Dreamers Out in Droves For 2-Year Anniversary of DACA

They should be afraid.  Obama went for the cheap and easy EO, which means that it expires when his term does. 

He doesn't want a law.  He wants a fickle fiat that requires Latinos to keep voting Democrat.  They are his hostages.

Is this the permiso that I hear people talking about?

@everlastingphelps 

executive orders do not "expire". they can be removed by the next president, they can be reversed by a vote of Congress, and they can be overturned by the Court. but until something is acted upon by someone the EO remains in place.

of course, the Latinos could have just waited for Congress to act instead of Obama acting....that's a good joke BTW, because the republicans in Congress will likely never EVER allow an act such as this to become law.

@bvckvs @everlastingphelps The republican position is that immigration doesn't need reforming, it just needs enforcing of the current laws.

Obama claims that immigration needs reform.  Therefore, the obligation is on Obama to convince Republicans (or at least enough of a minority of Republicans to pass it, a much lower standard that he still can't muster) to get on the bus.

@bvckvs @everlastingphelps quit posting when drunk, its not good for supposed "teachers" to be saucing and surfing at 2 am when

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Ahh, yes, another "correction" of yours of a difference that doesn't make a difference.  Latinos are held hostage -- vote Democrat, or the Republican pulls down the EO.

And you would agree that if there isn't the political will to pass a law, something should not have the power of law, wouldn't you?  Isn't it the job of a president to enforce the laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive?

@ColonelAngus @mavdog @everlastingphelps Oh, I think it will.  Obama's name will be so much in the mud that whoever replaces him, D or R, will rescind and replace it.

@everlastingphelps

another "correction" of yours of a difference that doesn't make a difference. .

yes, the "correction" is to show that your comment was wrong, so yes it does make a difference.

Latinos are held hostage -- vote Democrat, or the Republican pulls down the EO

have you forgotten the Republicans who support the DREAM Act? yes Virginia, there are some Republicans who have a sense of right. They might even be elected as President...

And you would agree that if there isn't the political will to pass a law, something should not have the power of law, wouldn't you? Isn't it the job of a president to enforce the laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive?

no, I don't agree, Obstructionism is not a defense nor a reason, and one of the "job[s] of a President" is to head the Executive Branch of our government in the best way possible.

@mavdog @everlastingphelps I have to disagree with you, the job of the President is to carry out and enforce the laws passed by Congress.  When you start adding a bunch of 'one of the jobs...' to the executive branch, you get a whole bunch of regulatory agencies with de facto power to make and create laws and punishments, without any regard for the will of the people or the Constitution itself.

@mavdog @everlastingphelps no, I don't agree, Obstructionism is not a defense nor a reason, and one of the "job[s] of a President" is to head the Executive Branch of our government in the best way possible.

You oppose a constitutional republic, and prefer a fascist dictatorship.  Well, at least you keep your treason in the front window for everyone to see.

@RTGolden1 

That is one of the duties of the Office, and to be in charge of the Executive Branch as they see fit.

The Constitution grants the President the ability to run the Federal Government per se, and to mandate policy of the Departments (the Executive Order right is not explicit but implicit).

Congress contros the purse, they can force conduct on a Dept. in that manner, and can override any directive of the President should they see fit to do such.

That is how the Constituion calls for it. They call it "3 branches of government" for a reason...

@everlastingphelps 

very odd (and revealing btw) that you choose to ignore the checks and balances that exist and were pointed out above.

"a fascist dictatorship". "treason". that's really funny!

@mavdog @RTGolden1 I'm trying hard to see this from the direction you're presenting it, but it isn't making any sense.  Simply put: Congress: passes laws; Courts: Interpret laws; Executive: carries out laws.

When the Executive issues an order that carries the force of law, that is usurping the checks and balances.  Same thing when a Department issues a regulation that carries the force of law.  The Executive branch should come under extremely close scrutiny whenever it is issuing decrees that can affect the lives of everyone in the nation.  Every EO and every Dept regulation should have to stand up to judicial review with the strictest and most limiting interpretation of the Constitution possible.

"Any man who will sacrifice a little freedom to gain a measure of security, is deserving of neither."  --Ben Franklin.

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Bullshit.  You threw out the checks and balances.  You called checks and balances "Obstructionism" and called a dictatorship "government in the best way possible."

Everyone can read what you said, you fucking fascist.  If you don't want to be called a fucking fascist, stop thinking and writing like a fucking fascist.  Your fascist won't always be in power.

@everylastingphelps

My my, you certainly don't need to go off just because you have been proven to not understand the functioning of the federal government. Resorting to blatant lies? Lack of a coherent argument? Just admit you are wrong and move on.

Let's see, first you fail to understand the subject of "obstructionism", which is easy....the republicans who refuse to address the immigration issue. And "dictatorship"? By whom? That is in your own mind, which as the saying goes is a terrible thing to waste...and boy, are you wasting it! Or are you wasted? IDK, one or the other.

@mavdog Obstructionism is just a fascist's way of complaining about republicanism working the way it was intended.  When you can't convince the majority of the legislature to do something, the state shouldn't do it.  That is how it works in representative government.

When one man can just "decide" that the legislature (and we are indeed talking about the entire legislature, because it acts as a body) is "obstructing" and ignore the laws that they are passing?  That is a dictatorship, pure and simple.

Go ahead, embrace fascism.  It's where socialism always leads.

@everlastingphelps 

You really should learn the definition of a "fascist", for your misuse of the term is obvious.

"representitive government". yes, the public election of officeholders...like the President.

The Legislature can "pass" laws that bind the President, or (as I pointed out and you ignore) override the President. Guess what? They haven't in this case. Should they choose to do so, the President will have to comply, or he can be tried for failure to carry out his duties.

That is the way our Constitution calls for it, and it is striking that you advocate disobeyance of the Constitution.

Why do you hate our structure of government so much?

@mavdog @everlastingphelps The Legislature can "pass" laws that bind the President, or (as I pointed out and you ignore) override the President. Guess what? They haven't in this case. Should they choose to do so, the President will have to comply, or he can be tried for failure to carry out his duties.

@everlastingphelps

How many times do you think Congress has to pass a law before the President "will have to comply"? Because they've already passed plenty of immigration laws that he is refusing to enforce.

They haven't passed a single law that binds the President to a specific policy in this regard. Immigration law focuses on individuals, the prohibited conduct, and the penalties should an individual act in a prohibited way.

don't I recall you claim to be involved with law in some regard? very evident you don't understand much about law.

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Wait, your insane theory is that Congress has to pass a law that tells Obama that he has to follow the law?

Great, we have that.  US Constitution, Article II, Section 3:

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Congress passed it in 1787.  Tell his lazy ass to get to work.

@everlastingphelps 

Your point would have some credibility if you can show where DACA contradicts or does not "follow the law".....but DACA does neither.

@mavdog @everlastingphelps First, DACA doesn't follow the law in that it has been defunded.  So, just running the program is essentially embezzlement.  

Second, it violates 8 USC 1225.  There is no prosecutorial discretion allowed -- the statute says "shall", not "may."