Texas Likely to Sue Obama Over Immigration

We need to claw back the cost of his first EO enacting the Dream Act spurring 63,000 kids and 380,000 adults to pour across the border earlier this year.

We then need to set up a conduit where Texas is first in line to collect on the cost associated with the next wave ICE says is coming due to his most recent EO.

And Jenkins is going to need a little chunk of it too.

I very much hope the State of Texas, and anyone else who loves the Constitution, would file lawsuits against Obama.  He is solely responsible for issuing Executive Orders, and he's stupid enough to fail to provide himself cover. 

He cowardly blames this on Republicans when it's his own fault and disregard for the U.S. Constitution. 

If this doesn't prove Obama is playing for the other team - in more ways than one - I don't know what does.

In related news, Abbott also said he was proceeding to sue Presidents Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton and George W Bush for all issuing Executive Orders like Obama just did.....

Abbott went on saying that just because there is precedent to the President's use of Executive Orders, and the Immigration statute provides a great deal of authority vested in the Executive Branch for administrating the law, he isn't going to stand by idly while an opportunity for press coverage like this passes by.

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama's executive order on immigration Thursday.

"The country's going to go nuts, because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it's going to be a very serious situation," Coburn said on Capital Download. "You're going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence."  ---USA TODAY

@noblefurrtexas

These jurist not only "love the Constitution", their knowledge of it, and the US code, are infinitely better than yours.

It will likely be true they know it better than Abbott as well. 

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/conference/ILR13_CALawProfessorsLetter.pdf

If this doesn't prove Obama is playing for the other team

what "other team" do you mean? 

@dingo There was nothing racist about it.  He's just a stupid stuttering fool without rehearsing the answers or having them written for him on a teleprompter. 

During the first campaign, both he and his affirmative action wife made incredible mistakes on the campaign trail.  That's when they put him on a teleprompter and cue cards. 

We need to stop pretending this buffoon has the sense God gave a casaba melon, and recognize that he is a rank amateur; a stupid boy doing an intelligent man's job, and making a mes of this country and our position in the world.

@dingo No.  George Stephanoplus isn't a racist.  Obama is just too stupid to answer extemporaneously when there isn't a speech writer around to load his teleprompter. 

He didn't know the answer to what was a softball question, so he reverted back to his Democrat talking points. 

And, that's probably the last interview he'll do with George.

@ryan762 I think Abbott may be one of the best A.G.s this state has ever had, and he will make a fantastic governor.  Obama should be sued, and it appears he'll have no shortage of states filing suits. 

Somebody forgot to tell the Harvard graduate that, in America, government is the servant, and citizens are the master.

@mavdog I can't believe you persist in this myth.  It's just not true. 

I posted above just one example of why what Obama did was very different than what Bush did.  That's why Obama got FOUR Pinocchios from the well-known conservative rag, The Washington Post.

Nobody "went nuts" except Republicans in Congress, and FOX News.

@noblefurrtexas @ryan762

If "government is the servant, and citizens are the master", there should be immigration reform. apparently you support Obama's action which reflect the wishes of the citizens.

Seventy-one percent of likely voters surveyed — and nine of 10 Hispanics — said they back sweeping change to immigration laws. The support spans party lines: 64 percent of Republican respondents back comprehensive immigration reform, as do 78 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independents.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/poll-immigration-reform-gop-voters-2014-106801.html#ixzz3K3MNmTwr

@ryan762 I'm unaware of how Abbott sits against the state constitution.  How so?

@noblefurrtexas

did you bother to read the WaPo article or did you read it and just not understand what it said?

the criticism was on the remark that "George HW Bush gave relief to '40 percent' of undocumented immigrants". The article dose not discuss the similarity of the 2 EO's change in immigration policy, nor the context of why the orders were issued. the WaPo article discusses the number of people impacted.

really, next time do try to understand what it is that you are posting....

@dingo @mavdog @noblefurrtexas

odd that you chose to not post the subsequent sentence to what you parsed:

"Our purpose in writing is more limited and straightforward: to explain that the Executive Branch has the authority to grant these three forms of administrative relief"

no ambiguity, a straightforward and clear statement: "has the authority"

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas @ryan762 It is up to Congress; not to a poll of people - many of whom are not citizens, and therefore don't count. 

Again, that is why the Founders endowed most of the power of self-government in the largest body of elected officials representing the people and the states.  It's also why there were constraints on the executive until trolls like FDR grabbed power.....although nothing like Obama has. 

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas @ryan762 Actually, many of those who support immigration reform support more border agents, more courts to try illegals, and more rights for those who have followed the rules to become Americans. 

I support a lot of immigration reform, but most illegals wouldn't like it.  I'd ship ANY illegal back home, and permanently prevent them from entering the U.S. again. 

We need to open Ellis Island again, and screen applicants for citizenship.....especially those who don't try and steal citizenship.

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas Then why did the WaPo give Obama 4 Pinocchio, the equivalent of being a serial, pathological liar!?!

@dingo @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz

I looked at the questions posed in the Rasmussen poll you cite and couldn't find the one asking "Are you going to go nuts in regard to the Executive Order?".

after all the quote was about "the country's going to go nuts.. instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence."

@noblefurrtexas 

you didn't read the article you linked, did you?

if you did read it, how do you explain misquoting it?

first, the WaPo ended up giving "3 Pinocchios" to the remark that the Obama Executive Order will grant relief to the same number of undocumented immigrants as George HW Bush's EO did. 3, not 4.

second, the author does not say that 4 Pinocchios is "equivalent of being a serial, pathological liar", not anywhere near such. 3 Pinocchios is seen as "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions", 4 Pinocchios is seen as "Whoppers". neither connotate ANYTHING but a fact check of the specific item in question.

@dingo @mavdog @noblefurrtexas

let's look at the comment about Obama and the Executive Order for the benefit of Dingo who can't follow a discussion to save his life:

He cowardly blames this on Republicans when it's his own fault and disregard for the U.S. Constitution. 

I know it may require a remedial english lesson to have you understand the words, but the question is the President's authority to issue an Executive Order for administrative relief on individuals who might be in violation of the existing code. that is "these three forms of administrative relief" mentioned above.

Do you have a 6th grade kid in your household to help you with understanding this? maybe they can help you.

@dingo

uh, I guess what you were trying to say is ..well, not really sure tbh.

"a despotic measure"? were all the previous Presidents who used EO also "despots"? 

why would this "tear at the fabric of our democracy"? from the polls the majority of Americans want to see immigration reform done, which was not done by Congress. well, done by the Senate, not done by the House.

@mavdog @dingo @noblefurrtexas 

1.  "English" is always capitalized - at least by most educated people

2.  The President cannot, under any circumstances, write new law or change a law.  And, his definition of administrative relief is so broad and over-reaching that he is treading on the sole prerogatives of Congress. 

3.  Obama, apparently unable to deal with others or negotiate to find common ground, is acting like a Third World Potentate, and "it's my way or the highway". 

4.  When this gets to the Supreme Court, I'll bet money they'll overturn it.  They are a body that values the separation of powers, and take seriously instructions from the Constitution such as the "take care" clause.

@mavdog @dingo @noblefurrtexas Here read this, and see how utterly foolish your claims are the what Obama did was not different than what Bush did.  I told you that you were wrong, but you persisted. 

So read this, and you'll see how utterly wrong you were. 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/11/24/four-pinocchios-wapo-factchecker-shreds-wh-on-executive-amnesty-precedent-n1923324

@mavdog @dingo @noblefurrtexas So, if what you say was accurate - and it's not, a President could declare business people earning one million dollars per year or more didn't have to pay their taxes because they are not going to be prosecuted, that does NOT change the law, and it does NOT grant a permanent escape from obeying the law. 

Executive orders, as decided by the court, are supposed to have the limited scope of making policy for executive departments....and ONLY executive departments. 

The President may NOT change a law, may NOT declare someone who breaks the law to be innocent, and the law may not be changed at all as that is the prerogative of Congress. 

The President actually cannot grant amnesty to a class of people or a demographic of people.  

By the way, it is interesting the Roosevelt issued the most executive orders in American history.  He and Obama have many things in common although Obama is not half the man he was. 

@noblefurrtexas

that TownHall piece is so full of crap it should be flushed in a toilet.

First, any reference to the Bush EO and the Obama EO based on the number of people affected is beside the point. To focus on the statistics of each EO is misdirection at its finest.

The HW Bush EO was issued to effect the measures contained in a Senate immigration bill, a bill that was not brought up for a vote in the House and consequently did not get passed.

Sound familiar? yep the very same situation that exists today.

Five Pinocchios to Guy Benson and TownHall.com.

@noblefurrtexas @mavdog @dingo

So, if what you say was accurate - and it's not, a President could declare business people earning one million dollars per year or more didn't have to pay their taxes because they are not going to be prosecuted, that does NOT change the law, and it does NOT grant a permanent escape from obeying the law. 

The ability of the President to use their position as head of the Executive Branch to direct policy is contained in the Administrative Procedure Act. The issue is what the exact wording of the Law contains and what latitude it provides for the Executive Branch. Tax law does not provide such latitude.

Executive orders, as decided by the court, are supposed to have the limited scope of making policy for executive departments....and ONLY executive departments. 

Heckler v Chaney decision provided a gov. agency's right to determine not to enforce.

USCIS and ICE are part of the Executive Branch. 

@dingo

Over a half dozen previous Presudents issued EO specific to immigration issues, all in the same general context as Obama (oh but you knew that, tbh).

The House never acted to vote or consider the Senate bill, a bill that has the support of their constituents. That is not how the process should work, the House should go on record either for or against the Senate bill, or pass their own for reconciliation. The House leadership was absent, they did not do their job. If they had there would not have been an EO.

As Obama said in his address, if the House doesn't like his EO pass a bill. All they need to do is perform their duties. So far they haven't. That would be the first time this House leadership would have made "an attempt to pass immigration measures", there is no "again".

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas Read it, and you'll see the it picked the story and the verbiage up from the Washington Post.  Once again, Obama is caught lying.  

Doesn't it feel terrible to be wrong when the Town Hall is right.....and so says a liberal paper like WaPo? 

@noblefurrtexas @mavdog

good grief, did you read the WaPo article???? apparently not.

It doesn't say anything about the Obama Executive Order not being the same as George HW Bush's Executive Order, it discusses the quote on the number of people affected by the respective orders.

Yes they are right about the number of people...yet that is not the question.

just amazing how you ignore the facts to suit your purpose, and act like reality doesn't exist.

@dingo @mavdog

I know you have difficulty in comprehension, so I'll try and simplify it for you.

Obama's Executive Order was in the same general context of changing the administration of federal immigration statutes as over a half dozen US Presidents have done previously in their issuing Executive Orders.

Where do you come up with the idea that the House Republicans refusal to deal with immigration reform had the support of constituents when the polls say the constituents want immigration reform? odd interpretation to day the least.

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas It's simple.  Obama's EO was not identical to GHWB's either in circumstance or purpose.  And, that's why the Washington Post gave him the maximum number of Pinocchios generally reserved for intentional and outrageous claims. 

You certainly couldn't claim the WaPo is some kind of right-wing news source.  Look at the Democrats who have been bailing on Obama the last few days, and you get the picture that even the media and elected Democrats can spot his lying with little effort.

@mavdog @dingo Kindly see post above announcing Obama received FOUR Pinocchios on his claim that his E.O. was no different than Reagan and Bush. 

I think he's a pathological liar, or so stupid he doesn't understand what he's doing. 

Meanwhile, Kerry is telling the Russians to ignore what Obama says. 

As Pogo was said:  "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."

@noblefurrtexas

Obama's EO was not identical to GHWB's either in circumstance or purpose.  And, that's why the Washington Post gave him the maximum number of Pinocchios 

no, "that" is not what the WaPo article discussed, the article was about the statement of the number of people affected by the respective Executive Orders. Look at the WaPo headline:

Obama’s claim that George H.W. Bush gave relief to ’40 percent’ of undocumented immigrants