Obama to announce executive order on immigration

[Gass3268]

It should frighten all of us that one man can pass laws by executive order.  The President is not supposed to be dictator and every new law must be passed by Congress.

It should not frighten us that one man elected by the people who is term limited can pass laws by executive order. A dictatorship does not include free and open elections.

Frankly, it frightens me more that people like Louie Gohmert or Charlie Rangel have power to pass laws.  The amount of power Congress has given the kind of person elected to Congress is truly scary.

When you coincide it that the President is not elected by drawn districts but by a total vote of the people and that turn out is nearly double in elections for President than they are in elections for Congress and that the President faces a legitimate opponent while most members of Congress run unopposed, the President is clearly more a Representative of the People than the Congress of the United States.

Not to mention with the President we are actually having this debate on his actions. The President had to give a nationally televised address to announce this action. Presidential actions are vocal and visible. Congressional actions are done in secret, in committee, and in bribery where a person can amend a bill to his liking and then vote against it for show, completely lying to his/her constituency. The bills are 100x longer than executive orders. Congressional action is impossible to check.  Then, we have the concept of the House and Senate: gerrymandered districts and disproportionately awarded Senate seats.

Any person who is truly afraid of oligarchy, dictatorship, and destruction of citizens rights should support the open Executive Action of the President as a check against the corrupt and nondemocratic institution of the United States Congress as it exists in the 21st Century.

So, just throw away the Constitution and a Republican form of government?  If a President can do this what is the point of even having a congress?

You do know that Reagan and HW Bush both did exactly what Obama did tonight, right?

[DrScholl]

When the Congress is not willing to work to pass needed fixes and is set on creating gridlock, executive orders are the answer.

[KCDem]

It should frighten all of us that one man can pass laws by executive order.  The President is not supposed to be dictator and every new law must be passed by Congress.

It should not frighten us that one man elected by the people who is term limited can pass laws by executive order. A dictatorship does not include free and open elections.

Frankly, it frightens me more that people like Louie Gohmert or Charlie Rangel have power to pass laws.  The amount of power Congress has given the kind of person elected to Congress is truly scary.

When you coincide it that the President is not elected by drawn districts but by a total vote of the people and that turn out is nearly double in elections for President than they are in elections for Congress and that the President faces a legitimate opponent while most members of Congress run unopposed, the President is clearly more a Representative of the People than the Congress of the United States.

Not to mention with the President we are actually having this debate on his actions. The President had to give a nationally televised address to announce this action. Presidential actions are vocal and visible. Congressional actions are done in secret, in committee, and in bribery where a person can amend a bill to his liking and then vote against it for show, completely lying to his/her constituency. The bills are 100x longer than executive orders. Congressional action is impossible to check.  Then, we have the concept of the House and Senate: gerrymandered districts and disproportionately awarded Senate seats.

Any person who is truly afraid of oligarchy, dictatorship, and destruction of citizens rights should support the open Executive Action of the President as a check against the corrupt and nondemocratic institution of the United States Congress as it exists in the 21st Century.

So, just throw away the Constitution and a Republican form of government?  If a President can do this what is the point of even having a congress?

There is none. Junk Congress!

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It should frighten all of us that one man can pass laws by executive order.  The President is not supposed to be dictator and every new law must be passed by Congress.

It should not frighten us that one man elected by the people who is term limited can pass laws by executive order. A dictatorship does not include free and open elections.

Frankly, it frightens me more that people like Louie Gohmert or Charlie Rangel have power to pass laws.  The amount of power Congress has given the kind of person elected to Congress is truly scary.

When you coincide it that the President is not elected by drawn districts but by a total vote of the people and that turn out is nearly double in elections for President than they are in elections for Congress and that the President faces a legitimate opponent while most members of Congress run unopposed, the President is clearly more a Representative of the People than the Congress of the United States.

Not to mention with the President we are actually having this debate on his actions. The President had to give a nationally televised address to announce this action. Presidential actions are vocal and visible. Congressional actions are done in secret, in committee, and in bribery where a person can amend a bill to his liking and then vote against it for show, completely lying to his/her constituency. The bills are 100x longer than executive orders. Congressional action is impossible to check.  Then, we have the concept of the House and Senate: gerrymandered districts and disproportionately awarded Senate seats.

Any person who is truly afraid of oligarchy, dictatorship, and destruction of citizens rights should support the open Executive Action of the President as a check against the corrupt and nondemocratic institution of the United States Congress as it exists in the 21st Century.

So, just throw away the Constitution and a Republican form of government?  If a President can do this what is the point of even having a congress?

You do know that Reagan and HW Bush both did exactly what Obama did tonight, right?

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

[King]

Also, when you look back at any Presidency since 1980 either partisan or not and look at what Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama failed to get done and promises they failed to keep, the blame ultimately comes down to Congressional failure to act and Congressional failure to act almost always comes down to leadership getting bought by special interests

The Executive is clearly the superior branch for functioning government while Congress is one giant negative cesspool.

I think this country would be better off if our President had more power to act and then every four years became a true referendum of Presidential policy and not this weird contest of "what I really believe is better than what the Congress was willing to go give me."

It has been the Congress not any President uniformly on the wrong side of history, regardless of partisan divide. It has been the Congress which has violated the Constitution more in actions than any President in history, which the Supreme Court can attest. It has been the Congress which in action has infringed the right of individual states more than any President in history.

So, just throw away the Constitution and a Republican form of government?  If a President can do this what is the point of even having a congress?

Good point. We should seriously consider reforming the Constitution to reign back Congressional overreach and stop its corruption. The House and Senate rules which establish what bills considered and who has power on Capitol Hill are far more unconstitutional and anti-republican than executive orders.

The Congress is not well functioning institution and has not been for quite some time. Saving the Republican form of government could very well be to get rid of it or at least expand the Constitution to clearly definite Senate and House rules, rules for House redistricting, and rules for Congressional campaign finance.

[King]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

[bedstuy]

Republicans, let's just get this straight:  This is not illegal or unprecedented.  We currently have statutes on the books which give the executive discretion.  Obviously, you can't give the executive total discretion to just make up laws, but you also can't write a 500 million page immigration statute to cover every possible eventuality.  There's some middle ground and Congress has decided in the past what that balance is.  They can change the nation's immigration laws if they so choose, but they have no ground to just sit back and whine about how Obama doesn't have the same priorities as them, within this system created by the immigration statutes.  

Look at it this way, the President can prioritize resources towards deporting certain people and not others. Your local police can choose to focus on murder cases or catch every jaywalker.  Within this middle ground of enforcement of laws, there is tons of grey area.  But, that's why we have elections to decide who we think has the best judgement to make those calls within the grey area.  We decided on Obama, get over it.

[Gass3268]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Supreme Court has also ruled that the President has the power to do exactly what Obama did tonight.

[King]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

He has violated the Constitution.  This is not in the President's power.

[Gass3268]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

He has violated the Constitution.  This is not in the President's power.

The Supreme Court disagreed just recently in Arizona v. United States in 2012.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was a 5-3 decision (Kagan recused herself) with Kennedy and Roberts siding with the liberals on the Court in saying the executive branch has “broad discretion” on the matters of immigration.

[King]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

He has violated the Constitution.  This is not in the President's power.

What's not in the Constitution?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

He has violated the Constitution.  This is not in the President's power.

What's not in the Constitution?

Black Democrats aren't allowed to do what Reagan did.

[Panda Express]

[afleitch]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

He has violated the Constitution.  This is not in the President's power.

What's not in the Constitution?

Black Democrats aren't allowed to do what Reagan did.

We have a winner.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

He has violated the Constitution.  This is not in the President's power.

The Supreme Court disagreed just recently in Arizona v. United States in 2012.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was a 5-3 decision (Kagan recused herself) with Kennedy and Roberts siding with the liberals on the Court in saying the executive branch has “broad discretion” on the matters of immigration.

Except this is going beyond merely deciding who to prioritize when it comes to deportation, since my understanding is that he's also handing out work permits to those who won't be deported.  Maybe the existing law allows him to do that, but it certainly goes beyond simple allocation of enforcement priorities.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I don't care what Party does it, the Constitution must be followed.  If a bill can't be passed by Congress, then deal with it.

He is dealing with it.

Let me explain it this way.

Congress passes laws.  The President can sign them or veto them.  If Congress decides not to pass the law that does not give the President authority to break the rules. 

Nobody has told me what law the President violated with his actions.

He has violated the Constitution.  This is not in the President's power.

What's not in the Constitution?

Black Democrats aren't allowed to do what Reagan did.

Reagan wasn't allowed to do it either.  If the executive order was to make the immigration laws more strict I'd oppose it to, because one man should not have this kind of power.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Unfortunately the Presidents who regarded the Constitution as some kind of security blanket that enabled them free of any hard decision-making are universally perceived as ineffectual mediocrities; while those more ... flexible with the document are praised as greats. Imagine if Thomas Jefferson had, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, said "gosh, Napoleon, that is a nice offer; but I simply don't have the constitutional power!"

[SPC]

Interesting how Democrats and Republicans take opposite stances on whether to evict children from a place where they are unwanted by the inhabitants changes depending on whether that place is a woman's uterus or the Southwestern United States.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Does he have to blow $2.5 million jetting of to Vegas for the weekend so he can talk about what he did?

[SPC]

King fails to see that "inaction" by the legislative branch can sometimes (most often?) be a feature rather than a flaw. Is it impossible to envision a scenario where one man given unlimited lawmaking power for four years (but he would not be a dictator, because muh elections) could enact legislation that he dislikes. I am certain that he would be thrilled about George W. Bush making any law he so pleased for 8 years in spite of congressional opposition (although to be fair Bush did kind of set the precedent for this with his executive signing statements, but that should only be more reason to oppose the idea that the executive can effectively exercise a capricious ex post facto line-item veto.

[King]

King fails to see that "inaction" by the legislative branch can sometimes (most often?) be a feature rather than a flaw. Is it impossible to envision a scenario where one man given unlimited lawmaking power for four years (but he would not be a dictator, because muh elections) could enact legislation that he dislikes. I am certain that he would be thrilled about George W. Bush making any law he so pleased for 8 years in spite of congressional opposition (although to be fair Bush did kind of set the precedent for this with his executive signing statements, but that should only be more reason to oppose the idea that the executive can effectively exercise a capricious ex post facto line-item veto.

I'm not against legislatures. I am against the United States Congress. You say "muh elections" but what about the United States Congress as it exists today is any different from the House of Lords our Founding Fathers did not want other than "muh elections"? What reason do you have to support the existence of the United States Congress in its current form other than "muh constitution"? It is a terrible body.

There are dozens of nationally non-elected, nationally non-endorsed Mr. Chairmans, Speaker, Whips, etc. running around DC exuding authority over this nation with no check against them by the people. It is the body of government completely out of control and it has been for quite some time. Extending far beyond this Presidency. If the Founders were alive today, they'd call a Constitutional Convention to massively reform, effectively eliminate both the House and Senate as they exist today.

I would have been thrilled for George W Bush to have real power in his 2nd term. His own Congress screwed him on this very issue and then distanced themselves from 2005 onward, then Democrats came in a fought him on foreign policy. We might have been in a better spot as a nation if he had taken more executive action. In business and in personal life matters, the ideology of the plan does not so much make the plan effective as it does the commitment and thoughtfulness of the plan.  Four years of real conservative or real liberal policy would be far more effective than four years of Rube Goldberg Machine public policy.

Everything wrong with government today was created in a bargain to appease some halfwit Congressman. Every earmark, every legal exception, every crap amendment.

Ask yourself this hypothetical, as a citizen, which America would be a stronger nation with a more accountable government: an America where Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln governed visibly for four year terms without a Congress or an America where John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Tip O'Neill, Henry Clay governed as long as their drawn districts kept them in power without a President?

The truth is the statesman that is the President has been America's real defense against corruption,  tyranny, and oligarchy in the Congress for most of our nation's history and not the other way around.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Unfortunately the Presidents who regarded the Constitution as some kind of security blanket that enabled them free of any hard decision-making are universally perceived as ineffectual mediocrities; while those more ... flexible with the document are praised as greats. Imagine if Thomas Jefferson had, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, said "gosh, Napoleon, that is a nice offer; but I simply don't have the constitutional power!"

He almost did, but it wasn't merely that he thought the Presidency lacked the power.  He was concerned the US government as a whole lacked the Constitutional authority to acquire territory since it wasn't an enumerated power.

[SPC]

King fails to see that "inaction" by the legislative branch can sometimes (most often?) be a feature rather than a flaw. Is it impossible to envision a scenario where one man given unlimited lawmaking power for four years (but he would not be a dictator, because muh elections) could enact legislation that he dislikes. I am certain that he would be thrilled about George W. Bush making any law he so pleased for 8 years in spite of congressional opposition (although to be fair Bush did kind of set the precedent for this with his executive signing statements, but that should only be more reason to oppose the idea that the executive can effectively exercise a capricious ex post facto line-item veto.

I'm not against legislatures. I am against the United States Congress. You say "muh elections" but what about the United States Congress as it exists today is any different from the House of Lords our Founding Fathers did not want other than "muh elections"? What reason do you have to support the existence of the United States Congress in its current form other than "muh constitution"? It is a terrible body.

There are dozens of nationally non-elected, nationally non-endorsed Mr. Chairmans, Speaker, Whips, etc. running around DC exuding authority over this nation with no check against them by the people. It is the body of government completely out of control and it has been for quite some time. Extending far beyond this Presidency. If the Founders were alive today, they'd call a Constitutional Convention to massively reform, effectively eliminate both the House and Senate as they exist today.

I would have been thrilled for George W Bush to have real power in his 2nd term. His own Congress screwed him on this very issue and then distanced themselves from 2005 onward, then Democrats came in a fought him on foreign policy. We might have been in a better spot as a nation if he had taken more executive action. In business and in personal life matters, the ideology of the plan does not so much make the plan effective as it does the commitment and thoughtfulness of the plan.  Four years of real conservative or real liberal policy would be far more effective than four years of Rube Goldberg Machine public policy.

Everything wrong with government today was created in a bargain to appease some halfwit Congressman. Every earmark, every legal exception, every crap amendment.

Ask yourself this hypothetical, as a citizen, which America would be a stronger nation with a more accountable government: an America where Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln governed visibly for four year terms without a Congress or an America where John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Tip O'Neill, Henry Clay governed as long as their drawn districts kept them in power without a President?

The truth is the statesman that is the President has been America's real defense against corruption,  tyranny, and oligarchy in the Congress for most of our nation's history and not the other way around.