The Meltdown Begins: Boehner Responds To Immigration Action,,,

Yeah . . . posted by the same political types who KNEW that the 2010 and 2014 mid term elections would NOT result in a political shellacking for the Dem Party leadership . . . and yet they were utterly wrong . . . and so here they are again, promoting yet more, even sillier, political predictions? Sweet!

 

Yes, boys and girls, all we need to operate the world's most powerful nation is to reduce our government to where it was at the beginning of the 19th century. And all would be unicorns, strawberries and cream. I'm consistently amazed that there are non-institutionalized people who believe that.

 

Having insurance has nothing to do with increasing visits to ER, insurance was never a requirement for it. Doh...

 

sure does for most.... when most do not have insurance they will try to self treat themselves at home more, rather then go into the ER

the problem with that is the gov outlaws the people from access to the medicines needed to self treat themselves at home

sense the gov does this, they should pay for the doctors to prescribe it.... via universal healthcare

.

 

So you want to get rid of the prescription system? Make every drug available OTC?

 

I wasn't sure if this should be a new thread or should go here (link). And maybe I shouldn't give Obama any ideas.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

By its terms the First Amendment restrains only Congress, and by way of the 14th Amendment state legislatures. Could Obama issue an executive order forbidding the Republican Party to speak on behalf of its candidates? Could he issue an order forbidding Republican candidates to campaign on their own behalves? Could Obama forbid the practice of Judaism, Christianity and/or Islam?

Or could the Supreme Court forbid such actions based upon some vague limit to executive powers, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube & Co. v. Sawyer (link to decision) 343 U.S. 579 (1952) and discussion in The Story of the Steel Seizure Case, by Patricia L. Bellia (link).

In this famous concurring opinion, Justice Jackson (formerly an Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in similar seizures under Roosevelt) said:

What is troubling here is the impact of Congressional paralysis. President Gerald Ford was said to have "governed by veto." The normally conservative New York Sun editorially supported Obama's move on immigration as his "finest hour." (link)

I personally favor immigration but am highly troubled by his constant usurpation of power.

As you can see I am quite torn, since on one hand Congress has doubtlessly abdicated power, and on the other Obama has usurped power. As a former professor of constitutional law he should know better. Certainly I fear that he could undertake such a modest proposal as I indicated in the thread title and earlier quotation of text of First Amendment.

Thoughts?

 

This thread has drifted in so many ways that I decided to start a thread on the usurpation issue. Surprisingly, I don't come down either way since I am torn between personally favoring immigration and having real problems with Obama's unwillingness to work, on a nitty-gritty level, with Congress. Link to thread.

 

yes, I think people should have the right to self-treat themselves or the gov should provide the doctors to do it for us for free, IE universal health care

if someone can't afford a doctor, but could afford to self treat themselves, why should they not be able too? is this a free country or not?

.

 

Thought provoking and well researched but I don't see how Congress has "abdicated" power by not passing the immigration legislation the president wants (which I assume is what you refer to). I see quite the opposite.
Members of the House have listened to the people that sent them to Washington to stop precisely the sort of thing that Obama advocates...giving rewards to law breakers by giving them just what they came here for (ostensibly) ...the right to make money and live without fear of the government
sending them back home. And the right to take all the free handouts and gifts Uncle Scam can supply to citizens.

I don't believe the thrill of becoming American means much to most of them and if they could stay in Mexico and make the money they make here they would undoubtedly do it.

In any event blocking an unwise agenda is every bit as useful as meekly acquiescing to a course of action none of your constituents want.
If democrats truly want an immigration solution...which they undoubtedly do not, they would start by agreeing to truly enforce border deterrents
(which leftists immediately attack by saying, well you'll never keep everyone out........as if 100% success is the only measurement of any proposal
which is how you know the left isn't serious at all.

After that hurdle republicans are very happy to sit down and hammer out the details of amnesty for lawbreakers, that is, the forgiveness for crimes committed.

 

How about bringing legislation to a vote and having it defeated? Or better yet sending a bill to Obama favoring educated immigrants that can contribute to the U.S. and having Obama veto it?

 

Is it really usurpation if its just lying there not being used?

 

Read my post just above yours.

Actually a little of each. Congress did consider and reject legislation. Ironically Obama helped torpedo legislation similar to what he just ordered in 2007. I guess he was afraid of handing the GOP a weapon.

 

Actually post moved here by administration. I understand the reasoning. Link to post as moved.

 

I don't see it as "a little of both". It seems to me to be a case of "well if you're not going to use this...."

 

Is that the way the Constitution is supposed to work? Possible but troubling.

 

I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, so I couldn't say if that's how it's "supposed" to work, I'm just saying what I see.

 

Interesting idea, but I don't see any constituency for it.

 

The House passed a bill in 2012 that would allow more H1-B Visas but Reid never let it come up in the House. Maybe now with his obstructionism out of the way, that idea would get to the President's desk.


So he can veto it.

 

Obama and the Dems had their chance to pass legislation when they controlled all three branches for 2 years. They didn't then and they never will in the future because they simply want to use immigration as a hot button issue to get out the Hispanic vote. Of course it backfired big time this time around because he lost a ton of support from Latinos. He had his chance and what he is doing now is obnoxious. If you don't like the laws then change them, you don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and don't like. I wonder how many liberals woud keep silent if some GOP President said that you only have to pay enough taxes to cover the costs of national defense and infrastructre and nothing else. Liberals would be crying foul about how you have to fund social programs even if you don't agree with them because its the law.

Do states get to selectively ignore which Fed laws they want too?

 

This again?

Not 2 years. 72 days of filibuster proof majority. It doesn't matter how many times you consies repeat it it will not become true.

 

The H1-B visa program is just another way the 1%'ers twinkle in the face of Americans. Every foreigner they import deprives an American of a high paying job and tells American kids that they are wasting time and money getting college degrees because they won't get any jobs with them.

The H1-B program is similar to what happened during WWII when the government gave jobs in defense plants to European Jews fresh off the boat while denying those jobs to black American citizens. It was wrong then and it's wrong now because they are denying jobs to all American citizens, whites and blacks, in favor of foreigners.

 

Never heard of cloture? Harry Reid has. His "nuclear option" required only 60 votes to end filibuster. If you think poor Barry Obama couldn't get things done in the two years he controlled two of the three branches of government due to filibuster you'd better be prepared to explain how he got his hated Obama Care passed during that time frame.

Otherwise your post simply vanishes into the ether of nonsense. The fact still remains that Obama could have had immigration reform if he really wanted it, which apparently he did not.

 

Why the heck should we allow more H1-B visas? There are thousands of American engineers out of work who could really use a job, why do we want to be giving 'em away to the Indians and Pakistanis?

 

They poisoned the pill with amendments that they KNEW were not going to be accepted by the Republicans. They added them in at the last moment just before it actually looked like it might pass. The Democrats sabotaged the bill knowing full well that if it passed they could never use it as an issue again. They don't care about illegal aliens as indicated by Obama's far higher rate of deportation than any previous President they simply want a political issue to swing around.

Why are you adding the qualifier "filibuster proof" to your statement? Is that some pathetic attempt at spin so that you can claim it was only 72 days that the Dems controlles all three branches? By your logic then the GOP doesn't control the Senate because they don't have 60 seats. What kind of asinine qualifier is that? You either control the Senate or you don't. Quit trying to play word games as no one here is falling for it. You really have to stretch to justify the lack of action by the Dems on immigration. The vast majority of legislation is passed with both D and R votes.

And if this is all OK with you liberals then why did Obama wait till AFTER this last election. If you think its alright for him to do everything by executive order then why did he wait till 6 years into his term? You lefties don't care about immigration beyond its a useful political tool.

 

Funny how you say they poisoned the pill with amendments they knew the republicans would never stand for but won't acknowledge that's why the senate doesn't even mess with any if the bill sent on by the house.

And I wouldn't need the qualifier if "the party of no" hadn't threatened filibuster on nearly everything that did come up.

A higher rate of deportations? Very refreshing to hear a conservative say that since you've all been denying it for so long.