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

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Mar '15 15:32 / 3 edits
    How is it that John Boehner declared Obama's Executive Orders regarding illegal immigration to be Unconstitutional, but then funds his executive order that he once declared unconstitutional?

    Liberals get a free pass here since they think that the Constitution is a living breathing document that says something new every day, but what of John Boehner?

    Also, why is it that the GOP attached funding of Home Land Security to the immigration funding? Why not attach funding to the IRS instead? That way when the IRS cry's poor mouth because of a lack of funding, Americans would declare the GOP their savior instead of their spineless, lying, usurpers of the Constitution.

    My only conclusion is, those in the GOP like John Boehner are complicit with Obama, even though their words say otherwise.

    No one is this stupid, spineless, and blatantly unlawful by his own admission.

    As a side note, I apologize for making John cry.

    Tissues anyone?
  2. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    06 Mar '15 17:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    How is it that John Boehner declared Obama's Executive Orders regarding illegal immigration to be Unconstitutional, but then funds his executive order that he once declared unconstitutional?

    Liberals get a free pass here since they think that the Constitution is a living breathing document that says something new every day, but what of John Boehner?

    Als ...[text shortened]... ful by his own admission.

    As a side note, I apologize for making John cry.

    Tissues anyone?
    What can I say Whodey? Democrats and Republicans are simply out to get you! They're around every corner....they're listening to your conversations...they're checking your e mails. It's just not safe for the Whodey's in the world! I tell ya, it's a world gone mad! Auuuuugggghhhh!
  3. 06 Mar '15 18:26 / 1 edit
    Here is the situation Bill.

    Boehner said Obama violated the Constitution.

    Boehner funded the Obama violation of the Constitution.

    Boehner swore to uphold the Constitution.

    Boehner must go.

    What am I missing here?

    Oh, I forgot, people like you use the Constitution as toilet paper.

    Edit: Am I to understand you are defending the evil GOP now?
  4. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    06 Mar '15 19:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    Here is the situation Bill.

    Boehner said Obama violated the Constitution.

    Boehner funded the Obama violation of the Constitution.

    Boehner swore to uphold the Constitution.

    Boehner must go.

    What am I missing here?

    Oh, I forgot, people like you use the Constitution as toilet paper.

    Edit: Am I to understand you are defending the evil GOP now?
    Whodey....if these "violations of our constitution" are as severe as you say lawsuits would already be pending as we speak, but I don't see much of that happening, do you? In addition, I am not a legal scholar, and (I highly suspect) neither are you. So until the day you earn your law degree, I would advise against trying to decypher what constitutes a violation of our constitution.

    P.S. Throwing around statements like "people like you use the constitution as toilet paper" and "Boehner funded the violation of the Constitution" are both childish and demonstrate you ignorance of our legal system.
  5. 06 Mar '15 20:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    Whodey....if these "violations of our constitution" are as severe as you say lawsuits would already be pending as we speak, but I don't see much of that happening, do you? In addition, I am not a legal scholar, and (I highly suspect) neither are you. So until the day you earn your law degree, I would advise against trying to decypher what constitutes a viola ...[text shortened]... ion of the Constitution" are both childish and demonstrate you ignorance of our legal system.
    Is any violation of the Constitution "severe"?

    I never thought of it like this before Bill. Maybe there are 50 shades of gray to usurping the Constitution.

    Far be it from me to ever question the Supremes. They alone have cornred the market on Constitutional truthiness.
  6. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    06 Mar '15 21:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is any violation of the Constitution "severe"?

    I never thought of it like this before Bill. Maybe there are 50 shades of gray to usurping the Constitution.

    Far be it from me to ever question the Supremes. They alone have cornred the market on Constitutional truthiness.
    Well, well...you're finally getting it, aren't you!? Yes, there are many "shades of grey" out there regarding our constitution. That's one of the reasons we have courts of law, and since the 9 judges who sit on the high court knew more about what violates our constitution in their 1st year of law school than either one of us will know in our lifetimes, I would suggest you let them decide what passes constitutional muster, and what does not. This system has worked pretty well for over 200 years, and will do so long after either of are gone.

    Question them if you wish, but remember where superior knowledge lies.
  7. 06 Mar '15 21:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    Well, well...you're finally getting it, aren't you!? Yes, there are many "shades of grey" out there regarding our constitution. That's one of the reasons we have courts of law, and since the 9 judges who sit on the high court knew more about what violates our constitution in their 1st year of law school than either one of us will know in our lifetimes, I wou ...[text shortened]... r either of are gone.

    Question them if you wish, but remember where superior knowledge lies.
    All I know is that Boehner swore to uphold the Constitution, all 50 shades of gray and he openly voted for what he swore not to do which is violate it.
  8. 06 Mar '15 21:59
    Originally posted by bill718
    Whodey....if these "violations of our constitution" are as severe as you say lawsuits would already be pending as we speak, but I don't see much of that happening, do you? In addition, I am not a legal scholar, and (I highly suspect) neither are you. So until the day you earn your law degree, I would advise against trying to decypher what constitutes a viola ...[text shortened]... ion of the Constitution" are both childish and demonstrate you ignorance of our legal system.
    Your liberal elitism is beyond the pale. You do not need a JD, law license, or even a high school diploma to read and understand the Constitution. In fact it is better to read the Constitution yourself rather than rely on the Orwellian interpretations of it by the statist elite.

    Whatever whodey's qualifications are, he is certainly keeping abreast with current events better than you. And whodey has certainly read the Constitution, and he undoubtedly understands it as well. You should try reading the Constitution too, Bill.

    For your information, a federal district court recently issued a preliminary injunction against Obama's executive amnesty program. The court found that the Obama administration legislated beyond the scope of its delegated authority. The Obama administration did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the administration did not give notice and comment before promulgating the amnesty rules.

    That seems like a technicality, no? Obama simply has to give notice and comment and we're good. Although the court declined to rule on the plaintiffs' other claims under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the court suggested that Obama's new rules "changed the law" rather than "supplemented it."

    It is well settled that the executive cannot change the law on its own. If the President wants to change the law, Congress must act first. The President cannot legislate if Congress has not delegated that authority to him.

    Because the Obama administration legislated without lawful authority, it violated the Separation of Powers. Violating the Separation of Powers is Unconstitutional.

    This is not the first time the courts have found that Obama's regulations have exceeded delegated authority. Boehner knows this. Congress has the power to stifle the implementation of Obama's unlawful regulations by defunding his administrative agencies. Boehner refuses to use the power of the purse against Obama, and therefore, he is enabling Obama to continue to promulgate and implement unlawful regulations.

    This Court, for the reasons discussed above, hereby grants the Plaintiff States' request for a preliminary injunction. It hereby finds that at least Texas has satisfied the necessary standing requirements that the Defendants have clearly legislated a substantive rule without complying with the procedural requirements under the Administration Procedure Act. The Injunction is contained in a separate order. Nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, this temporary injunction enjoins the implementation of the DAPA program that awards legal presence and additional benefits to the four million or more individuals potentially covered by the DAPA Memorandum and to the three expansions/additions to the DACA program also contained in the same DAPA Memorandum. It does not enjoin or impair the Secretary's ability to marshal his assets or deploy the resources of the DHS. It does not enjoin the Secretary's ability to set priorities for the DHS. It does not enjoin the previously instituted 2012 DACA program except for the expansions created in the November 20,2014 DAPA Memorandum.

    Signed this 16th day of February, 2015.

    Andrew S. Hanen
    United States District Judge

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html
  9. 06 Mar '15 22:13
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Your liberal elitism is beyond the pale. You do not need a JD, law license, or even a high school diploma to read and understand the Constitution. In fact it is better to read the Constitution yourself rather than rely on the Orwellian interpretations of it by the statist elite.

    Whatever whodey's qualifications are, he is certainly keeping abreast ...[text shortened]... tes District Judge

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html[/quote]
    So what, a judge also struck down Obamacare as being unconstitutional.

    We have to wait for the Supremes to give their final verdict. I just don't know how they will turn this into a tax to make it Constitutional is all.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Mar '15 23:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    How is it that John Boehner declared Obama's Executive Orders regarding illegal immigration to be Unconstitutional, but then funds his executive order that he once declared unconstitutional?

    Liberals get a free pass here since they think that the Constitution is a living breathing document that says something new every day, but what of John Boehner?

    Als ...[text shortened]... ful by his own admission.

    As a side note, I apologize for making John cry.

    Tissues anyone?
    The Executive Orders regarding immigration weren't funded as they are currently stopped from being implemented by the District Court Order mentioned by mmm.

    So this is just more ignorant ranting and raving even if mmm thinks you're "certainly keeping abreast with current events".
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Mar '15 23:35
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Your liberal elitism is beyond the pale. You do not need a JD, law license, or even a high school diploma to read and understand the Constitution. In fact it is better to read the Constitution yourself rather than rely on the Orwellian interpretations of it by the statist elite.

    Whatever whodey's qualifications are, he is certainly keeping abreast ...[text shortened]... tes District Judge

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html[/quote]
    Last I checked, John Boehner wasn't elected the entire House of Representatives. The House voted fairly overwhelmingly, 257-167, to fund the DHS without any strings attached regarding immigration executive orders that cannot presently go into effect.
  12. 07 Mar '15 00:05
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Executive Orders regarding immigration weren't funded as they are currently stopped from being implemented by the District Court Order mentioned by mmm.

    So this is just more ignorant ranting and raving even if mmm thinks you're "certainly keeping abreast with current events".
    Link?
  13. 07 Mar '15 00:05
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Last I checked, John Boehner wasn't elected the entire House of Representatives. The House voted fairly overwhelmingly, 257-167, to fund the DHS without any strings attached regarding immigration executive orders that cannot presently go into effect.
    True. The entire GOP establishment is just like him.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Mar '15 00:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Link?
    Use the one mmm gave. Or try reading the excerpt he gave:

    this temporary injunction enjoins the implementation of the DAPA program that awards legal presence and additional benefits to the four million or more individuals potentially covered by the DAPA Memorandum and to the three expansions/additions to the DACA program also contained in the same DAPA Memorandum.
  15. 07 Mar '15 00:24 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Executive Orders regarding immigration weren't funded as they are currently stopped from being implemented by the District Court Order mentioned by mmm.

    So this is just more ignorant ranting and raving even if mmm thinks you're "certainly keeping abreast with current events".
    It really changes nothing I've said.

    I've said that Boehner claimed that the Executive Order was not Constitutional.

    I've said that Boehner allowed it to be funded, even if the courts may stop this funding.

    This shows that Boehner is willing to knowingly violate the Constitution by bowing the the Executive Order

    And as you stated, that includes the rest of his ilk within the GOP.