Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 05 Sep '17 15:24
    DACA is being rescinded and called Unconstitutional by Jeff Sessions.

    Who disagrees and why?
  2. 05 Sep '17 15:39
    The good news here is that Trump is handing this over to Congress, so Congress will predictably do with it what they did with Obamacare, which is nothing.
  3. Subscriber mchill
    Infinitorum
    06 Sep '17 09:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    The good news here is that Trump is handing this over to Congress, so Congress will predictably do with it what they did with Obamacare, which is nothing.
    On the campaign trail, Donald Trump claimed he was the "Art of the Deal" guy who could get things done, and solve many of our problems, instead he's sending all the problems to Congress. He looks more like the "pass the buck" guy to me.
  4. 06 Sep '17 11:33 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @mchill
    On the campaign trail, Donald Trump claimed he was the "Art of the Deal" guy who could get things done, and solve many of our problems, instead he's sending all the problems to Congress. He looks more like the "pass the buck" guy to me.
    Do you agree with DACA? Do you agree Obama should be able to ignore laws and override them with Executive Orders? I don't think anyone defends it as Constitutional, much like FDR throwing innocent Americans in jail.

    How is Trump wrong in handing this back to the legislative branch because under the Constitution it is their place to decide such matters? Don't worry, the Pubes are all morons anyway and will do the DNC bidding, so you win either way.
  5. 06 Sep '17 11:48 / 1 edit
    So why did Trump turn DACA over to the Pube Congress?

    Maybe it is his payback for bad mouthing him at every turn and refusing to repeal Obamacare after promising the American people to do it and voting to do it under Obama who vetoed it.

    Maybe Trump is sending the American people the message that the entire GOP Congress is the real problem and are incompetent and all need primaried out.

    Maybe, just maybe, Congress will do their job as the legislative branch to deal with the situation instead of having the President unconstitutionally violating law by Executive Edict.

    Why is Trump trying to deal with this matter in a Constitutional way thinking the system still works? Maybe he really has gone crazy.

    But I digress.
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    06 Sep '17 17:05
    Originally posted by @whodey
    DACA is being rescinded and called Unconstitutional by Jeff Sessions.

    Who disagrees and why?
    https://www.romper.com/p/is-daca-constitutional-heres-what-you-need-to-know-81030

    "The DACA program was created by the Obama administration through a 2012 executive action — that is, the executive branch relied on a combination of its own authority and the powers delegated to it by Congress in order to form DACA."

    Obama used the power granted to him by Congress to enact it, and previous lawsuits attempting to argue that DACA is unconstitutional have been "dismissed," as Vox reported.

    Legally speaking, DACA isn't unconstitutional, although it was executed in a controversial way.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    06 Sep '17 17:10
    Originally posted by @vivify
    https://www.romper.com/p/is-daca-constitutional-heres-what-you-need-to-know-81030

    "The DACA program was created by the Obama administration through a 2012 executive action — that is, the executive branch relied on a combination of its own authority and the powers delegated to it by Congress in order to form DACA."

    Obama used the power granted t ...[text shortened]... speaking, DACA isn't unconstitutional, although it was executed in a controversial way.
    The bottom line is hundreds of thousands of law abiding people will be living in fear for the rest of their lives. I guess repubs don't give a shyte about that. Those people are paying their way, paying taxes, not living on the dole. So leave them the hell alone and give them citizenship.
  8. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    06 Sep '17 17:38
    The bottom line is that a President can't do that Constitutionally. Obama couldn't and neither can Trump. If Congress won't fix the law then Trump should enforce the law as it stands.
  9. 06 Sep '17 18:25
    Originally posted by @sleepyguy
    The bottom line is that a President can't do that Constitutionally. Obama couldn't and neither can Trump. If Congress won't fix the law then Trump should enforce the law as it stands.
    Progs are all about Progress and getting things done.

    They don't have no time for no stinking laws.
  10. 06 Sep '17 19:18
    Originally posted by @sleepyguy
    The bottom line is that a President can't do that Constitutionally. Obama couldn't and neither can Trump. If Congress won't fix the law then Trump should enforce the law as it stands.
    In the U.S. system, everything the executive does is constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't.
  11. 06 Sep '17 19:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    In the U.S. system, everything the executive does is constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't.
    Just like locking up Japanese Americans it seems.

    Too bad on one asked SCOTUS.

    Maybe they should have a hotline we can all.

    Progs are such a joke, they don't even make it hard anymore.
  12. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    06 Sep '17 19:47
    Yeah... there's nothing like booting kids out of a country to make you sound nice.
  13. 06 Sep '17 19:50 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    Yeah... there's nothing like booting kids out of a country to make you sound nice.
    Try going to Mexico illegally. I guarantee you have not witnessed just how nice they will be until you do.

    Funny how we never hear about that. In fact, illegals wave Mexican flags in protest yet they don't even want to live there.

    Crazy.
  14. 06 Sep '17 20:27
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Just like locking up Japanese Americans it seems.

    Too bad on one asked SCOTUS.

    Maybe they should have a hotline we can all.

    Progs are such a joke, they don't even make it hard anymore.
    It's just how the system works. Even an illiterate retard who died five centuries before the U.S. constitution was written can see that Donald Trump's solicitation/acceptance of bribes violates the constitution, but until SCOTUS rules against it, he can keep doing it.
  15. 06 Sep '17 20:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey to KazetNagorra
    Just like locking up Japanese Americans it seems.
    Too bad on one asked SCOTUS.

    Maybe they should have a hotline we can all.
    Progs are such a joke, they don't even make it hard anymore.
    "Just like locking up Japanese Americans it seems. Too bad on one asked SCOTUS."
    --Whodey

    FALSE. The US Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order 9066 was constitutional.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

    "Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme
    Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered
    Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.
    In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional."

    "The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been controversial.[2]
    Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned on November 10, 1983,
    after Korematsu challenged the earlier decision by filing for a writ of coram nobis.]
    In a ruling by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of California granted the writ (that is, it voided Korematsu's original conviction)
    because in Korematsu's original case, the government had knowingly submitted false
    information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the Supreme Court's decision.[4]

    The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned,[5] although, in 2011, the
    Department of Justice filed an official notice[6] conceding that the then Solicitor General's
    defense of the internment policy had been in error. However, the Court's opinion remains
    significant, both for being the first instance of the Supreme Court applying the strict scrutiny
    standard to racial discrimination by the government, and for being one of only a handful
    of cases in which the Court held that the government had met that standard.
    Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to
    Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example
    of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[7] a term for those cases which are so flawed that
    they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making "