Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

the link works fine for me

that said, and as WTF said its apples to oranges if both scenarios are taken in context ...

at the begining of the clip it clearly states "Obama bypasses congress"

an executive order gives the president the ability to bypass congress .. its that simple.

Not only is this the same ole song and dance, but it’s poor debating skills. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Since when does the truth constitute poor debating skills?

If you don’t like a person’s stance you come up with something that you HOPE will impeach your opponent. It doesn’t. I don’t like Obama. I do like Hillary. These two simple facts do not change your facts that you are a Yellow Dog Democrat and therefore cannot admit fault with your boy.

Maybe the reasons for your bias wouldn't be so obvious if you didn't prattle on while making a fool of yourself over the D-Day nonsense, or criticize him over and over again for doing what Hillary campaigned on doing, or criticize him incessantly for supposedly being "truthy", while supporting a guy who lies more shamelessly then Sarah Palin, or criticize him for being wishy washy, while now supporting the guy who's taken every position on every issue that's ever come before him.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out where you're coming from Olivia. The bitterness of you Hillary supporters was pretty big news following the primaries four years ago. It was real, and you're clearly the personification of it. And i'll keep pointing that out, same old song and dance or not.

lmao

you would think the president actually tried to CHANGE a law when in fact he only imposed a moratorium on an existing law ...

the president acted within his powers provided to him by the constitution

the constitution provides measures to overturn the executive order


the president broke no laws ... and most certainly didnt ignore any

the law was used to its full advantage.


ponder that Originally Posted by CJ7

Ponder this CBJ7:

Article II of the Constitution deals with the executive branch of government -- the President of the United States -- and specifies his powers, duties, responsibilities and qualifications for office. He has no power not derived from the Constitution. It is is his responsibility, first and foremost, to carry out the laws which have been made by the legislative branch.


US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

Before he enter on the execution of his office, the President shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


US Constitution, Article II, Section 3

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

It is the duty of the President to faithfully execute laws enacted by the legislature. So fuck your sophistry, CBJ7.

an executive order gives the president the ability to bypass the legislative branch too

lmao

you would think the president actually tried to CHANGE a law when in fact he only imposed a moratorium on an existing law ... Originally Posted by CJ7

It's pretzel logic to say that not enforcing a law isn't changing the law. What greater change to a law could there be than non-enforcement?

One of the biggest changes in the law in the last half century was legalizing abortion because of Roe v Wade. Laws prohibiting abortion in most circumstances were abolished, because of this landmark ruling. If a sitting president had decreed that abortion laws would no longer be enforced it would have been the de facto equivalent of Roe v Wade.

You still have not addressed the hypocrisy of Obama's action to stop enforcing the law. Obama has publicly stated, on more than one occasion, that he wasn't allowed to do the very thing that he did. How can you justify it when Obama himself has said that his own action was illegitimate?

The link works for me too.

lmao

you would think the president actually tried to CHANGE a law when in fact he only imposed a moratorium on an existing law ... Originally Posted by CJ7

Not even that, all he did was set out the circumstances in which the law will and will not be enforced. Which he clearly said he can do.

So, with that, wouldn't it be funny if the video Joe Bloe linked to was edited to suggest Obama didn't say something he actually said?

Wouldn't it? I mean, wouldn't it?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw

At the 2:00 mark, he clearly states that decisions can be made as to how the law is enforced.

Andrea Mitchell ain't got nothing on these clowns.

You still have not addressed the hypocrisy of Obama's action to stop enforcing the law. Obama has publicly stated, on more than one occasion, that he wasn't allowed to do the very thing that he did. How can you justify it when Obama himself has said that his own action was illegitimate


whoever made the clip is an idiot for posting the headlines Obama bypassed congerss .. thats what ex orders do

ex orders bypass the legislative branch as well

ex orders give the president the power to direct heads of different departments as he sees fit, in this case the Dept of Immigration .. call it pretzel or anything you want, the law was used not broken or changed


apples .... the correct protocol as described in the clip

oranges ... a moratorium on an existing law

the moratorium is for 2 years
the president can change the order to any extent or completely drop the order
the SC can rule the order unconstitutional.


maybe the above might happen after the election

an executive order gives the president the ability to bypass the legislative branch too Originally Posted by CJ7

You are wrong, CBJ7. Executive orders used to bypass the legislative branch are patently unconstitutional. Such orders violate the Constitution!!! Only the legislature can legislate law per the Constitution: Article I, Section 8 --

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Those powers rest solely with the legislature and are Constitutionally denied the president. Executive orders are only to be used to effect and enforce laws enacted by the legislative branch.

It is the duty of the President to faithfully execute laws enacted by the legislature. So again, CBJ7, fuck your sophistry.

You still have not addressed the hypocrisy of Obama's action to stop enforcing the law. Obama has publicly stated, on more than one occasion, that he wasn't allowed to do the very thing that he did. How can you justify it when Obama himself has said that his own action was illegitimate


whoever made the clip is an idiot for posting the headlines Obama bypassed congerss .. thats what ex orders do

ex orders bypass the legislative branch as well

ex orders give the president the power to direct heads of different departments as he sees fit, in this case the Dept of Immigration .. call it pretzel or anything you want, the law was used not broken or changed


apples .... the correct protocol as described in the clip

oranges ... a moratorium on an existing law

the moratorium is for 2 years
the president can change the order to any extent or completely drop the order
the SC can rule the order unconstitutional.


maybe the above might happen after the election Originally Posted by CJ7

Obama said he was not allowed to stop enforcing the law in precisely the way that he did. You still are still not addressing the question.

Was Obama wrong to say that he didn't have the authority to stop enforcing the law or did he wrongfully stop enforcing the law. He can't be right in both cases. They are mutually exclusive. He was either wrong when he said he couldn't do it, or he was wrong when did it. Which is it?

Obama said he was not allowed to stop enforcing the law in precisely the way that he did. Originally Posted by joe bloe

And he also said he was allowed to issue an order speaking to the level of enforcement that he'll follow. Ergo...

You still are still not addressing the question.

There is no question. Nevertheless...

Was Obama wrong to say that he didn't have the authority to stop enforcing the law or did he wrongfully stop enforcing the law. He can't be right in both cases. They are mutually exclusive. He was either wrong when he said he couldn't do it, or he was wrong when did it. Which is it?

Answered in post #67.

Olivia, my lust bunny, let me clear up the "right thing for the wrong reason" statement. I agree with you that the end does not justify the means. The President knows he can't circumvent the law the way he has. But he did it in order to win some of the Hispanic vote back. It was a good political move, showing him standing up to Congress like a tough guy and ignoring the law in order to do a good thing.

It was the wrong reason, because in addition to political grandstanding, I think it was unnecessary. I wrote in another thread that I don't think that minors who enter the country with their parents have entered the country illegally. There is no culpability on their part. If they haven't committed the crime, then they can't be convicted and deported.

I know that's a complicated reading of the law, and I don't know if it would stand up in court. But it makes more sense to me than calling these children who have grown up here criminals, and sending them back to a country they no longer know, and no longer knows them.

And I meant "lust bunny" in the nicest way possible!

For CBJ7 and Doofus:


President Barack Obama showed some frustration Wednesday [September 28, 2011] as he responded to questions about stalled immigration reform, chiding a Hispanic roundtable that “we live in a democracy.”


“This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true,” Obama told Hispanic journalists at an “Open for Questions” White House roundtable. “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1yK5L3MQF


Univision Town Hall, 28 March 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/shock-video-ob...html:surprise:

Univision Town Hall, 28 March 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/shock-video-ob...html:surprise: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I notice you keep referencing the edited version of the video.

What's that you were saying about Andrea Mitchell?

lmao

you would think the president actually tried to CHANGE a law when in fact he only imposed a moratorium on an existing law ... Originally Posted by CJ7

If you are speaking to me, placing a moratorium on a law has the same affect as changing a law. If the joint Congress cannot override his override, then Obama de facto changed the law.

Doove, I admitted that if Obama went to Normandy that he did in fact honor D-Day.

I have also clearly stated my reasons for not liking Obama, and I have no desire to keep responding to your ridiculous claims that I'd love Obama if there had never been a Hillary Clinton campaign. I think Obama is a lazy, worthless, shifty, hen pecked lieing bitch who has never had a job that he didn't not show up for or work on the company's dime to write his books, and he is out for himself and himself alone. That is when Michelle takes his collar off and lets him climb out of his box. Clear enough? In case it isn't..........Hillary Clinton campaign or no, I would not have voted for Obama because of his inexperience, and I wouldn't like him now for the above reasons.

Joe, here's the link again. I had it cached. http://news.yahoo.com/shock-video-ob...033218997.html