You know I hated it when Bush bypassed Congress

[SoutherDem]

But turn about is fair play.

If congress continues to act like 5 year olds, ok actually 3 year olds, I say go for it.

[monmouth]

1. It all boils down to you gotta do what ya gotta do. n/t

[siligut]

3. I think that is what Obama concluded

I don't think he liked bypassing Congress, but he had to. It was something he truly believed in and he cares about those kids. It was the right thing to do.

[SlimJimmy]

5. There is a document that forbids him from doing that. We don't elect kings in the United States.

We should be just as outraged when a Democrat does it as when a Repub does it. Period. All the justifying in the world won't change that.

I don't think he liked bypassing Congress,

[siligut]

6. Obama taught Constitutional law

I am going to agree with him. Too bad he isn't king, the economy would be much better by now without congress obstructing him every inch of the way.


Like I said, I don't think Obama liked doing it, but he believed he had to. I am saving my outrage in this matter for congress.

[SlimJimmy]

7. The President had two years with both houses of Congress to do this. Why didn't he?

Using executive orders to circumvent the powers of Congress is not the way to advance a political agenda. You can't spin this as a positive. If he had ordered something you opposed, I know your tune would be different.

[siligut]

9. Who do you think you are talking to?

You can't spin this as a positive

I already did.

The President had two years with both houses of Congress to do this. Why didn't he?

And why do you think he did it just now?

[SlimJimmy]

13. Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

[siligut]

18. He did not have a majority for two years

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/11/occupy-media.html

Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24 thru February 4, 2010. Democrats lost their 60 seat majority when Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts was sworn into office. In other words, Democrats enjoyed a 60 seat majority for 4 whole months; a far cry from two years. Why hasn’t the media pointed out this fact?

The DREAM act was proposed back in 2001, it seems there was quite a bit of opposition to it. So, my answer would be that the DREAM act took a backseat during those four months, Obama had to prioritize.

[SlimJimmy]

20. Why did it take a back seat? I was in favor of the legislation, as were a majority of Democrats in

the Senate. It would have been an easy piece of legislation to pass with a 60 vote filibuster proof chamber.

[siligut]

21. I answered your question. nt

[SlimJimmy]

24. And I answered yours. It wasn't politically favorable to do so at the time. Now the President

sees it as a good way to shore up the Hispanic vote. And guess what, I don't blame him at all. I just don't like the use of the executive order to do runarounds of Congress. I didn't like it when Bush did it, and I don't like it when my guy does it.

[siligut]

26. He has/had the Hispanic vote

Catholics think Mormons are satanic.

[SlimJimmy]

28. What does the Catholic/Mormon comment have to do with what we're discussing? President Obama

has about 90 percent of the African American vote, but he is still doing ad spots in heavily black communities. What is your point, exactly?

[siligut]

29. Latinos tend to be Catholic

70 percent of Latinos are Catholic, translating into 29 million Catholic Latinos in the United States

http://www.nhclc.org/news/latino-religion-us-demographic-shifts-and-trend

My point is that when Neil Munro, the heckler, asked Obama why, Obama replied "because it is the right thing to do."

I don't know why Obama is doing spots in the black communities, maybe for morale purposes.

[siligut]

25. Obama believes in the law/Constitution

If you watched him yesterday, he was under extreme pressure. He did not bypass Congress lightly. It is my impression that he had to rethink what he is fighting for and against.

He has played by the rules while the Republicans have thwarted him in anyway they can. The Republicans are willing to watch people suffer, just so they can oppose Obama.

Obama did not break the law, what he did was perfectly legal and had been done before, it just wasn't "kosher".

So I ask; why did he go against his base beliefs for a bunch of kids?

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Thank you for putting that silly lie to rest. I hear it all the time on talk radio, and usually....

it's a rightwing caller using that tired, worn out talking point. Even if he'd had a majority for two years, was he be expected to turn back decades of bad legislation (healthcare, education, mortgage crisis, financial reform, immigration, etc) all while trying to prevent another great depression? It's ludicrous, and it's a weak talking point that should not be adopted by the left.

[BamaFanLee]

27. We need to change the constitution to allow four terms

President Obama has earned the right to be President for that long. I like the idea of him being king.

[GoCubsGo]

11. "We don't elect kings"

Tell that to Mitch McConnell. The last time the Dream Act came up for a vote in 2010, it passed the House, and went through the Senate with 55 votes, which is the MAJORITY. Yet, it didn't pass because McLipless filibustered it. Whose the fucking "king" wannabe here? Hint: It's not President Obama.

[SlimJimmy]

14. Bush Jr tried to do immigration reform and he was stopped in the same manner.

I don't have a problem with Congress working as designed. I guess you do.

[GoCubsGo]

15. Yes, I think Congress should work "as designed".

Do you think Congress was designed so that the minority is allowed to obstruct EVERYTHING the majority passes? I don't.

[SlimJimmy]

16. The majority has the option of changing the rules at the beginning of each session.

If, for example, the Democratic majority in the Senate doesn't like the 60 vote filibuster rule, they can change it to a simple majority, or actually require a filibuster.

[GoCubsGo]

19. Yes, I know that.

But, this bullshit about merely calling a "filibuster" without actually having to get up there and speak is a recent rule. That was not part of the "design" of the Senate rules as written by the Founding Fathers. And, because Bush's own party did this same thing to him, that makes it right? Not in my book, it doesn't.

[SlimJimmy]

22. Absolutely. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the use of a filibuster at all, let alone a 60

vote rule where the mere threat would serve to stop legislation.

[GeorgeGist]

12. Lincoln is revered for doing so.

Chew on it.

[SlimJimmy]

23. When Lincoln used the executive pen to suspend Habeus Corpus, he was reviled for it. Historians to

this day write about how bad it was. Revered? I don't think so.

[ZombieHorde]

17. I care more about kids than I care about the abstract concept of law. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. "Forbids"? Obviously, you're completely wrong, as he did it. And it's been done before.

Whethere you or I like it or not, there are times when it's necessary for the executive to do end runs around an obstructive leglislature. That's why we have a 3rd branch of goverment. If the legislature wants to pursue it, they can certainly take the executive to court, right?

[SlimJimmy]

32. I believe that's what they're going to do if the reports are correct.

If the legislature wants to pursue it, they can certainly take the executive to court, right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. That's fine. Let's have this debate, but you used the word "forbid", and that's simply not true. nt

[SlimJimmy]

35. The US Constitution *does* forbid the President from using executive orders to skirt Congress.

What part of that is untrue?

[morningfog]

36. Where in the Constitution is that forbidden?

The Executive sets the policy for how laws will be executed. He hasn't done anything that is forbidden. If a plaintiff has standing and can show some harm from this policy change, they can challenge it in court. I don't see that happening, though.

[SlimJimmy]

39. When the President writes an executive order that directs a department to *not* enforce a law, then

he has violated his responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution is quite clear on this issue.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

43. Well said.

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. You and I cannot/will not settle this. There's a thread in this very forum where an atty general...

explains that the president (constitutional scholar) is well within his rights. That's why we have courts, because people disagree.

[SoFlaJet]

2. I keep thinking

about what would the response be in the media if it were the democrats playing the same way. There would be a LOT more light being shone on the fact that it's the congress that is trying to destroy this presidency caring not whether the country gets hurt by it or not. I've never seen it so bad-and I am old enough to have lived through Watergate. I thought THAT was about as bad as it could get but this, THIS is ten times worse. I hate the republican party and all they stand for-not the people ( I have a lot of republican friends who are great people), the policies

[high density]

4. Congress doesn't want to do anything

And Obama is being blamed for its failures.

[GoCubsGo]

8. But, it's not quite the same in this case.

The Dream Act passed with 55 votes out of 100 in the Senate. It got a majority of the votes, but it did not pass. How fucked up is that? When Dumbya bypassed Congress, it was because the stuff he wanted to do wouldn't pass with even a bare majority. President Obama bypassed only the obstructionist assholes in Congress, but not the majority of it.

[DCBob]

10. +1

so true.

[joshcryer]

34. Totally true.

Fix the filibuster!

[rayofreason]

37. Filibuster had nothing to do with it...

...since it passed the Senate.

[rayofreason]

38. I am sure no one here will complain...

...when a Republican House passes a contentious measure, a Democratic Senate holds it up, or a Democratic minority filibusters it, and President Romney makes the stuck bill the law of the land through executive order, even though it could not get through Congress.

It may not be a President Romney - but there will be a Republican president in our future sometime. Every presidential power you say Obama has the right to use is also in the hands of any other President who follows since the powers belong to the office, not the person. To argue otherwise is infantile and idiotic. This is one (not the only) reason I am extremely unhappy with the Administration's use of drones to execute American citizens who are not in combat zones overseas because they have ties to Jihadists, but have not been convicted of capital crimes (or even charged). Where does that kind of power end?

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

[GarroHorus]

40. They made the rules

We either have to play by the rules they have made or we lose.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

41. Congress gave Obama the authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1227

to do what he did. The Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security has independent discretion afforded by Congress to grant a temporary stay of deportation. The emphasis is on "temporary". This is not a usurpation under the law and it's not implementation of the Dream Act since a temporary stay is within the authority of the executive branch. In many cases, the implementation of immigration law regulations has purposely been left within the discretion of the attorney general and Dept. of Homeland Security because frequent adjustments are necessary.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. So after these "temporary stays," they will be rounded up and sent back to their countries?

How likely is that?

How likely is it that they will send back their parents? Or other family members?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

45. It happens all the time

The government has issued stays of deportation for all kinds of reasons over the years. When they change policy, they lift the stay, usually on a case by case basis and deport if the alien can't make a case. Deportations happen all the time.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. No. This is the first time that a president has issued an executive order to prohibit enforcing

the law with respect to under-age illegal aliens.

There are going to be ramifications of this.

If someone thinks that this is a liberal/progressive versus conservative issue, or if someone thinks that this is a Democratic versus Republican issue, I wish that they would show us the rules on this and not just make up rules on an ad hoc basis.

Amnesty was granted under Reagan. It was a conservative Republican policy. Now it is being sold as a progressive Democatic one? Sorry, I'm not buying it.