2015, Aetna chief executive Mark Bertolini said the insurer was concerned about the exchanges.

"This business remained unprofitable in 2015 and we continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges," Bertolini said. Originally Posted by DSK

I think it was designed to fail from the beginning. Stevie Wonder can see that the numbers just do not add up.

That leaves the door open for what the Democrat/Progressive/Socialist/Liberal's wanted all along, a single player plan where the Federal Government runs and pays for Health Care for all based on taxing those that choose to work for a living and are productive members of society.

FREE, FREE, FREE,......GIMMEE, GIMMEE, GIMMEE!!

It also leaves the door open for the Reps to propose/pass something markedly better. But going back to what was there before--no, that is not better. It had vast problems, just different than the current mess.

Sadly, I have not seen either party put up something sound--they are both only interested in "winning", not sound governing.