Former President Obama showed the nation that he was above the law. He showed us that following the laws on immigration was unnecessary and that just because Congress did not have the political will to change the laws on immigration, all he had to do was pass Executive Orders to do it for them. Nor does Obama have to follow the same laws he pushes to pass and signs into law, like Obamacare. No, all it takes is one stroke of the pen to make exemptions anytime he likes.
But now that Trump is in the Oval Office, nothing he says or does has to be taken seriously. After all, everything he says and does is unconstitutional cuz he is a racist pig.
Everyone knows that the President has no power Constitutionally when it comes to immigration. It really belongs to the courts. Yes, I know, it is not written anywhere in the Constitution but too bad, these are the same black robes will splain that it is implied somewhere in there cuz it's a living breathing document after all.
Besides, Trump is a racist and misogynist, and we all know that is not Constitutional, Plus, he is orange. No one likes the color orange so to hell with him.
Originally posted by whodeyHilariously enough, Obama's Executive Order regarding deportation priority was overturned by the courts in 2015 with a State bringing the case the exact same procedure that is occurring now. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas
Former President Obama showed the nation that he was above the law. He showed us that following the laws on immigration was unnecessary and that just because Congress did not have the political will to change the laws on immigration, all he had to do was pass Executive Orders to do it for them. Nor does Obama have to follow the same laws he pushes to pass a ...[text shortened]... ump is a racist and misogynist, and we all know that is not Constitutional, so to hell with him.
I do not recall you blathering about judicial overreach then.
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe it would help if you actually took a few minutes to read the Judge's order or, indeed, any legal analysis of the issues. Judges don't "determine immigration policy" but they do determine if Executive Orders promulgated by the President comply with statutory law and the Constitution.
Now that the courts determine immigration policy, should they also get security briefings from the CIA to help them make such decisions, or is it just a given that immigration is a natural right and, therefore, cannot be denied to anyone for any circumstance?
Originally posted by no1marauderBut Dims will ignore even this as they drive immigrants from one sanctuary city to the next.
Hilariously enough, Obama's Executive Order regarding deportation priority was overturned by the courts in 2015 with a State bringing the case the exact same procedure that is occurring now. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas
I do not recall you blathering about judicial overreach then.
In other words, LAWS DON'T MATTER, unless you have a Dim in the Oval Office, but not until then cuz they are not racist I reckon.
What we need in the Constitution is a provision giving Progressives the last word on everything that should be Constitutional with no limitations.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe diffetence is that a state was trying to enforve the law. Obama should have been impeached for failure to uphold the law.
Hilariously enough, Obama's Executive Order regarding deportation priority was overturned by the courts in 2015 with a State bringing the case the exact same procedure that is occurring now. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas
I do not recall you blathering about judicial overreach then.
Originally posted by EladarObama should have been impeached? I'm sorry, where was marauders thread on the issue cuz I know he is all about upholding Constitutional law, right?
The diffetence is that a state was trying to enforve the law. Obama should have been impeached for failure to uphold the law.
No, in reality, he is one of the lawless ones who only use the Constitution as a tool so long as it agrees with him. Otherwise, he ignores it like all the rest.
Originally posted by EladarNo, the State of Washington is just as much trying to enforce the law as it understands it as the State of Texas was in 2015.
The diffetence is that a state was trying to enforve the law. Obama should have been impeached for failure to uphold the law.
Impeachment is for the commission of Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors not to resolve policy disputes.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo the Constitutionality really comes down to Prog judges who actually understand or do not understand what it says cuz the wording of the rule of law is just too damned complicated.
No, the State of Washington is just as much trying to enforce the law as it understands it as the State of Texas was in 2015.
05 Feb 17
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe we should just let you decide what the Constitution means. Or we could go by what the Constitution says:
So the Constitutionality really comes down to Prog judges who actually understand or do not understand what it says cuz the wording of the rule of law is just too damned complicated.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution
Article III, Section 2
05 Feb 17
Originally posted by no1marauderThey want to uphold it as Obama upheld it which didn't have much impact on Washington due to geographic location.
No, the State of Washington is just as much trying to enforce the law as it understands it as the State of Texas was in 2015.
Impeachment is for the commission of Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors not to resolve policy disputes.
05 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarJudge Robart in the hearing regarding the temporary Restraining Order (TRO) consistently cited US v. Texas to question the Department of Justice attorney's claim that Washington had no legal standing to challenge the executive orders. If anyone wants to see the hearing in full, it's here: http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al
They want to uphold it as Obama upheld it which didn't have much impact on Washington due to geographic location.
The Judge is a very aggressive questioner and both lawyers had their hands full.
Originally posted by no1marauderJudge Roberts?
Judge Robart in the hearing regarding the temporary Restraining Order (TRO) consistently cited US v. Texas to question the Department of Justice attorney's claim that Washington had no legal standing to challenge the executive orders. If anyone wants to see the hearing in full, it's here: http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald- ...[text shortened]... -trump-et-al
The Judge is a very aggressive questioner and both lawyers had their hands full.
Isn't he the guy who single handedly turned Obamacare into a tax in order to make it Constitutional after Obama sold it as a tax cuz he promised not to raise taxes on the Middle Class?
That judge Roberts?
05 Feb 17
Originally posted by whodeyDo you think that making the President of the United States conform to the laws and Constitution promotes "anarchy"?
Former President Obama showed the nation that he was above the law. He showed us that following the laws on immigration was unnecessary and that just because Congress did not have the political will to change the laws on immigration, all he had to do was pass Executive Orders to do it for them. Nor does Obama have to follow the same laws he pushes to pass a ...[text shortened]... t is not Constitutional, Plus, he is orange. No one likes the color orange so to hell with him.
Actually, I would like to see anarchy as properly defined i.e. "The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." "
For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state.
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA1.html#seca11
Needless to say, what you claim Progressives want is the exact opposite of this.