King Obama ignores Congress AGAIN

[Monahorns]

And I appreciate that the Constitution is purposely vague and written at a time that does not correspond well to many of the issues we have today.

On a base level, I just want the 3 branches to play by the rules. Anything within that I have no problem with.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Leftwith,

Quit being such a blind partisan. Republican leaders aren't going to do anything, because most of them don't really want anything done about illegal immigration. If Obama gets lax on it, they'll rip him publicly but pat him on the back privately. Hell, he probably got a bunch of gift baskets from Republican donors for doing this.

Do you think Bob Perry of Perry Homes wants to stop illegal immigration? Hell no. They make it so he can build houses with cheap labor, cheat on his taxes, and make the taxpayer and local hospitals be his workers' compensation provider. Well, guys like Bob Perry and people who invest in Bob Perry types bankroll the GOP. They pander on the issue, but deep down they want nothing done about it and fight efforts to do anything behind closed doors. That's why we do nothing about it at the state level in Texas, even though the GOP runs everything.

Democrats are lax on immigration because they want to flood the country with Hispanics whom they hope will vote for them (illegally now and legally in the future), and Republicans want them here so their contributors can rip the public off. Both parties are run by a bunch of unpatriotic crooks with bad motives, and on this issue, they both suck and suck equally.

As for Obama, he may be trying to change the rules administratively rather than statutorily, which is wrong. However, the Bush and Clinton administrations simply chose not to enforce the rules on the books, which violated their oaths of office. Which is worse? To me, they're about the same.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[huisache]

OK, Husker, what would the founders do with the problem created by their injection of the provision allowing recess appointments when the legislature creates a fiction that it is actually in session when it is not? That is the kind of problem I don't think the constitution offers guidance for. How would Madison or Franklin have addressed this problem? I haven't a clue. Which was sort of my point.

Admitting that there is little guidance makes more sense to me than screaming about impeachment because some important constitutional breach has occurred.

Admitting I could be mistaken, I await further constitutional exegesis.

 

[Leftwith]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HornHuskerDad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[I35]

rickysrun said:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[WhitmanSampler]

I am astonished tht any of you can have such firm opinions on the propriety of the use of rulemaking authority in this situation based on that article. The White House says it is within rulemaking authority, the Republicans say it is not, and you guys have an opinion based on that? Its fine to say you disagree or agree with a policy, but do you really pretend to understand the boundaries and limitations of administrative rulemaking? There might be a few on this board who do, but most, I suspect, let their politics dictate their opinion on this one. The OP has already proved it on multiple posts.
For the record, I don't have a clue whether the administration has overstepped its bounds.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[WhitmanSampler]

I'm really curious, but not really, really curious, so I decline to hire you for this project at this time, Deez. I do have a speeding ticket that I need help with though...
(insert winkie thing here)
I too am troubled, Deez, by the extent by which we are governed by rulemaking, though I confess I don't know much about it. Thanks for the explaination of how it works.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---