Then, why did Obama (the executive) made a new law by changing what the constitution stipulated anteriorly? Isn't the US becoming an absolute monarchy?
Maxoxam41, The US is not becoming an absolute monarchy. It is still the same as it ever was.
The Constitution is in place and all is well. But we have evil forces to fight. Once we catch on to who these evil forces are and what they are actually doing to take away our rights, I think the people will figure out what to do. What do you suggest?
Maxo, all this brouhaha is just more bs from the GOP! The president is within his authority to issue executive orders, as to whether he can fund the components is another matter. It is political as a statement from the President and the executive Branch that he controls. If Obama is an 'imperialist president' so was that damned Ronald Reagan and GW Bush.
It is obvious that Obama is a better imitation of the Bush administration in the sense that he did worse than Bush. But I guess, because he is African American and democrat we will accept all his whims, won't we?
Looking into this a little further, I follow where you are going with your points and I stand corrected. I would not go so far as to say absolute monarchy, there are plenty of checks and balances to reign the President and the power of the Executive Branch in. Outside of a blatant political slight of hand statement this EO probably won't see the light of day. While the legislature is bringing the President to heel, the issue shines in the light of day and decisions will be necessary as to how the Government will address this festering issue. While there has been many examples through out the history of the Republic regarding use of the Executive Order, Obama may well have gone beyond established boundaries for its use.
It's a complex issue that may have to be left to the courts to decide. This link may help to explain some of the sticking points:
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/obamas … residents/
The article explains many of the executive actions taken by previous presidents regarding immigration.
What Obama has done in this case goes far beyond prosecutorial discretion and exercises legislative authority not in his purview. The President does not have plenary authority and even executive actions, decisions, authorizations, etc...are governed by the Constitution and the separation of powers.
Yes, the Constitution does govern. Other presidents have issued hundreds of Executive Orders. What I referred to in my comment provides info on how Obama may have exceeded his power compared to previous presidents regarding Executive Orders issued that focus on immigration. In the final analysis, it will be up to the courts to decide. So I'm not sure of the intention of your comment.
Clarification and it may not be solely up to the court. Congress can withhold any funds intended for the Presidents illegal power grab, such as funding for identification cards and work permits.
Legal clarification is up to the courts. If Congress decides to withhold or block funding (it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened in our history), that is their choice – it does nothing to uphold, find for or against, Obama regarding the legality of his actions, which the judicial branch handles. I’m sorry, I still don’t understand your comments as they relate to mine.
Which court has kept its independence? If the superior is rotten what does it say of the rest?
No, I don't trust my judiciary system when it comes to the people versus the government.
It is not a new law, it is directive from the president to the civil service and every president for decades has issued dozens of them. It is an intended part of the system. And as Obama said, if Congress wanted to address the issue via actually law, they should have done so. The US cannot be held at the mercy of a congress that refuses to actually do anything about anything.
I thought the laws were already in place; illegal aliens will be deported or jailed. No new laws needed; just enforcement of existing ones, which Obama is now refusing to do.
The civil service has broad discretion in enforcement--otherwise the police would do nothing all day but issue speeding tickets and not be available to investigate murders. And the president had the right to direct them in how to use that discretion.
If this was not the case every farm veterinarian would have been put in jail last year for breaking federal law in removing drugs from their licensed premises--which was until very recently contrary to federal law.
It is intended and necessary for these systems to be in place to make the federal system work rather than crash the country into a wall.
Every police department that exists selectively does not enforce some laws. Obama is just setting a uniform approach to this in one area, with a specific and research-supported goal. His plan may or may not work, but unlike congress, at least he is giving us one.
Obama has a goal he hopes to reach? As he cannot grant citizenship, what might that be?
IMO, his goal is to force congress to change immigration law, and do so in such a way that millions of new democrat voters become citizens.
You're right of course about law enforcement being selective, but what selection does the INS play on? Do they select which illegals to deport based on family size? Does the INS allow large families to stay, while deporting small ones or singles? That part of our law enforcement has just one task; deporting illegal aliens. The cops, the FBI, etc. all have hundreds of tasks to prioritize, but not the enforcement arm of the INS.
(And lest I give a wrong impression, I DO support Obama's action. It is the wrong one, it will harm the country and its citizens and workers, and it will encourage, not discourage, further alien activity, but it just might force congress to do their job and end this farce that we all put up with now.)
by Mike Russo 21 months ago
Can the President of the United States override the First Amendment?Here is the first amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to...
by Credence2 21 months ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threat … 40039.htmlMexico tells the Trump administration to 'take a hike'. Now the GOP is going to pay for it? How?Do we declare war on Mexico?https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-leaders- … 42941.htmlI say that this whole thing was a 'crock' from the very...
by ptosis 6 years ago
"illegal immigrants under 30 who entered the U.S. as children and meet certain other residency and education requirements for the next two years. They also would be eligible to apply for work permits," - http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ … rants?liteIs this a good idea to get...
by VC L Veasey 4 years ago
Obama's executive orders 144, Clinton 364, Bush 291, Hoover 968 why is said he's issued the most?
by Audrey Selig 4 years ago
How can PRES get away with doubling down his bypasses of Congress and making own decisions?Are these actions impeachable?
by collegedad 5 years ago
Has Obama developed a "King Complex"?I heard this today in reference to the 23 executive orders he just signed. Any thoughts?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|