Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[huamulan]

That was an action that was illegally taken against another nation, not against their own...that is a different situation.

Technically as a colony which answered to the King of England the then colonies were a part of the UK.

Either way, illegal actions are illegal actions

[jonesthecurl]

That was an action that was illegally taken against another nation, not against their own...that is a different situation.

Technically as a colony which answered to the King of England the then colonies were a part of the UK.

Either way, illegal actions are illegal actions

Yes: there was no "American Nation" at the time. It was a bit similar, legally, to the Confederacy seceding.

[Maugena]

GreekDog asked you to stop. I wasn't talking to you, and for the 8th time you are on my foed list. For the love of God, stop getting into the middle of me and someone elses conversation and trying to ruin threads and engage in flaming. Mind your own damn business!!!!

Don't freaking talk to me.

This should be your new sig, Woodruff.
Every time I read anything of Phatscotty's, I temporarily lose intelligence and my civility.

[Phatscotty]

Everytime I read your post, it doesn't have anything to do with the subject and you are putting someone down. My posts are the bomb.

Obama's act are unconstitutional. He did the same thing when he decided to spend billions of dollars in Libya and sent our troops to help with a war. We will realize very soon that Obamacare is unconstitutional as well. Obama doesn't give a crap about the Constitution, and he is an expert at going around the Constitution and an expert agitator. Just like his hero Saul Alinsky.

and the American Revolution was not illegal. The invasion of Lexington and Concord was illegal. The American Revolution was the response to a long list of tyrannical actions and atrocities by the King of England and British troops. Also, there was not a single vote against the States separating from England and becoming independent.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[huamulan]

He did the same thing when he decided to spend billions of dollars in Libya and sent our troops to help with a war.

America didn't actually join in with the Libya conflict. That was just the UK and France. At the time I gave America positive credit for its refrain.

The American Revolution was the response to a long list of tyrannical actions and atrocities by the King of England and British troops.

So, in other words, it was the colonies dealing with a bad situation by resorting to violence? Sounds illegal to me.

Also, there was not a single vote against the States separating from England and becoming independent.

I think you know as well as everyone else that law-breaking does not cease to be law-breaking just because 'everyone does it'.

[PLAYER57832]

We have a dictator, not a president.

Spend some time in North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea (do I really need to list more?) and then I'd love to watch you say this.

Sure you may disagree with the President, but ridiculous comments like this throw off your entire arguments.

Actually, this is not a question of disagreement. While I like this particular action the president has taken, it is absolutely against the law and brings into question the separation of powers issue. Some or many people may support what the president has done, but it is most assuredly illegal.

Funny how that argument was not voiced much when Ronald Reagan did the same thing....

(not saying I disagree. In this case, I like the result, but we need a complete overhaul of the law, not a side-stepping of the law)

[PLAYER57832]

Also, there was not a single vote against the States separating from England and becoming independent.

Are you truly serious?

Are you are somehow on the misguided impression that no colonial leader sided with the Brits or are you just conveniently ignoring the fact that at the time the vote you mention happened, all dissenters had already been ousted? I believe North Korea tends to unanimously vote in their leaders....

[Night Strike]

We have a dictator, not a president.

Spend some time in North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea (do I really need to list more?) and then I'd love to watch you say this.

Sure you may disagree with the President, but ridiculous comments like this throw off your entire arguments.

Actually, this is not a question of disagreement. While I like this particular action the president has taken, it is absolutely against the law and brings into question the separation of powers issue. Some or many people may support what the president has done, but it is most assuredly illegal.

Funny how that argument was not voiced much when Ronald Reagan did the same thing....

(not saying I disagree. In this case, I like the result, but we need a complete overhaul of the law, not a side-stepping of the law)

Maybe because Reagan did NOT do the same thing:

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

Obama did not sign any bill into law. He ruled by dictatorial fiat and told Congress that he would not enforce their immigration laws.

[Night Strike]

By the way, why is the Mexican president supportive of this action? Is it because he knows it encourages more people to leave his country for the US? Or is it because he doesn't actually want his citizens back in Mexico?

[Neoteny]

I've been under a rock for a bit. What did the president do "today" that he "admitted was unconstitutional" last year?

I'm being a little facetious, but I really don't know. Can someone post a link to a description of the crime? The Blaze is an acceptable source in this instance.

[PLAYER57832]

We have a dictator, not a president.

Spend some time in North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea (do I really need to list more?) and then I'd love to watch you say this.

Sure you may disagree with the President, but ridiculous comments like this throw off your entire arguments.

Actually, this is not a question of disagreement. While I like this particular action the president has taken, it is absolutely against the law and brings into question the separation of powers issue. Some or many people may support what the president has done, but it is most assuredly illegal.

Funny how that argument was not voiced much when Ronald Reagan did the same thing....

(not saying I disagree. In this case, I like the result, but we need a complete overhaul of the law, not a side-stepping of the law)

Maybe because Reagan did NOT do the same thing:

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

LOL-- sorry, but I was around back then.
I am not talking 1986. I am talking the earlier actions.

Obama did not sign any bill into law. He ruled by dictatorial fiat and told Congress that he would not enforce their immigration laws.

Hmmm... and here I thought we had THREE branches of government.

Congress and the President are historically always fighting. Then the Judiciary steps in and rules between them.. then either Congress writes new rules or the President uses his power in a different way... etc.

You want us ruled just by Congress, but that is not how the constitution sets it up.

[Night Strike]

Congress and the President are historically always fighting. Then the Judiciary steps in and rules between them.. then either Congress writes new rules or the President uses his power in a different way... etc.

You want us ruled just by Congress, but that is not how the constitution sets it up.

It doesn't matter if they're always fighting or not. If Congress passes a law and the President signs it, the Executive Branch is responsible for carrying out that law until it is repealed. Congress IS supposed to be the most powerful branch of the federal government because it has the broadest representation of the people AND is itself split into two chambers for further division of power to keep from becoming too powerful. The President cannot pick and choose which laws he will enforce. To do so constitutes a blatant violation of the Constitution that the President took an oath to uphold.

[Neoteny]

Ok, I just did a Google search. Is this about the deportation of children?

[Night Strike]

Ok, I just did a Google search. Is this about the deportation of children?

No. It's about not deporting people under 30 who came to the country prior to age 15 and have gone to high school and college or the military.

[Neoteny]

Oh, ok. I misread. So it temporarily moves the arbitrary citizenship status from birth to late childhood. Illegal or not, it's a smooth move.

[Night Strike]

Oh, ok. I misread. So it temporarily moves the arbitrary citizenship status from birth to late childhood. Illegal or not, it's a smooth move.

No, all people born in the US are still citizens. He's arbitrarily changing the standards on which illegal immigrants could get deported.

[AndyDufresne]

By the way, why is the Mexican president supportive of this action? Is it because he knows it encourages more people to leave his country for the US? Or is it because he doesn't actually want his citizens back in Mexico?

Good old PBS News Hour, and real reporting.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan- ... 04-24.html

A new study from the Pew Hispanic Center shows the wave of Mexican immigrants into the United States between 2005 and 2010 was offset by an equal number of Mexican migrants returning home. Margaret Warner and report co-author Jeffrey Passel discuss the factors involved in the new migration equilibrium.

--Andy

[Neoteny]

Oh, ok. I misread. So it temporarily moves the arbitrary citizenship status from birth to late childhood. Illegal or not, it's a smooth move.

No, all people born in the US are still citizens. He's arbitrarily changing the standards on which illegal immigrants could get deported.

He's certainly not doing it arbitrarily. He knows why he's doing it. But what he has done is practically legalize those immigrants for a little while without using that exact language.

[Woodruff]

GreekDog asked you to stop. I wasn't talking to you, and for the 8th time you are on my foed list. For the love of God, stop getting into the middle of me and someone elses conversation and trying to ruin threads and engage in flaming. Mind your own damn business!!!!

Don't freaking talk to me.

This should be your new sig, Woodruff.
Every time I read anything of Phatscotty's, I temporarily lose intelligence and my civility.

I have just been told by a moderator that I am the problem, not Phatscotty. Apparently, I am trolling and he is not. I guess I should just suck it up, bend over and prepare for my next 3-monther for not being among the favored.

[2dimes]

I guess I should just suck it up, bend over and prepare for my next 3-monther for not being among the favored.

Hawt!!

[Neoteny]

GreekDog asked you to stop. I wasn't talking to you, and for the 8th time you are on my foed list. For the love of God, stop getting into the middle of me and someone elses conversation and trying to ruin threads and engage in flaming. Mind your own damn business!!!!

Don't freaking talk to me.

This should be your new sig, Woodruff.

Every time I read anything of Phatscotty's, I temporarily lose intelligence and my civility.

I have just been told by a moderator that I am the problem, not Phatscotty. Apparently, I am trolling and he is not. I guess I should just suck it up, bend over and prepare for my next 3-monther for not being among the favored.

This is pretty silly, and exactly what the foe list is for.

[thegreekdog]

GreekDog asked you to stop. I wasn't talking to you, and for the 8th time you are on my foed list. For the love of God, stop getting into the middle of me and someone elses conversation and trying to ruin threads and engage in flaming. Mind your own damn business!!!!

Don't freaking talk to me.

This should be your new sig, Woodruff.
Every time I read anything of Phatscotty's, I temporarily lose intelligence and my civility.

I have just been told by a moderator that I am the problem, not Phatscotty. Apparently, I am trolling and he is not. I guess I should just suck it up, bend over and prepare for my next 3-monther for not being among the favored.

Maybe you should consider not reading his posts and/or not following him around calling him a troll at every opportunity. Perhaps that would demonstrate some semblance of self-control and learning from previous mistakes. Or, if you lack that self-control, perhaps you could use your intelligence to figure out different ways to deal with your angst with Phatscotty's posts - perhaps by coming up with more creative points than repeating "Phatscotty is a troll" over and over again like some sort of mantra.

[Woodruff]

GreekDog asked you to stop. I wasn't talking to you, and for the 8th time you are on my foed list. For the love of God, stop getting into the middle of me and someone elses conversation and trying to ruin threads and engage in flaming. Mind your own damn business!!!!

Don't freaking talk to me.

This should be your new sig, Woodruff.
Every time I read anything of Phatscotty's, I temporarily lose intelligence and my civility.

I have just been told by a moderator that I am the problem, not Phatscotty. Apparently, I am trolling and he is not. I guess I should just suck it up, bend over and prepare for my next 3-monther for not being among the favored.

Maybe you should consider not reading his posts and/or not following him around calling him a troll at every opportunity. Perhaps that would demonstrate some semblance of self-control and learning from previous mistakes. Or, if you lack that self-control, perhaps you could use your intelligence to figure out different ways to deal with your angst with Phatscotty's posts - perhaps by coming up with more creative points than repeating "Phatscotty is a troll" over and over again like some sort of mantra.

Yes, it's certainly all my fault. What was I thinking? Of course.

And now a list of times I've "followed him around and called him a troll" in response to a post of his, going back to the 28th of May:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169620&p=3780611&hilit=troll#p3780611

That's a pretty short mantra, right there.

I have, of course, pointed out that Phatscotty trolls (I'm far from the only one). Yet if I post a list of links to my replies to him which have nothing to do with "calling him a troll over and over again like some sort of mantra", I guess you'd be surprised at how long that list is.
Here it is, just since the 18th of June (a far shorter timeframe than since the 28th of May above):
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173060&p=3780608#p3780608
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173034&p=3780524#p3780524
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=172914&p=3780489#p3780489
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=172914&p=3780426#p3780426
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173034&p=3780422#p3780422
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173034&p=3780419#p3780419
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173034&p=3780417#p3780417

And here is one weird post where I'm basically defending myself against Phatscotty calling me a troll:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173034&p=3780440#p3780440

And nothing about all of the times that Phatscotty calls people trolls as a sole response to them (a pretty common tactic of his, when he's not flat-out ignoring responses given to him in earnest)? Gee, color me shocked. Because it's certainly all my fault. Pardon me for feeling a bit defensive, but when a confirmed multi (who is still running around these fora, albeit in a different name) is allowed to goad me into getting banned without repercussion, I feel like perhaps this site isn't very interested in actual reasoning.

I don't dislike Phatscotty, as you like to claim. Nor did I dislike pimpdave (hell, his politics and mine very much aligned). I do, however, very much dislike their tactics in these fora.

[Phatscotty]

Word is, Obama made this move on Illegal Immigration because he got a heads up from Justice Sotamayor that Arizona's 1070b law is indeed Constitutional. I hope it's a 2-fer with Obamacare also struck down as unconstitutional.

It would be nice to know that our interpretation has been correct all along.

[Night Strike]

Oh, ok. I misread. So it temporarily moves the arbitrary citizenship status from birth to late childhood. Illegal or not, it's a smooth move.

No, all people born in the US are still citizens. He's arbitrarily changing the standards on which illegal immigrants could get deported.

He's certainly not doing it arbitrarily. He knows why he's doing it. But what he has done is practically legalize those immigrants for a little while without using that exact language.

And Obama does not have the power to do that. In fact, as the administration has been arguing in their suit of Arizona, only Congress can make immigration and naturalization policies. It's actually written directly in the Constitution.

Word is, Obama made this move on Illegal Immigration because he got a heads up from Justice Sotamayor that Arizona's 1070b law is indeed Constitutional. I hope it's a 2-fer with Obamacare also struck down as unconstitutional, therefore officially un-American.

I wouldn't doubt that at all.