It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sen. Durbin: Obama Will 'Borrow the Power' to Solve Immigration

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
a reply to: guohua


Ohh lord. That was damn near thirty years ago. Regan is not in power and im not sure but i bet less than ten percent of the congress in that era are still there.

Sounds like a poor excuse to not act if i ever heard one.


Not a Poor Excuse At All.
The Border Was Never Secured, Was it.
What makes you or any believe it'll be Secured This Time? Obamas Word,,, Please, That's Worthless!!!
Stop The Rush and Secure Our Border First, then we'll Talk Amnesty, Only After, Complete Physicals and Background Checks.




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
I guess some of you don't know that when the legislative branch fails to act on an issue that been tabled that it defaults to the executive branch to correct that issue however it sees fit.



That is absolutely false and I'm not sure where you got that information from, but the Executive does not act alone, no branch of Government does. You are part of the problem if you are telling other people that and allowing them to believe our President can act illegally when he is roadblocked by the other branches of Government. That would nullify the Constitution, and make the President a king or dictator.

Executive is just what it sounds like - it executes the law or enforces it. It does NOT create the law, that is what the legislative branch does. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or otherwise, and I challenge you to show me I'm wrong, that states that the Executive branch "can correct that issue however it sees fit", because "however it sees fit" is by no means, allowed to trump the Legislative branch of Government when Congress, using the powers it is bestowed by the Constitution, determines that it is not right for the Country or its People.

There isn't anything even specified Constitutionally regarding Executive Orders.


There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term "executive power" Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, else he faces impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.


Source

See, this is the problem... our government has made it so that even the citizens no longer understand its purpose, allowing them to re-define it as they go along. I suggest you go read the journals, letters and publications from the Founding Fathers to understand exactly what they intended the laws to do and not do, and why the separation of powers exists. The book "The 5000 Year Leap" is a great summary to start with, then maybe the letters from John Locke.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

OH i do see that. My next point on the subject would be to say this.

Money and congress go together like a peanut butter and thumbtack sandwich. All the lobbyists buy their runners seats for a chance to run the American Industrial Complex.

University of California $1,212,245
Microsoft Corp $814,645
Google Inc $801,770
US Government $728,647
Harvard University $668,368
Kaiser Permanente $588,386
Stanford University $512,356
Deloitte LLP $456,975
Columbia University $455,309
Time Warner $442,271
US Dept of State $417,629
DLA Piper $401,890
Sidley Austin LLP $400,883
Walt Disney Co $369,598
IBM Corp $369,491
University of Chicago $357,185
University of Michigan $339,806
Comcast Corp $337,628
US Dept of Justice $334,659
US Dept of Health & Human Services $309,956

Open Secrets

I say the real problem is money does literally buy politicians. With enough money you can own your own as well.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: guohua

I never once claimed it was. All i said is that previous defeats and broken promises is not a reason to sit on our hands.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

If i am wrong then please forgive my misguided posts. You need not tell me that i am part of the problem ans i am hear to learn as much as i am to discuss.

Legislative Branch

Checks on the Executive
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
May override Presidential vetoes
Senate approves departmental appointments
Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
Approval of replacement Vice President
Power to declare war
Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
Checks on the Judiciary
Senate approves federal judges
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Power to initiate constitutional amendments
Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
Power to set jurisdiction of courts
Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.
Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
House must originate revenue bills
Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
All journals are to be published

Executive Branch

Checks on the Legislature
Veto power
Vice President is President of the Senate
Commander in chief of the military
Recess appointments
Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Judiciary
Power to appoint judges
Pardon power
Checks on the Executive
Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties

Judicial Branch

Checks on the Legislature
Judicial review
Seats are held on good behavior
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Executive
Judicial review
Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

Please explain to me what all this means then.

Legislative write the laws, executive enforces the laws and judicial interprets the laws.

When the legislative branch (Congress(Houses)) can not agree on the laws then it is given to the Executive branch (President) to fix the tables issues.

Where am i misunderstanding?

Edit:Us Constitution

edit on 6/30/2014 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I feel like there are so many people here that once their nominee turns out to be a fraud they get all butt hurt and grasp at anything they can like rats on a sinking ship.

Truth is it is legal it is constitutional and if it was not there would be fifty thousand lawyers nation wide speaking up.

What are they all in obummers back pocket too?

End rant.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The problem is, they're not on Obama's doorstep. We should let all the illegals in, but only after they have been bussed to DC
and dropped off in the District of Columbia. Then they'll get a taste of what the border states have to deal with. That may firm up
opinions of immigration.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
why do we need "immigration reform"?

there's already a process, with rules and procedures, and it's all laid out on paper...why can't we just call this what it is? they want to let illegals just stroll over the border, they wanna give amnesty to the ones already here, and they want to "reform" immigration, by doing away with the process, rules, and procedures, and just turn it into a free-for-all...

why can't we just enforce the law that already exists, and stop wasting time screwing around?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
I feel like there are so many people here that once their nominee turns out to be a fraud they get all butt hurt and grasp at anything they can like rats on a sinking ship.

Truth is it is legal it is constitutional and if it was not there would be fifty thousand lawyers nation wide speaking up.

What are they all in obummers back pocket too?

End rant.



NOT following our existing laws is NOT LEGAL!!! That's why they call it the Legislative Branch! If Obama doesn't follow our laws and Holder doesn't enforce them, then why should we have to obey them?

What happens to you or I if we BREAK a law? hmmmmm?

Twist it how you want, but show me one law that says it is okay to not enforce our border security! Go ahead. Just one!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Obama wants immigration. From his speech on reform (Posted Earlier) will post again.



He believes that our basis on immigration is wrong and that we are all immigrants so America should allow easier access the this beautiful country.

The old bait and switch. Most of these third world countries have heard for the last hundred plus years that America is the land of opportunity.

They really don't understand what is in store for them. (Slavery) of the legal kind.

That is just my take on things and yours may differ.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Explain what laws they are not following? When its a immigration law under the sights and congress don't want to play ball, the deadline will expire and give Obama the right to choose as he sees fit.

They have been enforcing the laws that we have in place. Well at least from my point of view.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

If i am wrong then please forgive my misguided posts. You need not tell me that i am part of the problem ans i am hear to learn as much as i am to discuss.

Legislative Branch

Checks on the Executive
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
May override Presidential vetoes
Senate approves departmental appointments
Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
Approval of replacement Vice President
Power to declare war
Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
Checks on the Judiciary
Senate approves federal judges
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Power to initiate constitutional amendments
Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
Power to set jurisdiction of courts
Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.
Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
House must originate revenue bills
Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
All journals are to be published

Executive Branch

Checks on the Legislature
Veto power
Vice President is President of the Senate
Commander in chief of the military
Recess appointments
Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Judiciary
Power to appoint judges
Pardon power
Checks on the Executive
Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties

Judicial Branch

Checks on the Legislature
Judicial review
Seats are held on good behavior
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Executive
Judicial review
Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

Please explain to me what all this means then.

Legislative write the laws, executive enforces the laws and judicial interprets the laws.

When the legislative branch (Congress(Houses)) can not agree on the laws then it is given to the Executive branch (President) to fix the tables issues.

Where am i misunderstanding?

Edit:Us Constitution


Let me start with apologizing if my tone came across condescending. When I said you were part of the problem, I was trying to simply say - if you don't know, then just ask, but don't state something as fact if you aren't sure.

To answer your question about what you are misunderstanding, it's that the Government deals with gridlock allllll the time, in almost every administration. The Executive branch is not the "tie-breaker" when House and Senate don't agree. The Executive just carries out the Legislative actions of the laws that are enacted. The Executive Order clause doesn't give the President the right or ability to change laws or write them, it is simply a way for the President to say he can't get his job done, and doesn't want to be impeached, therefore he's going to ask the Executive branch members to make sure a certain law is followed or executed in a certain way, but it is still subject to challenge from the Supreme Court (unless already ruled on)

When the House and Senate don't agree, we have a lame duck / gridlocked Congress. It has happened many times in the past. That is not a free ticket for the President to enact laws. ALL LAWS in this country, must be passed by Congress, and signed into office by the President. The Executive branch can PROPOSE laws, but they still must go through the Congress for an approval and a vote. The Executive branch, in no capacity, has the power to make laws or pass them unilaterally. If Executive Orders continue to be attempted, and challenged, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court may rule on clarifying the right of the Executive Order and limit or remove the President's ability to issue them because of how abusive the Executive branch is getting with their use.

As to why lawyers across the country aren't speaking up, well maybe you should listen more closely. There are hundreds of cases pending in the Courts regarding this President and the complete disregard for the Constitution. There have already been almost a dozen Executive Orders that have been challenged and brought to the Supreme Court, where the SCOTUS has ruled against the President and deemed the Executive Orders UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'm sure there will be more, and it illustrates a pattern of behavior by this President, where clearly he cares not for the law of the land, and ONLY looks to further an agenda.

I looked at your link and still do not see how you arrived at the conclusion about the Executive branch fixing the issues when the Congress doesn't agree. They don't agree on laws, they either pass them or they don't. The agreement happens in the vote. if the vote doesn't pass, there is nothing the Executive branch can do. If the President vetos a bill, it can still be passed with 2/3 vote by Congress, which shows the limitations put on the Executive. I'm not sure how anyone can look at that limitation and believe that the President can do what he's been doing, it is flat out illegal.

But when you are just a few hundred lawyers across the country, against a bottomless pit of money that the Federal Government can throw at thousands of lawyers to defend and tie up litigation for years, it just isn't worth it to most lawyers to try and fight the machine.

~Namaste
edit on 30-6-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: shaneslaughta

That's what I think a lot of people seem to forget.

We are a nation of immigrants. We've been coming to this country illegally since it's foundation. It was ok in the past because you were granted citizenship if you became and indentured servant.

Now all the sudden we get all worked-up because Mexican folk wish to contribute to our economy and cry "let's build a fence to keep em out and ship the rest home".

Do we deport all of the Irish that came here illegally? How about the Germans, Bosnians, Israelis, Japanese....etc?

You know what, maybe thats a good idea. Let's deport everyone that came here illegally and their dirty little kids too. The only people left will be the Native Americans.

Perhaps thats the best thing we could do to save this country from immigrants.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta

Legislative write the laws, executive enforces the laws and judicial interprets the laws.

When the legislative branch (Congress(Houses)) can not agree on the laws then it is given to the Executive branch (President) to fix the tables issues.

Where am i misunderstanding?




If Congress does not pass a law, it is not up to the President to make it a law. If Congress refuses to pass a law legalizing slavery it is not up to the President to make slavery legal.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
a reply to: seeker1963

Explain what laws they are not following? When its a immigration law under the sights and congress don't want to play ball, the deadline will expire and give Obama the right to choose as he sees fit.

They have been enforcing the laws that we have in place. Well at least from my point of view.


But your point of view nor mine matter when it comes to written law.......

If you or I break the law we most likely go to jail and serve our sentence.

How would you feel if this was your neighborhood?

ICE Document Details 36,000 Criminal Alien Releases in 2013



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I guess i should have explained my position a little better.

I think i was mixing a few different things together in my head. Had to have some things explained to me by another ATSer

This border issue is being held as a mater of national security. That in of its self gives the president the green light to act.

Add too it the shooting from that heli and you could use that as an act of war or a matter of national security as well.

That is what i was confusing the executive powers with immigration reform. Its not the immigration issues but more the border security issues.

My mistake and confusion.

As to the apology, not necessary. Its hard to tell online.





posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
I guess some of you don't know that when the legislative branch fails to act on an issue that been tabled that it defaults to the executive branch to correct that issue however it sees fit.

That's an absurdly ignorant statement.

Harte



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
I guess some of you don't know that when the legislative branch fails to act on an issue that been tabled that it defaults to the executive branch to correct that issue however it sees fit.

That's an absurdly ignorant statement.

Harte


Sure. And that is an incredibly nonconstructive statement. You could at least show me where im wrong instead of being a jerk.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
" "Sen. Durbin: Obama Will 'Borrow the Power' to Solve Immigration" "




"We're at the end of the line," Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. "We're not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.

"Their first job is to govern," Menendez added, "and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions."

UUUUooooooooooooooooo

So after defeat after defeat the Democrats are now "Threatening" the public !!!!!!!

How sweet it is.

They fail to sell the bills of garbage and they blame the checks & balance system and *STILL* refuse to enforce the laws and get to a reasonable solution !!!!!!!

Desperation Accelerated.

Very Dangerous !!!






posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: shaneslaughta

i want immigration too....but not like this.

if anyone can just come here, not play by the rules, not participate in the support system...if anyone can do that, then what is the point of having national borders, having laws, having a support system, having a government, and being a country at all? what is the point of any of it?

there is a process for becoming a citizen..there are rules, and procedures....it's not like anyone's saying "no more immigration", people are saying "deport the illegals, and if people want to come to america, they can do it the right way, and apply for citizenship, pay taxes, and follow all the same rules the rest of us do."

dropping any sense of border security, and allowing people to just flood into the country is NOT acceptable.




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join