Obama voter and national health care advocate ...

[Yonivore]

... and, constitutional scholar [BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION (http://jonathanturley.org/about/)], Jonathan Turley, has agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in their opposition to the rise of unilateral executive action taken by the Obama administration.

TURLEY AGREES TO SERVE AS LEAD COUNSEL FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE (http://jonathanturley.org/2014/11/17/the-house-hires-turley-as-lead-counsel-in-constitutional-challenge/)


As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law. Without judicial review of unconstitutional actions by the Executive, the trend toward a dominant presidential model of government will continue in this country in direct conflict with the original design and guarantees of our Constitution. Our constitutional system as a whole (as well as our political system) would benefit greatly by courts reinforcing the lines of separation between the respective branches.

I guess he finally got as sick of Obama as the rest of us ...

Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley: Obama's Executive Amnesty Threat 'Tears at Very Fabric of The Constitution" (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/17/libera-law-professor-jonathan-turley-i-hope-obama-doesnt-get-away-with-executive-amnesty-n1919710)


"I always tell my friends on the Democratic side, we will rue the day when we helped create this uber presidency," he said. "What the Democrats are creating is something very very dangerous. They're creating a president who can go at it alone and to go at it alone is something that is a very danger that the framers sought to avoid in our constitution."

[boutons_deux]

:lol pussy eater, shilling the propaganda from the right-wing hate machine aka "pussy eater, the gift that keeps on giving"

Two Republican Presidents Used Executive Orders To Protect Immigrants (http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/two-republican-presidents-used-executive)
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/two-republican-presidents-used-executive

Executive Order for illegal immigrants is ILLEGAL and SHREDS THE CONSTITUION only when Dem, esp n!gg@ Dem Presidents do it

[Yonivore]

:lol pussy eater, shilling the propaganda from the right-wing hate machine aka "pussy eater, the gift that keeps on giving"

Two Republican Presidents Used Executive Orders To Protect Immigrants (http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/two-republican-presidents-used-executive)
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/two-republican-presidents-used-executive

Executive Order for illegal immigrants is ILLEGAL and SHREDS THE CONSTITUION only when Dem, esp n!gg@ Dem Presidents do it


Granting and extending amnesty were probably two of Reagan's and Bush's biggest mistakes as Presidents. But, in their case, the measure had support on both sides of the aisle and, unlike King Obama, Presidents Reagan (who disagreed) and Bush (who I'm not sure about his position on the matter) allowed themselves to be persuaded by others in their own party...because, hey, they knew how to play with Congress. The measure was a disaster and illegal immigration exploded after it became law.

I'm in favor of repealing their executive actions and the Immigration and Control Act of 1986.

By the way, where is Obama's Immigration and Control Act of 1986, upon which he's deciding to go it alone? Where is his bi-partisan support? Yeah, not so much. Perhaps he should take a chill pill and try to persuade Congress instead of mocking and provoking them.

[G-Nob]

The author in your CnL article is selective in her facts. Both president's EO's were issued followed by congressional approval in both houses to conform to the Constitution. We don't know the details of Bobo's plan yet but if it's 100% amnesty, SCOTUS will shoot it down. Only congress can establish naturalization.

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, yoni loved executive orders when bush was the executive.

[Yonivore]

Eh, yoni loved executive orders when bush was the executive.
Really? Do tell.

[Wild Cobra]

Granting and extending amnesty were probably two of Reagan's and Bush's biggest mistakes as Presidents. But, in their case, the measure had support on both sides of the aisle and, unlike King Obama, Presidents Reagan (who disagreed) and Bush (who I'm not sure about his position on the matter) allowed themselves to be persuaded by others in their own party...because, hey, they knew how to play with Congress. The measure was a disaster and illegal immigration exploded after it became law.

I'm in favor of repealing their executive actions and the Immigration and Control Act of 1986.

By the way, where is Obama's Immigration and Control Act of 1986, upon which he's deciding to go it alone? Where is his bi-partisan support? Yeah, not so much. Perhaps he should take a chill pill and try to persuade Congress instead of mocking and provoking them.

I'm surprised the liberals aren't learning from Reagan's mistake.

[boutons_deux]

you right-winger have NO solutions or suggestions of what to do about illegal immigrants.

Repugs did NOTHING from 2001 - 2009

Repugs STILL have no bills since 2009, just scorched-earth bullshit, trashing, obstructionism.

The Repugs problem is Repug businessman LOVE cheap immigrant labor, widely ripped off, so Repug Congresscritters are split.

And MX border security has become, like the drug war, a huge business for private companies, with its own self-serving, self-sustaining bureaucracy.

[ElNono]

Whatever happened with "the president is the executor of the law" and he should do as he wants? An argument advanced by at least a poster in this thread in the past...

[ElNono]

I'm in favor of repealing their executive actions and the Immigration and Control Act of 1986.

You can't turn back the clock on naturalization under those actions now... so other than a dog and pony show, it's moot...

[ChumpDumper]

Really? Do tell.Which Bush executive orders did you oppose in a dedicated thread?

[Yonivore]

Whatever happened with "the president is the executor of the law" and he should do as he wants? An argument advanced by at least a poster in this thread in the past...
I notice you didn't put the "...and he should do as he wants..." portion of that statement in quotes.

According to Article II, Section 3., of the U.S. Constitution, the President "...shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...". I don't know about you but, I don't see anywhere in that, or any other section, that he "should do as he wants." In fact, if you look up the term "faithfully," one could come to believe a president is charged with executing the law as it is intended by the Congress that passed it.

Why are you wanting to argue history? Why not either defend or criticize the current Executive's actions?

[Yonivore]

You can't turn back the clock on naturalization under those actions now... so other than a dog and pony show, it's moot...
I doubt you can affect those that benefited from the law but, nothing says the law can't be repealed or amended. Fact is, Obama isn't bothering with any of that -- he's just going to go it alone.

[boutons_deux]

"he's just going to go it alone."

He will have plenty of house and senate dems behind him. Executive Orders go back many, many decades, and have been used very effectively, even if pussy eater doesn't like them.

That repugs, even the ones who voted FOR the Senate imm bill that Boner refused to vote on, will not support ANY Dem bill or Exec Action is expected.

That's on the Repugs, not on Dems or Obama, because Repugs' agreed upon, blatant strategy since 21 Jan 2009 is to obstruct EVERYTHING Dem, even stuff Repugs used to be for.

[ElNono]

I notice you didn't put the "...and he should do as he wants..." portion of that statement in quotes.

According to Article II, Section 3., of the U.S. Constitution, the President "...shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...". I don't know about you but, I don't see anywhere in that, or any other section, that he "should do as he wants." In fact, if you look up the term "faithfully," one could come to believe a president is charged with executing the law as it is intended by the Congress that passed it.

Why are you wanting to argue history? Why not either defend or criticize the current Executive's actions?

Some poster (not you) here advanced a novel interpretation during the previous administration that the president was not bound to such limits, and could do as he pleased. When it was pointed out that the president was not above the law, he disputed the notion. I just don't see the same poster (who has already posted in this very thread) advancing that argument now. Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

I don't think there's much to "defend or criticize" right now, since we've not seen any of the proposed EOs... if you're talking about the current enforcement prioritization policy directives, well, I'm no fan of illegal immigration, but I don't think his power to do that has been directly challenged.


I doubt you can affect those that benefited from the law but, nothing says the law can't be repealed or amended. Fact is, Obama isn't bothering with any of that -- he's just going to go it alone.

IIRC, the law specified amnesty only for those in the country before Jan 1, 1982... repealing or amending it won't really make any difference as far as amnesty goes.

[Yonivore]

Some poster (not you) here advanced a novel interpretation during the previous administration that the president was not bound to such limits, and could do as he pleased. When it was pointed out that the president was not above the law, he disputed the notion. I just don't see the same poster (who has already posted in this very thread) advancing that argument now. Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

I don't think there's much to "defend or criticize" right now, since we've not seen any of the proposed EOs... if you're talking about the current enforcement prioritization policy directives, well, I'm no fan of illegal immigration, but I don't think his power to do that has been directly challenged.
Maybe so, but Obama sure seems to be taunting Congress -- not exactly conciliatory given the ass-whooping he party took in the mid-terms.


IIRC, the law specified amnesty only for those in the country before Jan 1, 1982... repealing or amending it won't really make any difference as far as amnesty goes.
Agreed.

[G-Nob]

Bobo's gotta act to secure his legacy. He's not taunting anyone, he's just trying to secure a legacy it's taken him 6 years to realize the gravity of its importance. He's never going to "work" with Congress. In 2010, he told boner when he lost the first midterms that the people elected him and his policies. And that he doesn't have to compromise. Boner then issued an edict: "I'm no longer meeting with this president one on one as long as he decides he doesn't want to negotiate." Compromise has never been an issue for any other president in US history. The arrogance has come back to bite him.

[ElNono]

Maybe so, but Obama sure seems to be taunting Congress -- not exactly conciliatory given the ass-whooping he party took in the mid-terms.

Why would he be conciliatory? Was Congress conciliatory after the ass-whooping of 2012?

I expect a lot of stuff that they won't find common ground on, including immigration, abortion, health care, etc... that's actually pretty common. I just hope they can work on other things that they do have common interests in, like trade, etc.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs have obstructed Obama/Dem attempts at bi-partisanship since Jan 2009.

House tea baggers have intimidated slimebag Boner into DOING NOTHING.

pussy eater blames Obama for taunting Reupgs, in pe's opinion, with Executive Action? :lol

[baseline bum]

Repugs have obstructed Obama/Dem attempts at bi-partisanship since Jan 2009.

House tea baggers have intimidated slimebag Boner into DOING NOTHING.

pussy eater blames Obama for taunting Reupgs, in pe's opinion, with Executive Action? :lol

Why do you call him pussy eater? I could understand cocksucker as an insult, but pussy eater?

[Yonivore]

Why do you call him pussy eater? I could understand cocksucker as an insult, but pussy eater?

I know, right?

[Th'Pusher]

I know, right?

What kinda pussy you like to eat Yonni?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is this like the Boehner lawsuit? You should quote all the "you better not Obama" rhetoric the GOP leadership is putting out daily.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why do you call him pussy eater? I could understand cocksucker as an insult, but pussy eater?

I've been wondering that myself. It leads me to believe that he is gay as it would fit the discrepancy.

[FromWayDowntown]

Some poster (not you) here advanced a novel interpretation during the previous administration that the president was not bound to such limits, and could do as he pleased. When it was pointed out that the president was not above the law, he disputed the notion. I just don't see the same poster (who has already posted in this very thread) advancing that argument now. Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

Would I Like Doing Covert Online Board Research Again?

[FromWayDowntown]

Why do you call him pussy eater? I could understand cocksucker as an insult, but pussy eater?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yoni

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-vore

[baseline bum]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yoni

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-vore

:lol Thanks for clearing that up.

[ElNono]

Would I Like Doing Covert Online Board Research Again?

Correct-a-mundo


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yoni

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-vore

:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

If the trial balloons I have seen floated are what is actually done by executive action I really don't have a problem with it.

5-10 year retroactive background check paid for by applicant.
If clean, granted work visa.
pay taxes.
aren't eligible for any federal subsidies, EBTA, welfare, obamacare, etc.
no guarantee of citizenship unless by congressional action.

Is this what everyone else is hearing?

If so, what's the problem?

[boutons_deux]

If the trial balloons I have seen floated are what is actually done by executive action I really don't have a problem with it.

5-10 year retroactive background check paid for by applicant.
If clean, granted work visa.
pay taxes.
aren't eligible for any federal subsidies, EBTA, welfare, obamacare, etc.
no guarantee of citizenship unless by congressional action.

Is this what everyone else is hearing?

If so, what's the problem?

sounds good to me, but of course I'd go further.

Just like with KXL and oppositions, Repugs' ideology is that illegal immigrants are illegal and must be punished (Repugs are tough on lawbreakers), and Repugs REFUSE to lose to any opposition, which they deny is even legit opposition.

With Repugs, it's not about solving problems, not about moving the country forward, it's always political dick measuring and grovelling before their paymasters. To compromise is treason.

[boutons_deux]

If the trial balloons I have seen floated are what is actually done by executive action I really don't have a problem with it.

5-10 year retroactive background check paid for by applicant.
If clean, granted work visa.
pay taxes.
aren't eligible for any federal subsidies, EBTA, welfare, obamacare, etc.
no guarantee of citizenship unless by congressional action.

Is this what everyone else is hearing?

If so, what's the problem?

If they are paying SS and unemployment insurance, then when they lose their job, they get unemployment like anybody else.

They should be able to buy (subsidized) health insurance, just like anybody else, to keep them out of the ERs and from taxpayers from picking up their health bills because they wait until their health degradation is advanced, emergency.

[ElNono]

If the trial balloons I have seen floated are what is actually done by executive action I really don't have a problem with it.

5-10 year retroactive background check paid for by applicant.
If clean, granted work visa.
pay taxes.
aren't eligible for any federal subsidies, EBTA, welfare, obamacare, etc.
no guarantee of citizenship unless by congressional action.

Is this what everyone else is hearing?

If so, what's the problem?

AFAIK, the only thing he can do with EO is enforcement policy action. Now, that could delay potential deportations, but that's about the extent of it. There's no amnesty there.

I still don't like it. It's still largely cheap labor. But from what I understand, it's not illegal either.

[CosmicCowboy]

If they are paying SS and unemployment insurance, then when they lose their job, they get unemployment like anybody else.

They should be able to buy (subsidized) health insurance, just like anybody else, to keep them out of the ERs and from taxpayers from picking up their health bills because they wait until their health degradation is advanced, emergency.

unemployment insurance is state based dumbass. Yeah, the feds subsidized the states to extend it during the recession but it was still state based and administered.

Boo, the trial balloons from the Obama camp I have heard have said no obamacare. Of course, they have intentionally and shamelessly lied before. Why change now?

[boutons_deux]

unemployment insurance is state based dumbass. Yeah, the feds subsidized the states to extend it during the recession but it was still state based and administered.

Boo, the trial balloons from the Obama camp I have heard have said no obamacare. Of course, they have intentionally and shamelessly lied before. Why change now?

what's to prevent illegals from buying health insurance like anybody else?

just like uninsured citizens whose health bills are paid by taxpayers and inflated costs from providers to insurers who then hike premiums, why not illegals but on subsidized health insurance? I sure the health insurers would LOVE that.