Utopia Talk / Politics / THIS GOES BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS

The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 19:04:36 Article I, Section 8 The Congress shall have the power 4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States: --------------------------------------------- If this turns out to be true it goes beyond anything the President has done so far. Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Amnesty Thorugh Executive Actions Updated Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 10:58 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate. (Send this FREE FAX to Pres. Obama expressing your Outrage at the Administration's plans to provide an amnesty for illegal aliens through Executive Order) The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative. Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.). Dear President Obama: We understand that thereâ??s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a â??case-by-caseâ?? basis. While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congressâ?? constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States. The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American publicâ??s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books. We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible. Send this FREE FAX to Pres. Obama expressing your Outrage at the Administration's plans to provide an amnesty for illegal aliens through Executive Order http://www...s-executive-order-amnesty.html
yankeessuck123 Member	Wed Jun 23 19:06:02 Oh noze, our government isn't following the letter of the Constitution! This has never happened before!
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Jun 23 19:08:13 I AM OUTRAGED!
Renzo Marquez Member	Wed Jun 23 19:20:49 Do you consider your cock to be an immigrant when it breaks the territorial sovereignty of Lil Davey's asshole? Are your sperms anchor babies?
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Jun 23 19:24:01 Poor Rod, he just doesnt understand how the US works.
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Wed Jun 23 19:27:16 We cant speak to you, HR, because you are dead.
Aeros Member	Wed Jun 23 19:27:38 Actually, that would be unconstitutional. Its pretty clear cut that Congress sets the immigration rules, not the President.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 19:33:35 They said on FOX that if he does this, providing it is true, there is nothing Congress can do about it. Of course the next president could rescind it with another EO, but it may be too late then.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Jun 23 19:45:03 just by saying 'amnesty' in the headline you can tell its a biased news source
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 19:48:04 Yeah. Too bad bush wanted to do the same thing. Those crazy presidents with their practical ideas.
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Jun 23 19:48:54 just by it being posted by HR you can tell its a biased news source
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 19:51:19 Where was this outraged when Bush proposed it?
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 19:52:12 I hope I don't get provoked!
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 19:54:40 Yes, there is nothing they can do about it. The President can issue executive order. But this is just some faggoty Republican rumors.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 19:57:11 "but it may be too late then. " Too late for what? Too late to preserve the White race?
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 19:57:30 So much for intelligent discussion. At least Aeros has some sense about this. tumbleweed - just by saying 'amnesty' in the headline you can tell its a biased news source It also said 'rumor' in the title. Now I dont know if the President is planning on doing this or not. Neither does The Senators or The Washington Examiner, but the 'rumor' is a fact. Now just what does bias have to do with that? If this is true it will be the most egregious thing he has done so far, including his crappy health plan.
Freddy Member	Wed Jun 23 19:58:10 This is excellent news. This will send a signal to mexicans in mexico to come to the US in mass numbers to help further drive down wages. That way many more corporations can also make obscene profits and we can finally totally eliminate the middle class. Kudos to the jew puppet we call Obama.
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Jun 23 19:58:48 Too late to save Lil Davey from massive internal hemorrhaging
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Jun 23 19:59:34 "but the 'rumor' is a fact" rofl @ hackspeak
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 19:59:58 Dickhead - Where was this outraged when Bush proposed it? Propsed what. When did Bush threaten to give amnesty by Executive Order. When was there even a rumor that he would issue an EO. If he was going to do so, why didn't he?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Jun 23 20:04:41 its biased news as 'amnesty' is never even mentioned in that letter being reported on, and is constantly used by biased news sources even though Obama's plan has never been amnesty it's just a word they throw around to rile up the masses
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 20:06:17 Wait, wait, wait... Aeros, who claimed that issuing an EO to grant "amnesty" (yeah right, as if Obama is going to grant amnesty) is "unconstitutional" is considered to be an intelligent input? Wow. I guess intelligence = agreeing with HR "Now I dont know if the President is planning on doing this or not. Neither does The Senators or The Washington Examiner, but the 'rumor' is a fact." This is a hilarious non-sequitor. You don't know if this is true. You claimed that no one in the Senate knows this. Therefore, this rumor is now a fact?
mexicantornado Member	Wed Jun 23 20:10:39 "Where was this outraged when Bush proposed it? " Are you serious dipshit?
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 20:11:44 What do you think this means: "We understand that there's a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States." Or this: "Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a â??case-by-caseâ?? basis. s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States." Do you really think that if this is true that they have examined the individual cases of 11-18 million illegal aliens. Do you think they have files on each of those individuals?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 20:15:42 P.S. Only retards would use the following arguments against immigration (legal and undocumented workers): 1. Wages (it has already been shown that undocumented workers do not reduce wages 2. crime (it has already been shown that an increase of undocumented workers do not increase crime) 3. public finance (it has already been shown that undocumented workers generated MORE than what they have taken out of the public finance) 4. White race. Yes, this is the only argument that hasn't been refuted by scientists. So, if you used reasons 1-3, you are just ignorant of the issue. But I found that those who agree with point 4 tend to use points 1-3 as a shield. Luckily, points 1-3 have all been refuted by economists.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 20:16:45 mf - Aeros, who claimed that issuing an EO to grant "amnesty" (yeah right, as if Obama is going to grant amnesty) is "unconstitutional" is considered to be an intelligent input? It is a great deal more intelligent than, "We cant speak to you, HR, because you are dead." mf - I guess intelligence = agreeing with HR No, intelligence is sticking to the subject even if he is wrong. You started out good until you got to, "Too late for what? Too late to preserve the White race?"
Clitoral Hood The Bloody Scourge	Wed Jun 23 20:17:23 http://iam...re-taking-jobs-from-americans/
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 20:18:05 "Do you really think that if this is true that they have examined the individual cases of 11-18 million illegal aliens. Do you think they have files on each of those individuals?" Because the government will potentially stop keeping filed on these undocumented workers, your logic dictates that this rumor must then be true, yes?
Adolf Hitler Member	Wed Jun 23 20:18:25 HR = the ignorant mob
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 20:20:22 "No, intelligence is sticking to the subject even if he is wrong. You started out good until you got to, "Too late for what? Too late to preserve the White race?" Yes - and surprisingly you are unable to answer that question.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 20:27:55 >-Because the government will potentially stop keeping filed on these undocumented workers, your logic dictates that this rumor must then be true, yes? That makes no sense. mf - Yes - and surprisingly you are unable to answer that question. Always playing the race card. Race has nothing to do with it, they are violating our laws. By your logic we should release every minority in prison regardless of their crimes because the only reason they are there is because of "racist whitys."
Freddy Member	Wed Jun 23 20:31:22 I find it hilarious that some of you are pissed off that "illegal" mexicans are in the US when the US was founded by "illegal" britains that invaded the country, comitted genocide on the native people, and stole their land.
Clitoral Hood The Bloody Scourge	Wed Jun 23 20:40:42 I find it funny that fred is so misinformed about his own kind as to think that native americans owned land. not that the colonists were right in forcing them off their ancestral grounds.
Renzo Marquez Member	Wed Jun 23 20:40:47 The "native people" were primitives just like mexicunts are.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 20:43:30 "Propsed what. When did Bush threaten to give amnesty by Executive Order. When was there even a rumor that he would issue an EO. If he was going to do so, why didn't he? " Oh google guru. I am sure you can muster up the effort to find out when Bush toyed with the idea of giving amnesty to illegal-immigrants. You are so quick to point out other "outrageous" issues that's happening now. But all too soon forget that this wasn't the first time this was entertained.
Freddy Member	Wed Jun 23 20:45:22 "I find it funny that fred is so misinformed about his own kind as to think that native americans owned land. " Not all of us know that native americans laughed at the concept of owning land, and since I was addressing the posting of being upset that mexicans were on "our land" illegaly, I don't bother to spell it all the fuck out. But now I have, so now you can blow me. Faggot.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 20:46:53 "Always playing the race card. Race has nothing to do with it, they are violating our laws. By your logic we should release every minority in prison regardless of their crimes because the only reason they are there is because of "racist whitys." That's interesting. My logic clearly states that undocumented workers are good for the economy. In no where have I mentioned that random criminals who committed crimes unrelated to immigration should be released. But I know that painting people of color as bunch of prisoners tend to go down well with Eugenicists.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 20:49:25 >-Bush toyed with the idea of giving amnesty to illegal-immigrants. Of course he did, but the thought of Bush using an Executive Order was never even heard of. It for sure was never considered. Look, I dont know if this rumor is true or not, only The White House knows. If it is true however, it is totally fucked up.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Jun 23 20:50:57 @Freddy why should mexicans be immune to immigration laws? what other countries allow anonymous people to just wander in and live & work there?
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 20:51:48 How do you know it was never even heard of? Shit man! Do you ever think about what you're going to say before you speak it?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 20:54:48 "Look, I dont know if this rumor is true or not, only The White House knows. If it is true however, it is totally fucked up. " It's fucked up why? Because there will be too many people of color?
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 20:56:57 mh - That's interesting. My logic clearly states that undocumented workers are good for the economy. Actually that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Two questions: 1. Do illegal aliens from other countries have a legal right to be here? 2. Does the President have the moral right to circumvent The Constitution with an Executive Order without following the accepted and traditional use of such an EO in this case?
Freddy Member	Wed Jun 23 20:57:50 "why should mexicans be immune to immigration laws? " Why the fuck not? They were here BEFORE we killed them and stole their land. If ANYONE should have the right to be in the "US", it is mexicans and native americans. And if you think differently, I suggest you go remove that wonderful quote on The Statue Of LIBERTY.
kargen Member	Wed Jun 23 20:58:00 "P.S. Only retards would use the following arguments against immigration (legal and undocumented workers):" You of course mean legal and illegal workers. Your "undocumented" workers are criminals just by the pure fact that they are here. Making them illegal. None of the other points matter at all. Are they a burden on society? Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter though because they shouldn't be here. Are they driving down wages? Doesn't matter if they are or if they are not. They shouldn't be here. What does matter is that people are going through the process of trying to get into the country legally and these illegal immigrants are hendering their efforts. "Luckily, points 1-3 have all been refuted by economists. " Not across all spectrums of society you will find in the United States. Again it doesn't matter though as they shouldn't be here anyway. Even if they were shitting gold and using it to pay off the governments debts they should be forced back to their country of origin and get in line with the others. I know that is no longer practical, but it is what should be done. What we really need to do is take steps to keep the problem from getting larger. If your basement is flooding you stop the leak before you start bailing water. " comitted genocide on the native people, and stole their land. " To be fair and honest you have to admit that we actually bought more land than we stole. The attempted genocides were not good though.
Freddy Member	Wed Jun 23 20:58:41 "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 20:59:01 Dickhead - How do you know it was never even heard of? Shit man! Do you ever think about what you're going to say before you speak it? I will be happy to look at your source that claimes Bush considered allow millions of illegals to become legal by EO.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:02:38 "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Yep, all you have to do is get in line and wait your turn like all of legal applicants.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 21:04:14 "Actually that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Two questions: 1. Do illegal aliens from other countries have a legal right to be here? 2. Does the President have the moral right to circumvent The Constitution with an Executive Order without following the accepted and traditional use of such an EO in this case" Of course the economic arguments matter. The government should implement policies that promote economic growth and getting rid of those that do not. But since I don't evade questions on why it is "too late" to reverse EO, I'll give you straight answers: 1. yes 2. it's not unconstitutional. Therefore, there is no problem.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 21:05:34 Seriously? You're going to do this? Try to follow this logic. You just said that you are uncertain if this rumor is untrue or not. I make a point that Bush wanted to give amnesty to illegal immigrants too. That's your beef, right? You don't want any amnesty whatsoever. Either by EO or by congress. You went on to claim that Bush didn't talk about passing it by EO. I asked how do you know he didn't entertain this notion? And now you're asking me for the source. Hello, brain dead moron. For once in your miserable existence think about what you've said. I can easily ask you to provide sources that he didn't entertained about amnesty to illegals via EO. Oh shit! What do we do now?
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:08:09 1. Illegal is legal. 2. It circumvents The Constitution, therefore it is not unconstitutional. If that is your final opinion then we have nothing more to discuss. This has been fun. Bye.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 21:09:45 Kargen, "You of course mean legal and illegal workers. Your "undocumented" workers are criminals just by the pure fact that they are here. Making them illegal. None of the other points matter at all. Are they a burden on society? Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter though because they shouldn't be here. Are they driving down wages? Doesn't matter if they are or if they are not. They shouldn't be here. What does matter is that people are going through the process of trying to get into the country legally and these illegal immigrants are hendering their efforts. " They should be here since they provided many benefits to the society. Government exists to improve the society and provide benefits to its people, right? Ergo, they should be given a mean to stay here legally. Of course, now some people will say "how about the legal immigrants?" The immigration system is broken - hence this "rumor" about amnesty is running wild among some faggoty semi-illiterate Republicans. If the system works perfectly, then this rumor wouldn't even come into existence. "Not across all spectrums of society you will find in the United States." I agree. Not everyone agrees with the results published by economists. Some people still believe in eugenics and creationism too. I don't care for those people. Globalization and an increased pressure on science and mathematical education will weed those semi-illiterate Republicans out eventually.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 21:14:04 "1. Illegal is legal. 2. It circumvents The Constitution, therefore it is not unconstitutional. If that is your final opinion then we have nothing more to discuss. This has been fun. Bye. " 1. Must be typos - or this will be another hilarious logical train wreck. 2. No, it doesn't. Congress gives The President discretionary power. Honestly, it's not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so. You are in no position to make that judgment. We have plenty more to discuss, including why it is "too late" to reverse EO if Obama issues one. You have evade this like a plague from the beginning. Could it because you got caught for racist tendencies?
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:20:13 "Of course he did, but the thought of Bush using an Executive Order was never even heard of. It for sure was never considered." In public. >-That's your beef, right? Not in this thread so much. My beef here is that the current president is circumventing The Constitution if this rumor is true. >-You don't want any amnesty whatsoever. Either by EO or by congress. That is correct, they are breaking the law. They have no business being in this country. >-Oh shit! What do we do now? Well, you are the one who suggested that Bush 'may have' considered an Executive order. If you have nothing to back that up then I suggest we deal with the current President's rumor that he may use an EO.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 21:33:43 Who cares if it was in public or not. Regardless if he did entertain then and it wasn't in public and miraculously had insider information would there be the 'outrage'? No it is not circumventing the constitution. Every time you said this you are shown how wrong you were. Milton addressed it. Depsite having no business being in the country. But there is no other practical way of removing them. But there are better solutions to address the matter now with the current ones and make it where in the future it will be more difficult to let anyone freely into the country. And I didn suggest shit. I said that Bush wanted to give amnesty and asked where was your outrage on this board when that happened? You were the one with "insider information" thay he didn't ever considered EO regarding the matter. Wow, seriously wow.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:34:24 >-1. Must be typos - or this will be another hilarious logical train wreck. Question: 1. Do illegal aliens from other countries have a legal right to be here? Your Answer: 1. yes Hence, illegal is legal according to your answer Question: 2. Does the President have the moral right to circumvent The Constitution with an Executive Order without following the accepted and traditional use of such an EO in this case" Your answer: 2. it's not unconstitutional. Therefore, there is no problem. There is a problem because the "accepted and traditional use of such an EO" is for a case by case basis. Not for a blanket use applying to millions of illegals without having studied their individual cases. I never said it was unconstitutional, I said it was immoral. He took a sworn oath to uphold The Constitution, not circumvent it.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:41:12 DH, I have always been against amnesty even when Reagan did it. And I never said it was unconstitutional, I said it was immoral. He took a sworn oath to uphold The Constitution, not circumvent it.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 21:42:51 This is some serious hilarity here. So now you agree that it is not unconstitutional, but still contend that Obama has circumvented the Constitution? So something can be constitutional and still be circumventing the Constitution? Do you even read your own writing before you submit it? "Hence, illegal is legal according to your answer." That's weird. You asked me if illegal immigrants can legally stay here, to which I answered yes. You did not ask if all legal activities are legal in American jurisprudence. Way to move the goalpost. For example, I do not consider ped... never mind. I am gonna keep my words.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 21:48:05 correction: if all ILLEGAL activities are legal.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:50:23 You not even reading my posts or you are back to trolling. I see no reason to keep explaining myself over and over. I've already answered those points. Bye.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 21:51:27 So he took an oath to uphold the constitution. And you find it immoral. Seems like a circumventing way of saying you think its unconstitutional. LOL Humor me rod, what do you think of presidential pardons?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 21:52:53 I read them - that's why you got owned badly. I'll copy the relevant part here for others to judge: "And I never said it was unconstitutional, I said it was immoral. He took a sworn oath to uphold The Constitution, not circumvent it." So an action that is constitutional, according to TG, can still circumvent the Constitution.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:53:02 Goes for you too.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 21:56:44 Why me? Are you sore? Why are you sore. I'm trying to discuss this with you. I'm sorry that I found every fallacy in your argument. I will try harder next time to dumb myself down. Perhaps if I were merely a highschool drop out we could see eye to eye?
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 21:58:54 "You not even reading my posts or you are back to trolling. I see no reason to keep explaining myself over and over. I've already answered those points. Bye."
Ninja Member	Wed Jun 23 22:01:37 "The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative. " Am I understanding this right? There is already a constitutional manner for the president to "deferred action or parole for illegal aliens". Just because it is "usually evaluated on a case-by-case basis", does not mean it is so limited. If in fact the power of "deferred action or parole for illegal aliens" is legal, what is unconstitutional about the use of that for anyone who can establish that they were here before X date? Isn't your argument like saying that it is unconstitutional for the President to pardon people because it is up to Congress to make the laws?
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 22:02:29 I see that you're not reading mind nor taking the respect to answer questions that are being ask of you. I guess you're a liar when you claimed that you're here for a reasoned, sensibile discussiong regarding political issues.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 22:04:20 Ninja, that's the point I was going to make. Hence why I asked him of what he thought about presidential pardons. Of course I'm the bad guy for asking such logical questions.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 22:05:48 TG, aren't you annoyed that you are met with repetitive replies? Please consider that. Some people here have stopped that and it would be untoward of you to start using such tactic yourself.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:14:49 >-Isn't your argument like saying that it is unconstitutional for the President to pardon people because it is up to Congress to make the laws? I never said it was unconstitutional. I said an EO to parden millions of illegals with a simple signature circumvent The Constitution. Article I, Section 8 The Congress shall have the power 4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States: I said it was immoral because he took an oath to uphold The Constitution. "The "accepted and traditional use of such an EO" is for a case by case basis. Not for a blanket use applying to millions of illegals without having studied their individual cases." And that is my whole case and it is as clear as I can make it. Bear in mind, this is only a rumor.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 22:20:20 And The Constitution says he could do that, since it's not unconstitutional. It's good that we are living in a civil society where someone's view about another person's morality is in no way relevant to whether the Constitution has been circumvented or not.
Ninja Member	Wed Jun 23 22:21:09 "I never said it was unconstitutional. I said an EO to parden millions of illegals with a simple signature circumvent The Constitution. " Can you please clear this up? How can something circumvent the constitution and not be unconstitutional? Honestly HR, I don't know if such a use would in fact be legal but you're not making sense there.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:26:42 "An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor or at the local level by the city's Mayor. U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the Executive branch manage the operations within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution. It is these cited or perceived justifications made by a President when authoring Executive Orders that have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority and have been subject to legal proceedings even at various times throughout U.S. history concerning the legal validity or justification behind an order's issuance." "Basis in U.S. Constitution U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office." http://en....tive_order_%28United_States%29
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:27:18 Article I, Section 8 The Congress shall have the power 4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization...
Ninja Member	Wed Jun 23 22:29:28 Hot Rod, I really wish you would make a coherent argument and not just throw up facts and expect us to infer your argument from disjoint facts.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 22:30:05 It being immoral is circumventing it of not being unconstitutional. LOL. its constitutionally right. But it being immoral circumvents it. Hahahahahahah
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:30:13 Goes for you too.
Ninja Member	Wed Jun 23 22:32:58 I have not, in this thread (and rarely in general) just thrown up facts without providing context to those facts. So, what do those facts to do answer the question of my post? ""I never said it was unconstitutional. I said an EO to parden millions of illegals with a simple signature circumvent The Constitution. " Can you please clear this up? How can something circumvent the constitution and not be unconstitutional? Honestly HR, I don't know if such a use would in fact be legal but you're not making sense there. "
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 22:35:27 On a serious note. And I think milton can confirm this... Rod, did or did you not try to have a disccusion with Byron on now Obama was, in your words, 'circumventing the constitution by possibly passing h.r. 675 which violates P C. Which in turn ,again in your words, was 'unconstitional'. And here we are again presented where you are claiming once again that this president is 'circumventing' the constitution and now its not unconstitutional just only 'immoral' due to the oath he's taken?
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:41:11 "The "accepted and traditional use of such an EO" is for a case by case basis. Not for a blanket use applying to millions of illegals without having studied their individual cases." You want me to explain it word for word? This is what an EO is, not a means to get around the legislative process. Do you remember what Senator Kyl said the other day? Start at 3min 15 Sec. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpyrlX52TwA Wed Jun 23 22:26:42 "An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor or at the local level by the city's Mayor. U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the Executive branch manage the operations within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution. It is these cited or perceived justifications made by a President when authoring Executive Orders that have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority and have been subject to legal proceedings even at various times throughout U.S. history concerning the legal validity or justification behind an order's issuance." "Basis in U.S. Constitution U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office."
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:43:55 DH - in your words, 'circumventing the constitution by possibly passing h.r. 675 No.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 22:48:25 Don't you fucking lie. I hate for that thread to be ressurected.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:50:18 I never used the word circumventing. I said it would be the death knell for Posse Comitatus if I remember correctly.
Ninja Member	Wed Jun 23 22:51:03 But an EO would be nothing more than a formal statement that he will "defer action or parole for illegal aliens". It wouldn't be the EO that officially did anything but the successive executive acts to apply the already established legal method. Your freak out over the EO is irrelevant.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:52:56 And my reasoning was that the Department of Defense does not have any Constitutional right to have police authority over civilians off federal property except under certain conditions.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 22:56:25 All you have to do is remember what is being said in the thread. "Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens." Did you even read the OP?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 23:01:08 "Rod, did or did you not try to have a disccusion with Byron on now Obama was, in your words, 'circumventing the constitution by possibly passing h.r. 675 which violates P C. Which in turn ,again in your words, was 'unconstitional'. And here we are again presented where you are claiming once again that this president is 'circumventing' the constitution and now its not unconstitutional just only 'immoral' due to the oath he's taken?" confirmed. TG knows that there is no constitutional issue involved, so he invented a new way to attack Obama in the form of "circumventing the Constitution."
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 23:04:10 I dont think I used the word 'circumventing.' If I did that was a different situation with different parameters. It has nothing to do with this.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 23:04:27 That was the whole point of h.r. 675. Any property under dept of defense that had a police force was granted all police authority. It didn't mean that all police agences for dept of defense could go to some po dunk town in oklahoma and arrest joe blow for running a stop sign. Which was your argument thank you very much. Let's see if that thread can be ressurrected. I remember you using that term. And to be honest considering the bullshit you've been spouting. I'm think I'm gonna take my word over yours. LOL.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 23:06:46 Thank you mf, I thought so.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jun 23 23:08:43 What do you mean it has nothing to do with this? You used the same langauge regarding that subject to this subject. The difference is that you mean circumventing = immoral
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 23:12:26 Look, I think it's pretty clear that TG created this thread not to discuss the legality of the action that Obama is "rumored" to take (since he admitted that it is not unconstitutional) but to invent yet another way to attack Obama. It's just too bad that undocumented workers become the collateral damage in TG's political vendetta. It's sad, really, since we really need to fix the immigration system and a healthy debate is what we really need.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 23:29:35 P.S. The sooner we stop examining a person's behavior from our own moral compass the less sectarian violence we will see in this world.
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 23:38:57 DH - What do you mean it has nothing to do with this? You used the same langauge regarding that subject to this subject. DH thinks the DoD private police force is the same issue as amnesty for illegal aliens. Brilliant.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jun 23 23:39:41 Sooooo tempted...
The Guardian Member	Wed Jun 23 23:39:53 Sorry guys, I have a date with Guadalcanal.
Dickhead UPer Member	Thu Jun 24 00:41:27 "DH thinks the DoD private police force is the same issue as amnesty for illegal aliens. " Delusional much?
KreeL Member	Thu Jun 24 00:44:52 Little Bush set it up. Obama is gonna knock it down. I told you clowns to vote for Ron Paul. Dipshits.
smarterthanbush Member	Thu Jun 24 00:45:17 'THIS GOES BEYOND OUTRAGEOUS ' So does your fake death stunt asshole
Dickhead UPer Member	Thu Jun 24 01:17:35 mexicantornado Member Wed Jun 23 20:10:39 "Where was this outraged when Bush proposed it? " Are you serious dipshit? Oh spare me you mexicant. Or how about you post another inane thread about how Obama caused NK to provoke the world bullshit.
Adolf Hitler Member	Thu Jun 24 04:46:26 We can not speak to you because you are dead.
	show deleted posts