Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[Woodruff]

Player, why do you still not understand the Citizens United ruling? Why do you not want people to be allowed to pool their money and spend it on political issues? Why do you want to restrict all the political spending to only the candidates (and then specifically to benefit the incumbents)? People have a first amendment freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government. All of those are protected by the Citizens United ruling.

I want to restrict money going to candidates so that folks aren't buying Congress, to be quite honest. And I don't at all believe that the ability to buy Congress falls within "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly" nor "freedom to petition the government".

Public funding for candidates only, as far as I'm concerned.

[Night Strike]

Player, why do you still not understand the Citizens United ruling? Why do you not want people to be allowed to pool their money and spend it on political issues? Why do you want to restrict all the political spending to only the candidates (and then specifically to benefit the incumbents)? People have a first amendment freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government. All of those are protected by the Citizens United ruling.

I want to restrict money going to candidates so that folks aren't buying Congress, to be quite honest. And I don't at all believe that the ability to buy Congress falls within "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly" nor "freedom to petition the government".

Public funding for candidates only, as far as I'm concerned.

The Citizens United ruling did not change the rules regarding contributions to candidates.

[Woodruff]

Player, why do you still not understand the Citizens United ruling? Why do you not want people to be allowed to pool their money and spend it on political issues? Why do you want to restrict all the political spending to only the candidates (and then specifically to benefit the incumbents)? People have a first amendment freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government. All of those are protected by the Citizens United ruling.

I want to restrict money going to candidates so that folks aren't buying Congress, to be quite honest. And I don't at all believe that the ability to buy Congress falls within "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly" nor "freedom to petition the government".

Public funding for candidates only, as far as I'm concerned.

The Citizens United ruling did not change the rules regarding contributions to candidates.

It fundamentally changed the Feingold-McCain Act, which absolutely impacts the election of candidates. I'm not sure why you'd believe this doesn't impact the ability to buy candidates.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, why do you still not understand the Citizens United ruling? Why do you not want people to be allowed to pool their money and spend it on political issues? Why do you want to restrict all the political spending to only the candidates (and then specifically to benefit the incumbents)? People have a first amendment freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government. All of those are protected by the Citizens United ruling.

I want to restrict money going to candidates so that folks aren't buying Congress, to be quite honest. And I don't at all believe that the ability to buy Congress falls within "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly" nor "freedom to petition the government".

Public funding for candidates only, as far as I'm concerned.

The Citizens United ruling did not change the rules regarding contributions to candidates.

Then why is it that immediately after its passage, donations to specific types of PACs, and advertisements by same increased so much?

And why is it that the same people who cheered when it was decided that money = free speech and therefore could not be limited are not "seriously concerned" that their "free speech" NOT be made public????? Freedom is not saying something behind a blanket. Free speech is saying something and knowing that you will be held accountable.. you have a right to say it, but not to avoid legal criticism. (and death threats are ALREADY not legal)

I mean, the kids who were abused by Sandusky had to come forward, but these guys can donate millions to PACs, absolutely influence elections and supposedly we have no right to even wage boycotts, write letters of protest (NOT threats, other than a boycott type threat, but "hey, I dislike what you are doing and here's why) or do any of the other activities that have been considered free speech for far longer than this!

[Night Strike]

Player, why do you still not understand the Citizens United ruling? Why do you not want people to be allowed to pool their money and spend it on political issues? Why do you want to restrict all the political spending to only the candidates (and then specifically to benefit the incumbents)? People have a first amendment freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government. All of those are protected by the Citizens United ruling.

I want to restrict money going to candidates so that folks aren't buying Congress, to be quite honest. And I don't at all believe that the ability to buy Congress falls within "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly" nor "freedom to petition the government".

Public funding for candidates only, as far as I'm concerned.

The Citizens United ruling did not change the rules regarding contributions to candidates.

It fundamentally changed the Feingold-McCain Act, which absolutely impacts the election of candidates. I'm not sure why you'd believe this doesn't impact the ability to buy candidates.

I never said it didn't impact elections. I said those contributions cannot go to a candidate.

[PLAYER57832]

I never said it didn't impact elections. I said those contributions cannot go to a candidate.

Oh please... so very few ads now are actually directly "from the candidate". That, itself, is a very fundamental change.

Politicians have always had the tag of "puppet" , but this ruling makes the individual essentially meaningless. The ads no longer even address much truth about the people, its all about "issues". And the issue people are convinced to vote upon is the one that brings in the most money... but we are not even allowed to know who is really funding the messages.

[BigBallinStalin]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!"

It's peculiar. When the executive sets an acceptable trend of flaunting the constitution, and when more and more Americans overlook that, then those Americans deserve nearly all the outcomes from such authoritarian policies.

[PLAYER57832]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!" .

He is continually judged in court.. its the purpose of the Supreme Court. Their failure to visit or consider any particular issue is, itself essentially a ruling by the Supreme Court.

And that is what makes Night strike's arguments ludicrous. The Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. Not Obama OR Nightstrike.

[Night Strike]

I never said it didn't impact elections. I said those contributions cannot go to a candidate.

Oh please... so very few ads now are actually directly "from the candidate". That, itself, is a very fundamental change.

Politicians have always had the tag of "puppet" , but this ruling makes the individual essentially meaningless. The ads no longer even address much truth about the people, its all about "issues". And the issue people are convinced to vote upon is the one that brings in the most money... but we are not even allowed to know who is really funding the messages.

Actually, this ruling gives individuals much easier access to getting their message out via political ads. This allows individuals to come together to pay for promotions that are way too expensive for them to pay for on their own. People have the freedom to assemble and to petition the government. This ruling just makes sure people can combine those freedoms if they choose to.

He is continually judged in court.. its the purpose of the Supreme Court. Their failure to visit or consider any particular issue is, itself essentially a ruling by the Supreme Court.

And that is what makes Night strike's arguments ludicrous. The Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. Not Obama OR Nightstrike.

Except the Supreme Court wouldn't rule on it for at minimum a year, and hopefully Obama doesn't even have a year left in office. And every single person is responsible for knowing what the Constitution says and means and holding their elected officials responsible to the Constitution. Just because I'm not a Supreme Court Justice doesn't mean I can't make determinations on what is or is not Constitutional. And rulings by the Supreme Court may also not be Constitutional (like Keno v New London).

[BigBallinStalin]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!" .

He is continually judged in court.. its the purpose of the Supreme Court. Their failure to visit or consider any particular issue is, itself essentially a ruling by the Supreme Court.

And that is what makes Night strike's arguments ludicrous. The Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. Not Obama OR Nightstrike.

Haha, it's like renting a car from Hertz and being judged in the Hertz Supreme Court.

[spurgistan]

The Citizens United ruling did not change the rules regarding contributions to candidates.

In an homage to phatscotty, I will phrase my response in the form of a web video, offered without context or explanation. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j ... en-colbert

OK, I'm not quite cocky enough to assume that you'll click on that just because I'm so friggin' awesome, and obviously would only link to videos that lay down the law in a most righteous manner, even though it is and I am. In this video, Jon Stewart, acting CEO of Colbert Super PAC somehow works within the law to work with candidate Stephen Colbert without actually legally coordinating with him. Hilarity, hijinks, fun for the whole family, as long as your family likes being disgusted by election law.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, why do you still not understand the Citizens United ruling?

I don't.

Why do you not want people to be allowed to pool their money and spend it on political issues?

This law is not about people pooling their money. It is about allowing BIG donors to hide their donations, and to impact elections without even having to identify that this they are the ones promoting the ideas.

Why do you want to restrict all the political spending to only the candidates (and then specifically to benefit the incumbents)?

Who said I did? In fact, I think we might all be better off if candidates only used public money, to avoid any and all influence by individuals or corporations. I have this strange concept that the candidates own ideas ought to speak for themselves, not be subjected to slick campaign advertisements.

When it comes to issues, my major beef is one of honesty. First, if you are going to tell us how wonderful the restoration efforts are in the Gulf of Mexico, then A., you ought to have to back that up. AND B. you ought to at least have to identify that your money comes from a big oil company -- and in big print/ words, not small print or almost hidden references.

People have a first amendment freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government. All of those are protected by the Citizens United ruling.

People. Individual people, not groups of people who create a fictional entity for the purposes of making money and shielding themselves from liabilities. BIG difference!

[PLAYER57832]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!" .

He is continually judged in court.. its the purpose of the Supreme Court. Their failure to visit or consider any particular issue is, itself essentially a ruling by the Supreme Court.

And that is what makes Night strike's arguments ludicrous. The Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. Not Obama OR Nightstrike.

Haha, it's like renting a car from Hertz and being judged in the Hertz Supreme Court.

I see, because Obama, himself appointed how many justices? (hint.. it was not a majority, nor even the most nominated by a presidency in the past 3 decades).

[Night Strike]

Sorry player, but as a citizen of the United States, we have the right to donate money to anything we want to donate our money to. And if we want to donate it to a political organization so they can run ads on a political issue, then we are allowed to do that. You cannot take that first amendment freedom away from us.

If a union group does not like a policy, they are allowed to spend money to campaign against that policy, either directly or through a PAC.

If a corporation does not like a policy, they are allowed to spend money to campaign against that policy, either directly or through a PAC.

If random individuals don't like a policy, they are allowed to spend money to campaign against that policy, either directly or through a PAC.

You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

[BigBallinStalin]

@player

It doesn't have to be only about Obama. You're saying that "the SC decides what is constitutional." I'm subtly trying to hint that such a system would be actually fair to the Constitution if these judges were actually objective, not influenced by party loyalties, not susceptible to their own private interests, etc.

[Night Strike]

I see, because Obama, himself appointed how many justices? (hint.. it was not a majority, nor even the most nominated by a presidency in the past 3 decades).

Except what's downright scary for our country is that the two he nominated will probably vote to uphold Obamacare (although 1 should have been recused from the topic). To have a currently unknown number of justices vote in favor of the government telling citizens which private purchases they must make is frightening and turns the government-citizen relationship completely upside down (and nothing that was intended by the Founders). We can't allow Obama to have a 2nd term to put more justices like that on the Supreme Court.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry player, but as a citizen of the United States, we have the right to donate money to anything we want to donate our money to. And if we want to donate it to a political organization so they can run ads on a political issue, then we are allowed to do that. You cannot take that first amendment freedom away from us.

Cut the crap, no one is saying you don't have that right. I AM saying "fine, but then admit you are doing so"... at least when it comes to significant amounts. That, too, is part of free speech. The other, the hiding bit, is traditional the front of slander, not truth. (and yes, we see that exact thing here int eh advertisements! the PACS say things that individuals would not dare, at least not publically).

If a union group does not like a policy, they are allowed to spend money to campaign against that policy, either directly or through a PAC.

If a corporation does not like a policy, they are allowed to spend money to campaign against that policy, either directly or through a PAC.

Yes, which is part of what is wrong. BUT, the big point is that if they do this, then they should at least admit they are doing it.

If random individuals don't like a policy, they are allowed to spend money to campaign against that policy, either directly or through a PAC.

OH please... like my measly $20 is going to stack up against Bill Gates' and Donald Trump ... but, the worst part is that a company I work for or in whom I am invested can participate and not tell me what they are doing with MY money. See, corporate money is not the personal property of the CEO.. that is the whole point of a corporation. However, the PAC donations don't even have to be disclosed to the board or stockholders.

You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

Neither are corporations or unions to take MY money and use it without even telling me where the money is going.

This is not about individuals, it is about large corporations... and I mean LARGE corporations, not small business that are corporations!

[PLAYER57832]

I see, because Obama, himself appointed how many justices? (hint.. it was not a majority, nor even the most nominated by a presidency in the past 3 decades).

Except what's downright scary for our country is that the two he nominated will probably vote to uphold Obamacare (although 1 should have been recused from the topic). To have a currently unknown number of justices vote in favor of the government telling citizens which private purchases they must make is frightening and turns the government-citizen relationship completely upside down (and nothing that was intended by the Founders). We can't allow Obama to have a 2nd term to put more justices like that on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, downright scary that everyone in this country should have healthcare.. an absolutely TERRIBLE result.

And.. Bush influenced the current Supreme Court far more than Obama. So, why aren't you blasting him on this?
[oh yeah.. gotta be against Obama... I get it!]

[Night Strike]

I see, because Obama, himself appointed how many justices? (hint.. it was not a majority, nor even the most nominated by a presidency in the past 3 decades).

Except what's downright scary for our country is that the two he nominated will probably vote to uphold Obamacare (although 1 should have been recused from the topic). To have a currently unknown number of justices vote in favor of the government telling citizens which private purchases they must make is frightening and turns the government-citizen relationship completely upside down (and nothing that was intended by the Founders). We can't allow Obama to have a 2nd term to put more justices like that on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, downright scary that everyone in this country should have healthcare.. an absolutely TERRIBLE result.

And.. Bush influenced the current Supreme Court far more than Obama. So, why aren't you blasting him on this?
[oh yeah.. gotta be against Obama... I get it!]

Because this legislation has nothing to do with health care. It is about forcing individuals to buy health care insurance simply because the government decided that individuals must make a private purchase. The government does not have that authority. And it's not the government's job to provide health care (or insurance) to people. That's the person's responsibility. People are responsible for taking care of themselves. It's not the government's job to take care of them.

And yes, Bush did influence the court, which is why hopefully Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the mandate (and hopefully the entire law).

Neither are corporations or unions to take MY money and use it without even telling me where the money is going.

This is not about individuals, it is about large corporations... and I mean LARGE corporations, not small business that are corporations!

Yes, we know you HATE corporations (and other entities that make money). But corporations DO have to disclose where they are spending their money if they are a publicly traded company. If they're not public, you have absolutely no right to tell them where they spend their money. And even if they are public, if you do not own voting shares in the company, you don't have that right either. All the rest of us are allowed to group together and speak on political issues if we so choose. And you do not get the power to pick and choose which groups get to speak and which ones don't. That was the purpose of the Citizens United ruling.

[Phatscotty]

A dictator is someone who unilaterally writes the laws of his country or unilaterally goes against the laws already written in his country. Obama frequently goes against the laws that are already on the books, with this being the most blatant and far-reaching. The Constitution states that the executive branch is to carry out the laws the Congress passes. If he doesn't like a bill, he can veto it. If he doesn't like a law that's already on the books, he pushes Congress to repeal or rewrite. He has absolutely no authority to just ignore the laws that we have, and the fact that he is actively pushing actions that go directly against those laws in unconstitutional. It's dictatorial behavior and he should be impeached for violating his Constitutional duties.

He should at least be tried in court; however, judging from the general responses in here, many Americans really don't care, or they'll say "yeah at least he's not as authoritarian as Kim Jong Il!"

It's peculiar. When the executive sets an acceptable trend of flaunting the constitution, and when more and more Americans overlook that, then those Americans deserve nearly all the outcomes from such authoritarian policies.

That's pretty much what Obama said when he got elected...that he would just continue to do what Bush was doing and continue to flaunt the constitution, because all the smart Americans would defend him and say "Well, Bush did it, so that makes it okay", and of course it will be okay for the next president, based on "Obama did it" and then the next prez and the next......

Brilliant!

[BigBallinStalin]

@player

It doesn't have to be only about Obama. You're saying that "the SC decides what is constitutional." I'm subtly trying to hint that such a system would be actually fair to the Constitution if these judges were actually objective, not influenced by party loyalties, not susceptible to their own private interests, etc.

I've been skimming through their debate, andI find it funny that player is upset at the SC decision on citizen's united. Earlier she was stating that what the SC decides is Constitutional, so does she have a problem with the US constitution, or with the SC, or what?

[Phatscotty]

How about we stop overlooking it.....starting now?

[Woodruff]

The Citizens United ruling did not change the rules regarding contributions to candidates.

In an homage to phatscotty, I will phrase my response in the form of a web video, offered without context or explanation. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j ... en-colbert

OK, I'm not quite cocky enough to assume that you'll click on that just because I'm so friggin' awesome, and obviously would only link to videos that lay down the law in a most righteous manner, even though it is and I am. In this video, Jon Stewart, acting CEO of Colbert Super PAC somehow works within the law to work with candidate Stephen Colbert without actually legally coordinating with him. Hilarity, hijinks, fun for the whole family, as long as your family likes being disgusted by election law.

Exactly! God, I love those two.

[Woodruff]

You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

The idea that money = free speech is disgusting in the extreme.

[Woodruff]

I see, because Obama, himself appointed how many justices? (hint.. it was not a majority, nor even the most nominated by a presidency in the past 3 decades).

Except what's downright scary for our country is that the two he nominated will probably vote to uphold Obamacare (although 1 should have been recused from the topic). To have a currently unknown number of justices vote in favor of the government telling citizens which private purchases they must make is frightening and turns the government-citizen relationship completely upside down (and nothing that was intended by the Founders). We can't allow Obama to have a 2nd term to put more justices like that on the Supreme Court.

The irony is epic.